HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorcoran Demolition & Addition Certificate of Appriateness
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Allyson C. Bristor, Associate Planner
Andy Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Corcoran Demolition & Addition Certificate of Appropriateness
Application (#Z-09102) – 210 S. 7th Avenue
MEETING DATE: October 14, 2009
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action Item
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission finds the structure at 210 S. 7th Avenue as
having minimal architectural and historical significance and to allow for its demolition for an
appropriately designed second floor addition and major remodel as conditioned by Staff.
BACKGROUND: Property owner Kerry Corcoran, and her architect Thomas S. Shiner,
submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application to the Department of Planning and
Community Development in June 2009 for the property located at 210 S. 7th Avenue. The COA
application represented the proposal as a remodel and addition. The application was deemed
incomplete by Planning Staff and additional information was requested in order to continue
review. Additional information and revised materials were submitted in July 2009. During the
review of the revised materials, Planning Staff became more aware of the large percentage of
demolition involved with the addition. Additionally, a couple of other COA applications
involving demolition of structures within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District were
being reviewed by the Department of Planning. Staff consensus was to review all of these
applications in the same manner, namely beginning with an update to the 1984 Montana
Architectural and Historical Inventory file to correct any outdated information. This approach
also reflects a text amendment to Chapter 18.28 of Unified Development Ordinance that
occurred in August 8, 2009. The amendment occurred to Section 18.28.040, “Certificate of
Appropriateness,” and reads “The Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory Form shall be
reviewed and, if necessary, updated by the historic preservation staff to reflect current conditions
on the site, prior to the review of the proposal.” The inventory was reviewed and updated and
the residence was found as “contributing.”
Planning Staff is describing the current proposal as partial demolition of the existing residence to
allow for a second floor addition and major remodel at 210 S. 7th Avenue. Section 18.81.800 of
the UDO defines “demolition” as “any act or process that destroys, in part or whole, a structure
or archaeological site.” No deviations are requested with this application.
As required by the Unified Development Ordinance, the inventory shall be reviewed and, if
necessary, updated by City historic preservation staff to reflect current conditions on the site,
141
prior to the final review of the proposal. This code requirement is due to the fact the inventory is
over 20 years old and sometimes an inaccurate representation of Bozeman’s historic
neighborhoods’ conditions. After consulting with an architectural historian member of the
Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board, City Historic Preservation Staff has determined
the existing 1930 bungalow residence retains enough of its original materials and building form
where it is “contributing” to the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Though the
original front porch was enclosed with windows and a flat-roof garage was added, Staff believes
these two alterations occurred over 50 years ago. Therefore, these two alterations contribute to
the structure’s historic significance. The only alteration that Staff finds as inappropriate is the
concealment of the original lap siding with aluminum materials.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The Certificate of Appropriateness application fee was processed as a
standard sketch plan and will be considered as application revenue for the Department of
Planning and Community Development.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Attachments: Staff Report
Report compiled on: October 14, 2009
142
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CORCORAN DEMOLITION & ADDITION COA FILE #Z-09102
Item: Zoning Application #Z-09102, a Certificate of Appropriateness
application to partially demolish the existing residence to allow for a
second floor addition and major remodel at 210 S. 7th Avenue. No
deviations are requested with the application. Said property is
zoned as “R-2” (Residential Two-Household, Medium Density
District) and is located within the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District.
Property Owner: Kerry Corcoran
210 S. 7th Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
Representative: Thomas Shiner, AIA
21 Dupont Circle NW Suite 100
Washington DC 20036
Date & Time: City Commission Hearing: Monday, October 19, 2009, at 6:00 p.m.,
Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue,
Bozeman, Montana.
Report By: Allyson C. Bristor, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
PROJECT LOCATION
The Corcoran Demolition & Addition Certificate of Appropriateness application is for the property
located at 210 S. 7th Avenue, which is zoned as R-2 (Residential Medium, Two-Household Density
District). The property is located just north of the Cooper Park Historic District within the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District. The overall lot area of the property is 6,187.50 square feet. A one-story,
Bungalow style, single-household residence exists on the property. The 1984 Montana Historical and
Architectural Inventory file identifies the subject residence as “intrusive.” Following Planning Staff’s
required update to the inventory form the residence is considered “contributing.”
