Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBozeman 16 Narrative 10-15-181 October 15, 2018 Marty Matsen, Director of Community Development Sarah Rosenberg, Associate Planner, Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager City of Bozeman and Design Review Board Dept. of Planning & Community Development 20 East Olive St. Bozeman, MT 59771 Re: Site Plan Application for Willson 16 - Revision and Modifications Marty, Brian, Sarah, and Members of the DRB, We appreciate the time staff spent with us over the past four months, the time and input from the local residents during our information outreach meeting, and from the Design Review Board. We have been working diligently evaluating the comments and concerns and have incorporated numerous modifications to the architectural designs and site plan. We believe we have addressed all of the concerns and feel the final product is reflective of the UDC, Staff, local residents, DRB, and the desires of the owners (some whom are long time Bozeman residents). This has been a collaborative effort and we appreciate the support of the City and community. We hope that our design modifications, statements regarding the character/condition of the existing and immediate area, along with the appropriate future vision of this site, will be carefully considered. It is our highest intention to find a viable solution we can all be proud of bringing a vital enhancement to the Downtown Bozeman area. Summary: As mentioned above, we have worked very hard addressing all of the comments. Below is a summary/bullet version outlining how we have responded to the latest comments from staff, DRB, and the community. Past this summary, we have included a more narrative description of our responses. Scale and Massing:  Reduced lower and second floor by 1 foot each on all buildings (total of 2 feet each)  Created 3 brand new elevations incorporating local neighborhood architecture styles and design elements  Included a variety of new lower rooflines, roof pitches, gables, and porches as found in the neighborhood  Incorporated a variety of new front stairwells to mimic the neighborhood stoops and raised porches.  Revised the site plan by increasing front yard setbacks approximately 4 feet on half of the homes creating front yard nodes and street movement  Overall height lowered an additional 2-3 feet on two new elevations (4-5 feet total including #1 above)  Tall separating walls have all been removed as requested  Reduced glazing by reducing window sizes on top level, and on the second level for 2 of the elevations we removed the 3 panel glass doors and added smaller windows and a single French door  We added an architecture element to the end unit on Short Street to provide further interest and movement. 2 Repetition of Floor Plan:  The floor plan has been thoroughly vetted by marketing, local sales team, interior designers, and architects, we believe the floorplan is appropriate for the site, however we did make revisions to our building footprint and site plan that we feel addresses this concern.  Added 3 new elevations, using local neighborhood architecture elements  We covered some patios to create movement in the elevations  We revised the rear stairs on some homes to create variety in alley allowing front yard setbacks to undulate  Introduced unsymmetrical facades and rooflines as found in the neighborhood creating elevation movement  Increased front setbacks on half the homes creating front yard nodes and street scene variety  Revised alley elevations  We added an architecture element to the end unit on Short Street to provide further interest and movement. Site Plan:  Revised site plan by increasing the front yard setbacks on half of the homes creating front yard nodes and street movement  Revised rear stairs on some homes to create variety in alley and breakup the site plan  Added a variety of new stair stoops to create movement and street interaction  These revisions ultimately led to building footprint changes providing some variety to the site plan. Repetition and Scale of Entrances and Stairs:  As requested we added a variety of new stair stoops to create movement and street interaction  Revised the window and door sizes on main and upper floors  Revised the stair and stoop covers using a variety of roof forms  Removed the large separating walls as requested Materials:  We have modified the materials on the buildings, using a variety of horizontal lap siding, vertical “board and batten” siding  Additional treatments of the roof and front elevation (see massing above)  Added a more cohesive color pallet throughout the project  The base treatment changed to brick on a majority of schemes while maintaining stone on one of the units as appropriate for the design. Amount of transparency:  We have revised many of the elevations and upper glass treatments reducing the glazing in these areas.  We removed the 3 panel all glass doors on two of the elevations main level and replaced with smaller windows and a single French door. Visual impact from the Alley:  The existing conditions show a zero setback in the alley, with some buildings right on the 14’ alley, creating an unsafe, tunneling effect.  Our project provides a widened, open alley with significant setback relief.  We have added new elevations to the alley guest quarters.  We have revised the stairs to provide a variety of elevation changes  Our proposal pushes the porch 13’ from the property line and the living area 20’.  The garage is setback 30’, allowing for an additional 10’ of backup space for this property, which in turns creates additional backup space for the adjacent properties.  This additional 10’ also allows space for snow removals, which are not in existence today. 