Please refer to the vicinity map on the following page.
#Z-09102 Corcoran Demolition & Addition COA 1 143
ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES
The subject property is zoned “R-2” (Residential Two-Household, Medium Density District). As stated
in the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, the intent of the “R-2” residential district is to provide
for one and two household residential development at urban densities within the City in areas that present
few or no development constraints, and for community facilities to serve such development while
respecting the residential quality and nature of the area.
The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North: Single-family household residence, zoned “R-2”;
South: Single-family household residence, zoned “R-2”;
East: Single-family household residence, zoned “R-2”,
West: Single-family household residence, zoned “R-2”
ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The development proposal is in conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan including the
“Residential” land use designation. This classification designates places where the primary activity is
urban density living quarters. Other uses that complement residences are also acceptable, such as parks,
low intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches and schools. The dwelling unit density
expected within this category varies and a variety of housing types should be blended to achieve the
desired density, with large areas of single type housing discouraged. Additionally, all residential housing
should be arranged with consideration given to the existing character of adjacent development.
PROJECT PROPOSAL & BACKGROUND
Property owner Kerry Corcoran, and her architect Thomas S. Shiner, submitted a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) application to the Department of Planning and Community Development in June
2009 for the property located at 210 S. 7th Avenue. The COA application represented the proposal as a
remodel and addition. The application was deemed incomplete by Planning Staff and additional
information was requested in order to continue review. Additional information and revised materials
were submitted in July 2009. During the review of the revised materials, Planning Staff became more
aware of the large percentage of demolition involved with the addition. Additionally, a couple of other
COA applications involving demolition of structures within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District were being reviewed by the Department of Planning. Staff consensus was to review all of these
applications in the same manner, namely beginning with an update to the 1984 Montana Architectural and
#Z-09102 Corcoran Demolition & Addition COA 2 144
Historical Inventory file to correct any outdated information. This approach also reflects a text
amendment to Chapter 18.28 of Unified Development Ordinance that occurred in August 8, 2009. The
amendment occurred to Section 18.28.040, “Certificate of Appropriateness,” and reads “The Montana
Historical and Architectural Inventory Form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by the historic
preservation staff to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the review of the proposal.” The
inventory was reviewed and updated and the residence was found as “contributing.”
Planning Staff is describing the current proposal as partial demolition of the existing residence to allow
for a second floor addition and major remodel at 210 S. 7th Avenue. Section 18.81.800 of the UDO
defines “demolition” as “any act or process that destroys, in part or whole, a structure or archaeological
site.” No deviations are requested with this application.
As required by the Unified Development Ordinance, the inventory shall be reviewed and, if necessary,
updated by City historic preservation staff to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the final review
of the proposal. This code requirement is due to the fact the inventory is over 20 years old and sometimes
an inaccurate representation of Bozeman’s historic neighborhoods’ conditions. After consulting with an
architectural historian member of the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board, City Historic
Preservation Staff has determined the existing 1930 bungalow residence retains enough of its original
materials and building form where it is “contributing” to the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District. Though the original front porch was enclosed with windows and a flat-roof garage was added,
Staff believes these two alterations occurred over 50 years ago. Therefore, these two alterations
contribute to the structure’s historic significance. The only alteration that Staff finds as inappropriate is
the concealment of the original lap siding with aluminum materials.
REVIEW CRITERIA & FINDINGS
Section 18.28.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness”
Section 18.28.050 specifies the required standards for granting Certificate of Appropriateness approval.
In the discussion below, Administrative Design Review (ADR) Staff evaluated the applicant's request in
light of these standards.
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 recommended conditions, ADR Staff finds this project to be in conformance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation which is considered with the design
guidelines listed below. The recommended conditions will enable this project to be an appropriate
project in the context of the surrounding residences and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District.
B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and
compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structures or
properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, shall focus upon the following:
1. Height;
The proposed height of the second floor addition is found as appropriate by ADR Staff. The
addition is appropriately designed as a half-story addition rather than a full-story addition.
This creates an appropriately scaled residence for the S. 7th Avenue streetscape.
#Z-09102 Corcoran Demolition & Addition COA 3 145
2. Proportions of doors and windows;
With exception to the proposed windows on the enclosed porch, ADR Staff finds the
proportion of doors and windows in the second floor addition as appropriate.
3. Relationship of building masses and spaces;
Though it is recommended that additions to significant properties occur to the rear, Staff is
generally supportive of the second floor proposal to the existing residence. The addition is
closer to a half-story design rather than a full-story. Half-stories are more representative of a
traditional house design. As shown in the proposed street elevation prepared by the
representative, the remodeled residence is appropriate in scale and mass for the historic
streetscape.
4. Roof shape;
The second floor addition is essentially obtained by changing the front gable shape to a side
gable and then adding a front gable dormer. This roof shape is representative of Craftsman
architecture, which ADR Staff finds as appropriate for the existing Bungalow (which is a
one-story sub-type of Craftsman architecture).
5. Scale;
Please see comments under “Relationship of building masses and spaces.”
6. Directional expression;
ADR Staff’s recommended conditions speak most directly to “directional expression” and
“architectural details.” The existing structure has a full-width front porch. Though it is
enclosed with glass, it still visually represents a traditional full-width porch. Porches are
traditionally directed toward the street and serves as a transition space between the public and
private realms. The proposal removes the full-width front porch and substitutes it with a
small corner porch. A large portion of the area that would traditionally be a front porch is
enclosed with small windows.
Staff is conditioning the full-width front porch design to be retained with the second floor
addition and remodel.
7. Architectural details;
Please see comments under “Architectural details.”
8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment;
All mechanical equipment is required by code to be outside of the front or side yard setbacks
and screened.
9. Materials and color scheme;
Staff has conditioned that a final materials palette be provided for ADR Staff’s approval.
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.
#Z-09102 Corcoran Demolition & Addition COA 4 146
Staff finds that with the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed new design is
compatible with the foregoing elements of the surrounding structures and in character with the
surrounding S. 7th Avenue neighborhood.
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 1, 2, 3, and the Appendix of the Design Guidelines are relevant to this
project, as the structure is deemed as “work on a historically significant property in the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.” Said guidelines were all considered during ADR
Staff’s architectural review and reflected in the above comments.
E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title.
The required criteria for demolition of “contributing” structures are examined in the following
section.
Section 18.28.080 “Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites Within the Conservation
District”
The demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district shall be
subject to the provisions of this chapter and section. The review procedures and criteria for the
demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district are as follows:
A. Applications for the demolition or movement of structures within the conservation district
will not be accepted without a complete submittal for the subsequent development or
treatment of the site after the demolition or movement has occurred. The subsequent
development or treatment must be approved prior to the demolition or moving permit may
be issued.
The application’s proposed demolition is a part of the new construction. Therefore, a complete
submittal for subsequent development is proposed with the COA application.
B. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structure or
sites, which are designated as intrusive or neural elements by the Montana Historical and
Architectural Inventory, and are not within recognized historic districts or in other ways
listed on the National Register of Historic Places, shall be subject to approval by the
Planning Director after review and recommendation of Administrative Design Review staff
or Design Review Board as per Chapters 18.34 and 18.62, BMC, and the standards outlined
in Section 18.28.050, BMC.
Not applicable, as the residence is now considered to be “contributing” within the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District.
C. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or
sites, which are designated as contributing elements by the Montana Historical and
Architectural Inventory, and all properties within historic districts and all landmarks, shall
be subject to approval by the City Commission, through a public hearing. Notice of the
public hearing before the City Commission shall be provided in accordance with Chapter
18.76, BMC. Prior to the public hearing, the City Commission shall receive a
#Z-09102 Corcoran Demolition & Addition COA 5 147
recommendation from Administrative Design Review Staff and the Design Review Board.
The Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory Form shall be reviewed and, if
necessary, updated by the historic preservation staff to reflect current conditions on the site,
prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The final authority for
demolition or movement of structures or sites within this section shall rest with the City
Commission.