3  The porches on the rear are only one story above the alley and given these new setbacks and alley width, visual impacts to adjacent properties are minimized  The guest quarters provide livability and an extra set of eyes on an otherwise dark and potentially dangerous alley space. Narrative: We still believe that some of the basic considerations that influenced most of the more subjective comments may not be consistent with the ongoing planning efforts for this area as discussed in the UDC, and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Our revised architecture and site plan meet all standards set forth in the UDC. It appears that there is really only one section in the UDC that is subjective and open for interpretation, Sec. 38.340.010-C, which states: “The intent and purpose of the conservation district designation is to stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structure, and all other elements contributing to the character and fabric of established residential neighborhoods and commercial or industrial areas. New construction will be invited and encouraged provided primary emphasis is given to the preservation of existing buildings and further provided that design of such new space enhances and contributes to the aesthetic character and function of the property and surrounding neighborhood or area. Contemporary design will be encouraged, provided it is in keeping with the above-stated criteria, as an acknowledged fact of the continuing developmental pattern of a dynamic, changing community.” The above section seems to focus on protecting existing on-site structures which have some aesthetic value, of which, this site has none. It also references that new construction is encouraged, but then references existing buildings. This statement appears to focus on restoration of existing buildings and the “new spaces” added to the buildings. We believe the key words that most of the subjective comments are derived from the following sentence: “the design of new space enhances and contributes to the aesthetic character and function of the property and surrounding neighborhood or area”. Again, it has been determined that there are no historic structures on-site, the existing structures are currently unsafe and not currently habitable. In fact, the site is an eyesore and is a neighborhood detriment. Probably the most important question to be addressed is whether or not every parcel within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) needs to continue the aesthetic character of the surrounding neighborhood in every respect. We believe the answer, in this case, is that this R-3 zoned parcel is only 214 feet from the much more intensely developed downtown core. New infill redevelopment in the immediate area is already highly transitional and this particular location and proposal is consistent with that effort to create a less abrupt transition from the downtown area to the more single- family oriented areas to the north and east. Examples are all over the immediate area, as close as 14 feet away, just on the other side of our alley. If this project is to meet the stated and implied intentions of the Bozeman Community Plan and the new UDC, the design cannot be expected to mirror exactly the character of the existing structures and development style of the existing residences in the neighborhood. The UDC further references within the NCOD the following:  Contemporary design is encouraged.  Most of the NCOD areas development pattern and range of uses is highly diverse.  Enhance property values and increase economic and financial benefits.  Recognize the need for innovation and individual expression. History: Our design process started over 6 months ago. We started with a single barn like elevation and a home 150 SF larger per side. We felt that the Bozeman modern architecture seen throughout the city would be a great second elevation. Once we had the drawings completed, we started meeting with the City staff to get feedback. We made number modifications including stepping back the higher floors, reducing the home SF, and adding a third elevation. Once we felt we addressed the staff concerns we submitted our formal COA and Site Plan mid-June. After that review was complete we received numerous additional comments from the City. We addressed the concerns, reviewed with staff and resubmitted the 4 project for DRB review. We received the DRB comments and addressed these concern which are being presented with this package. Scale and Massing: We have reduced the floor to floor height of the lower and second floors an additional two feet in total, allowing us to reduce the overall height of all the buildings. We have also introduced 3 completely new elevations using a variety of lower rooflines, roof pitches, gables, porches, stairways, to reduce the height of the buildings, introduced unsymmetrical facades, and recreated many of the design element of the surrounding neighborhood into the architecture. In addition, the overall height of two of the 4 buildings types have reduced an additional 2-3 feet in height using these revised roof types and elements. We have removed all the tall walls as requested by Staff and CRB. These new building elevations visually redefine the masses of the buildings in a significantly different manner facilitating a more pedestrian friendly street scene. These efforts along with the site plan modifications mentioned below significantly change the feeling of mass and repetition. Repetition of floor plan: The evaluation of the site always influences the building design. In this case, with 16 narrow 25’ wide lots, we determined the best product that fits within the community, implements the design criteria discussed in the UDC, adheres to the R-3 standards, and implements the desires of the owner, the obvious choice was an 8 building duplex project. With the primary views being to the east and west, the location of the living/dining areas of the residences needed to be oriented in those directions. We have purposely placed the main living area elevated above the street to facilitate views as well as to create the raised porch design as discussed in the UDC and reflective of earlier period designs that can be found within the neighborhood. Williams Homes spent many months designing and vetting floor plans with marketing