The City Commission shall base its decision on the following:
1. The standards in 18.28.050 UDO, and the architectural, social, cultural, and historical
importance of the structure or site and their relationship to the district as determined
by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Planning Department.
As required by the Unified Development Ordinance, the inventory shall be reviewed and, if
necessary, updated by City historic preservation staff to reflect current conditions on the site,
prior to the final review of the proposal. This code requirement is due to the fact the
inventory is over 20 years old and sometimes an inaccurate representation of Bozeman’s
historic neighborhoods’ conditions. After consulting with an architectural historian member
of the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board, City Historic Preservation Staff has
determined the existing 1930 bungalow residence retains enough of its original materials and
building form where it is “contributing” to the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
Though the original front porch was enclosed with windows and a flat-roof garage was
added, Staff believes these two alterations occurred over 50 years ago. Therefore, these two
alterations contribute to the structure’s historic significance. The only alteration that Staff
finds as inappropriate is the concealment of the original lap siding with aluminum materials.
Though the structure is now designated as “contributing,” it is located in a block of S. 7th
Avenue that is outside of the Cooper Park Historic District. The property is found by Staff as
having less architectural, social, cultural, and historical importance than the properties within
the historic district. Therefore, Staff believes demolition of the property at 210 S. 7th Avenue
can occur to allow an appropriately designed second floor addition and major remodel.
Planning Staff is recommending the City Commission to find the structure at 210 S. 7th
Avenue as having minimal architectural and historical significance and to allow for its
demolition for an appropriately designed second floor addition and major remodel.
2. If the Commission finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied, then, before
approving an application to demolish or remove, the Commission must find that at least
one of the following factors apply based on definitive evidence supplied by the applicant,
including structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair or
rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment:
a. The structure or site is a threat to public health or safety, and that no reasonable
repairs or alterations will remove such a threat; any costs associated with the
removal of health or safety threats must exceed the value of the structure.
b. The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining.
Not applicable. Planning Staff finds the existing residence at 210 S. 7th Avenue as meeting
Criterion A for demolition of “contributing” structures.
D. If an application for demolition or moving is denied, issuance of a demolition or moving
permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the final decision in order
to allow the applicant and the City to explore alternatives to the demolition or move,
including but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two year stay may
be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient
#Z-09102 Corcoran Demolition & Addition COA 6 148
additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of subsection B or C
of this section.
Not applicable. Planning Staff finds the existing residence at 210 S. 7th Avenue as meeting
Criterion A for demolition of “contributing” structures.
E. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a
manner acceptable to the Historic Preservation Officer and Administrative Design Review
Staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving permits.
If the City Commission chooses to allow the demolition request, several conditions of approval
are included in Planning staff’s recommendation to ensure the second floor addition and major
remodel is appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood.
F. In addition to the remedies in Chapter 18.64, BMC, the owner of any structure or site that
is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor
performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design
and manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in
conformance with all applicable codes and regulations.
Not applicable. The applicant made proper application for the demolition request by application
for a COA.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Department of Planning & Community Development publicly noticed the project with a posted
notice on September 4, 2009. The Department of Planning did not receive public comment regarding
this proposal.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Staff reviewed the Certificate of Appropriateness application against the criteria set forth in the Bozeman
Unified Development Ordinance. Based on the evaluation of the criteria and findings by Administrative
Design Review Staff, Historic Preservation Staff and the Design Review Board, Staff recommends
conditional approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness application with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval
1. A full-width front porch shall be retained with the second floor addition and remodel OR the
enclosure shall decrease to be not more than half the width of the house. New building elevations
and a new site plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning depicting this condition for
final approval by ADR Staff.
2. The applicant shall submit a final materials board, for all components of new construction, to the
Department of Planning for final approval by ADR Staff.
The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code that are applicable to this
project, including the following:
Code Provisions
Section 18.38.050.F requires all mechanical equipment to be screened. Rooftop equipment
should be incorporated into the roof form and ground mounted equipment shall be screened with
walls, fencing or plant materials. Ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from
all public rights-of-way. Mechanical equipment shall not encroach into required setbacks.
#Z-09102 Corcoran Demolition & Addition COA 7 149
#Z-09102 Corcoran Demolition & Addition COA 8
18.42.150 F “Lighting Specifications for All Lighting, In all light fixtures, the light source and
associated lenses shall not protrude below the edge of the light fixture, and shall not be visible
from adjacent streets or properties. For lighting horizontal areas such as roadways, sidewalks,
entrances and parking areas, fixtures shall meet IESNA “full-cutoff” criteria (no light output
emitted above 90 degrees at any lateral angle around the fixture).
Per Section 18.02.080 & 18.64.110, the proposed project shall be completed as approved and
conditioned in the Certificate of Appropriateness application. Any modifications to the submitted
and approved application materials shall invalidate the project's legitimacy, unless the applicant
submits the proposed modifications for review and approval by the Department of Planning prior
to undertaking said modifications. The only exception to this law is repair.
Per Section 18.64.100.F, the applicant shall obtain a building permit within one year of
Certificate of Appropriateness approval, or said approval shall become null and void. Please call
the Building Department at 406-582-2375 for more information on the building permit process.
CONCLUSION
Administrative Design Review Staff recommends conditional approval of said Certificate of
Appropriateness application. The proposed demolition, second floor addition and major remodel are
found to be in keeping with the Unified Development Ordinance, including the Bozeman Design
Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as
conditions of approval, do not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements
of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law.
BECAUSE THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WITH
DEMOLITION OF A “CONTRIBUTING” STRUCUTRE, THE BOZEMAN CITY
COMMISSION SHALL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION. THE
DECISION OF THE CITY COMMISSION MAY BE APPEALED BY AN AGGRIEVED
PERSON AS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.66 OF THE BOZEMAN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE.
Assuming the Commission grants conditional approval, the revised materials as conditioned shall
be submitted to the Department of Planning & Community Development within six (6) months
from the date of this report for review by ADR Staff. Once the materials are deemed complete and
adequate, your COA certificate (white copy) and notice (pink copy) will be released for the project.
Encl: Applicant’s Submittal Materials
Staff memo to the DRB
DRB minutes from September 10, 2009 meeting
1984 Montana Historical & Architectural Inventory File
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
CC: Kerry Corcoran, 210 S. 7th Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
Thomas Shiner, AIA, 21 Dupont Circle NW Suite 100, Washington DC 20036
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
MEMORANDUM
TO: Design Review Board
FROM: Allyson C. Bristor, Associate Planner
RE: Corcoran Addition Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness – #Z-09102
DATE: September 10, 2009
PROJECT LOCATION
The Corcoran Addition Certificate of Appropriateness application is for the property located at 210 S. 7th Avenue,
which is zoned as R-2 (Residential Medium, Two-Household Density District). The property is located just north of
the Cooper Park Historic District within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The overall lot area of the
property is 6,187.50 square feet. A one-story, Bungalow style, single-household residence exists on the property. The
1984 Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory file identifies the subject residence as “intrusive.”
PROJECT PROPOSAL
Property owner Kerry Corcoran, and representative Thomas S. Shiner, AIA, submitted a Certificate of
Appropriateness application to the Department of Planning & Community Development. The proposal is to partially
demolish the existing residence to allow for a second floor addition and major remodel. No deviations are requested
with the application.
As required by the Unified Development Ordinance, the inventory shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by
City historic preservation staff to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the final review of the proposal. This
code requirement is due to the fact the inventory is over 20 years old and sometimes an inaccurate representation of
Bozeman’s historic neighborhoods’ conditions. After consulting with an architectural historian member of the
Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board, City historic preservation staff has determined the existing residence
retains enough of its original materials and building form where it is “contributing” to the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District. Though the original front porch was enclosed with windows and a flat-roof garage
was added, Staff believes these two alterations occurred over 50 years ago. Therefore, these two alterations contribute
to the structure’s historic significance. The only alteration that Staff finds as inappropriate is the concealment of the
original lap siding with aluminum materials.