professionals, local sales professionals, interior designers, and architects, and have determined that this is the floor plan they feel is appropriate for the site, the intended market, and residential use. We have shown with our revised exteriors that a single floor plan works great for this site. The main house of each unit is only 2270 square feet, which is very common, and actually a bit small for today’s interior living. The 500 square foot guestroom is detached and not really part of the interactive street scene. The floor plan has been thoroughly vetted by marketing, local sales team, interior designers, and architects, we believe the floorplan is appropriate for the site, however we did make revisions to our building footprint and site plan that we feel addresses this concern. Added 3 new elevations, using local neighborhood architecture elements. We covered some patios to create movement in the elevations. We revised the rear stairs on some homes to create variety in alley allowing front yard setbacks to undulate. We introduced unsymmetrical facades and rooflines as found in the neighborhood creating elevation movement. Increased front setbacks on half the homes creating front yard nodes and street scene variety, we revised alley elevations, and we added an architecture element to the end unit on Short Street to provide further interest and movement. Site Plan: While the UDC specifically shows row townhomes all on a similar setback plane, we were asked to look at breaking up the repetition of the site plan. We have redesigned the rear guest quarters stairways on a few of the buildings which allowed an increased the front setback on these buildings. This redesign breaks up the building massing and repetition on both the front and rear of the buildings and creates different nodes for additional landscaping or outdoor uses. As discussed below, we have also introduced a number of new stairways and entry configurations, which further enhances the movement of the building setbacks. Repetition and scale of entrances and stairs: We have modified the entrances and stairway configuration, setbacks, and landscape features providing a wide variety of approaches to the living units, each with a totally different visual experience for the passing pedestrian and from the street as you drive by. We feel the variety of approaches and stoops create an individualized treatment, while still providing 5 connectivity and activity to the street. We have also lowered all and even removed some of the party walls as requested by the Staff and DRB. Materials: We have modified the materials on the buildings, using a variety of horizontal lap siding, vertical “board and batten” siding, and included additional treatments of the roof and front elevation (see massing above) along with more color variation. The base treatment which in the previous submittal, included two types of stone veneer has been modified to include brick on a majority of schemes while maintaining stone on some of the units where it feels more appropriate for the design. Amount of transparency: One of the major reasons people want to come to Bozeman to live is the incredible natural beauty of the area and the spectacular views. We have elevated the main level to accommodate those views and we believe the design must include as much glass as necessary to maximize those views to the east and west especially. We have revised many of the elevations and upper glass treatments reducing the glazing in these areas. We also removed the 3 panel all glass doors on two of the elevations main level and replaced with smaller windows and a single French door. Visual impact from the Alley: We believe the proposed project already enhanced the livability and safety of the alleys. The existing conditions show a zero setback in the alley, with some buildings right on the 14’ alley, creating an unsafe, tunneling effect. Our proposal pushes the porch 13’ from the property line and the living area 20’. The garage is setback 30’, allowing for an additional 10’ of backup space for this property and the properties on the other side of the alley. This additional 10’ also allows space for snow removals, which are not in existence today. The porches on the rear are only one story above the alley and given the setbacks and alley width, visual impacts to adjacent properties are minimized, plus, the guest quarters provide livability and an extra set of eyes on an otherwise dark and potentially dangerous alley space. In the effort to enhance the visual impact from the alley even more, we have made some adjustments to the guest quarters which include providing different roof styles over the garage/guest quarters. We have also provided alternate access stairways to that area from between the main unit and the garage in some cases and directly from the west end between the driveways. The alternate stair locations along with the wide variety of the rear elevations of the main unit provide a wide variety of views which will be make the walk down the alley safer and one of the most unique in all of Bozeman. Conclusion: This is a true transitional site and a perfect site to transition from an adjacent single-family neighborhood, to this R-3 zoned project, to R-4 zoning 180 feet away, and finally, to the Downtown core only 214’ away. While the intensity of the site has increased, the number of units have decreased from 28 to 16 (remain about the same if you include the guest quarters as a separate unit). The project will revitalize the site and the area, it will increase neighborhood property values, and remove dilapidated unsafe structures. We are not reinventing the wheel with this project, there are examples of this architecture and massing all over the City of Bozeman, including the nearby and abutting neighborhoods. We believe that the Community Plan and the New UDC supports and encourages this type of infill development. If you have any questions or need more information, please let us know. Sincerely, Lowell W. Springer President Springer Group Architects, P.C.