The proposal includes partial demolition of the existing residence. Because of the update of the property’s inventory
file to a “contributing” status, the proposal will be subject to approval by the City Commission through a public
hearing. The City Commission shall receive a recommendation from Administrative Design Review (ADR) Staff and
the Design Review Board (DRB).
STAFF COMMENTS
ADR Staff is looking for additional design recommendations or comments from the DRB because of the property’s
“contributing” status in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Staff asks the DRB to relate their
comments to the Certificate of Appropriate Standards, per 18.28.050 of the Bozeman Unified Development
161
Page 2
Ordinance, and the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation & the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The
Introduction, Chapters 1, 2, 3, and the Appendix of the Design Guidelines are relevant to this project, as it is deemed as
“work on a historically significant property in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.”
For discussion purposes, listed below are ADR Staff’s initial design comments on the proposal. The statements are
based on the standards and guidelines contained within Section 18.28.050 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
1. Though it is recommended that additions to significant properties occur to the rear, Staff is generally
supportive of the second floor proposal to the existing residence. The addition is closer to a half-story design
rather than a full-story. Half-stories are more representative of a traditional house design. As shown in the
proposed street elevation prepared by the representative, the remodeled residence is appropriate in scale and
mass for the historic streetscape.
2. Through examination of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, the existing residence always included a full width,
front porch feature. ADR Staff finds this feature as a significant component of the Bungalow architecture
and would like to see it retained with the second floor addition and remodel. If the property owner wishes to
retain the proposed mud room in the front of the house, Staff suggests the removal of the “study room”
closet to permit a larger side porch. Overall, Staff has concern with the current proposal because of the
enclosure of the existing front porch.
The DRB should indicate whether or not they find justification in each listed comments, as well as mention additional
concerns or praises that are not listed.
CONCLUSION
The DRB is being asked by ADR Staff to review the project because of the property’s contributing status in the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. ADR Staff will compile comments and recommendations from the
DRB and include them in the City Commission’s staff report. Some of the comments will be incorporated into
recommended conditions of approval for the project. The City Commission is scheduled to review the project at
their public hearing on September 21, 2009.
Encl: Applicant’s submittal materials
CC: Kerry Corcoran, 210 S. 7th Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
Thomas S. Shiner, 5655 Moreland Street NW, Washington, DC 20015
162
1
Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2009
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:40
p.m. in the upstairs conference room of the Alfred Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive
Street, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Elissa Zavora Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Mark Hufstetler
Visitors Present
Kerry Corcoran
David Gaillard
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2009
MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler informally moved, Ms. Zavora informally seconded, to approve the
minutes of August 26, 2009 as presented. The informal motion carried 3-0.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Rudolf Residences SP/COA/DEV #Z-09154 (Bristor)
801 South Grand Avenue
* A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations to allow
the relocation of the existing single-household residence and the
construction of a new single-household residence with related site
improvements. (Applicant requests open and continuance to 9/23/09
meeting.)
Associate Planner Allyson Bristor noted the applicant had requested an open and continuance of
the proposal.
MOTION: Ms. Zavora moved, Mr. Hufstetler seconded, to open and continue the proposal to
the 9/23/09 meeting of the DRB. The informal motion carried 3-0.
2. Corcoran Addition COA/ADR Z-09102 (Bristor)
217 South 7th Avenue
* A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the partial
demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a 2nd floor
addition with related site improvements.
Kerry Corcoran and David Gaillard joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor
presented the Staff Report noting the historic inventory had not been updated recently and the
163
2
Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2009
owner had been notified that Staff updated to the current historic inventory to reflect the hosue as
“contributing”. She noted the City Commission would be making the final determination as the
proposal was for the partial demolition of a potentially contributing structure. She stated the
there had been recent additions to the structure including metal siding and an enclosed porch.
She stated the existing residence was one story in height and the proposal was to add a second
floor or, in essence, a half floor. She stated Staff had found the overall design to be appropriate
for the surrounding neighborhood and was supportive of the proposal with a full width front
porch instead of a small corner entry porch and were supportive of the modified window
configuration. She stated the architect was unable to make it to the meeting due to his time in
Washington, DC. She presented the Board with a photograph of what the original porch had
looked like.
Ms. Corcoran stated she was uncertain when the windows had been installed in the porch, but to
her it was a dysfunctional space as it retained heat and she thought a smaller open porch would
be a place they would be more inclined to hang out in. She stated there was currently no place to
store jackets, coats, etc. so she would like to include a mudroom on the porch. She stated how
the roof needed to be replaced and thought it would be wise to gain additional space by adding a
second floor. Mr. Gaillard added the enclosed porch had not interaction with the street except
that it could be seen through.
Mr. Hufstetler asked what kinds of windows would be used for the upper story; would they be
Craftsman style. Ms. Corcoran responded she would use the Craftsman style windows for the
addition. Mr. Hufstetler suggested using the same window divisions that existed on the structure
to maintain the Craftsman style. He asked if the entire second story would be wood shingle clad.
Ms. Corcoran responded the second story would be wood shingle clad though she did not know
what would be found after the aluminum was removed from the existing portion of the house.
Mr. Hufstetler asked if anything would be done with the garage. Ms. Corcoran responded the
garage was dilapidated, but she would eventually like to demolish it. Mr. Hufstetler stated he
liked the garage.
Ms. Zavora asked if anything had been done to the house since the 1984 inventory. Planner
Bristor responded the removal of the window awnings had occurred but no other items had been
modified. Ms. Zavora asked how the inventory went from intrusive to contributing. Planner
Bristor responded that the inventory was 20+ years old and now the house can be considered
contributing because the alterations to it likely occurred over 50 years ago (with the exception of
the aluminum siding). Planner Bristor clarified that 50 years if age is a national standard.
Mr. Hufstetler stated, as a historian, he was always supposed to be opposed to taking a
contributing building and turning it into a noncontributing building, though in this case he
thought the architect had been very sensitive to the streetscape with the overall design. He stated
he was generally supportive of the proposal and he was hopeful the house could be restored
(original siding) to its original appearance. He stated he was completely and very strongly
opposed to the proposed porch design and he thought a full porch would tie the building to the
rest of the streetscape. He suggested the removal of the closet (on the north side of the interior of
the structure) and making the porch size a bit larger. Ms. Corcoran responded the stairs had been
relocated to the right to allow for the cottage style window to remain and be more noticeable
from the curb; she noted she thought the second door on the porch would be functional. Mr.
164
3
Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2009
Hufstetler suggested making the windows almost the same size as what existed. He reiterated
that overall the proposal was great.
Ms. Zavora asked for clarification of bungalow and craftsman style. Planner Bristor responded
that bungalow style was typically a single story structure and was a type of Craftsman style. Ms.
Zavora stated she lived in what was considered a bungalow but she had not seen any other homes
with the same style as hers; she noted the porch was across the front of the house. Planner
Bristor stated Staff had suggested at least a half porch as opposed to the 1/3 porch being
proposed to be in keeping with the more typical style. Ms. Zavora stated she was not supportive
of Staff’s recommendation to enlarge the front porch as she believed in practicality and function.
Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost stated he thought Planner Bristor had nailed the proposal. He
stated in his mind the owner had turned the existing house into a Craftsman style; he noted the
front porch was a big element for Craftsman style and was the transition point between the living
space and the street. He noted enclosing the porch would create a big box with a Craftsman hat
on it. He stated he agreed with Staff that the original windows of the enclosure would not work,
but he thought the revised window design was worse. He stated the transition zone being located
on one corner for more functional space would not be in keeping with the Craftsman style. He
stated with the current proposal he would see a solid wall with two little windows and a token
porch. He suggested the owner go all the way with the Craftsman design.
MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler informally moved, Ms. Zavora informally seconded, to forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Corcoran Addition COA/ADR Z-09102
with Staff recommendations. The informal motion carried 3-0.
Chairperson Pentecost suggested the conditions of approval needed to be directed to the lower
front of the structure and the porch area.
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.}
There was no public comment forthcoming.
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
________________________________
Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Pro Tem
City of Bozeman Design Review Board
165
166
167
168
169