HomeMy WebLinkAbout061009 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2009
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:33 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
Randy Wall Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner
Michael Pentecost Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Mel Howe Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Christopher Livingston
Visitors Present
Jesse Sobrepena
Ed Ugorowski
Tom Starner
Kevin Cook
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2009
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that on page 3, the bottom of 3rd paragraph should include that Mr. Springer had stated all of the existing sheathing was being removed.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes of May 13, 2009 with corrections. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Summit Storage SP/COA #Z-09080 (Krueger)
2674 Simmental Way
* A Site Plan with Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of two, single story storage buildings with related site improvements.
Jesse Sobrepena, Tom Starner, and Kevin Cook joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the location of the subject parcel was adjacent to the
I-90 Entryway Corridor and stated the site was the lot located the furthest to the north, aside from a storm water parcel in the vicinity. He noted the zoning designation was M-1 and
was an industrial site despite previous submittals being for office uses. He stated the project was anticipated as the first phase of many and the application only included what would
be developed
in the first phase. He stated the application did not show boulevard sidewalk along Simmental Way though the Engineering Department had required those sidewalks be installed. He stated
there was a shared access to the south of the site and Staff was supportive of that access as well as the secondary access that had been provided. He stated Staff was generally supportive
of the proposal and recommended that additional landscaping along the front of building A and the setback area be required to be installed. He stated Staff condition #2 required the
applicant to include more differentiation in the roof plane or separation to break up the length of the structure. He stated the treatment of the façade had been conditioned to provide
for street level interest and detailing had been required; he suggested a different type of material be included with the submittal of the Final Site Plan. He stated the small landscaped
area next to building A would need addressed and Staff had recommended diversity in landscaping to soften the long building elevation. He added that the proposed fence had been included
for security purposes and permanent fencing was recommended to be required to be installed without barbed wire; he noted Staff was fine with the current fence proposal while the project
was being constructed, but a higher quality of fencing should be required. He stated each additional building would be individually reviewed under the Site Plan criteria and the fence
detail would be required at that time.
Mr. Sobrepena stated he did not have much to add as it was a storage project. He stated the applicant would prefer to keep the buildings simple. He stated the street right of way on
Simmental Way was not in the right location and some of the property would need to be used to accommodate the right of way for improvements to the street; he suggested this would cause
the buildings to be relocated back further on the site. He stated the developer was concerned with the amount of money those improvements would cost as none of the other developments
along Simmental Way had been required to make those improvements. Mr. Cook responded their intention was to fence with wrought iron and the barbed wire fencing was only temporary.
Mr. Starner added they would prefer to maintain the appearance of a professional office while the storage unit use remained cost effective. Mr. Sobrepena presented renderings of views
from I-90 and Simmental Way, as well as a bird’s eye perspective to show breaks in the roof form.
Mr. Wall stated he saw no sidewalks on the plans so it was difficult to see what was happening on the site; he asked what would be happening in one location. Planner Krueger responded
the sidewalk installation had been required for the proposal but was not evident on the site plan as it had been a condition of the DRC through the Engineering Department; he added the
applicant could provide the sidewalk in the right of way or could provide land for the sidewalk installation with a pedestrian easement so the setback would go from the easement line
(8 foot difference). Mr. Wall asked if something could be proposed for the northernmost part of the parcel on the wedge shaped piece. Planner Krueger responded someone could propose
an entirely different building type or the applicant could come back with another proposal for storage units. Mr. Cook added it was his intent to build out the lot with storage units
similar in design to those being proposed. Mr. Wall asked if the west side of Simmental Way had been developed. Planner Krueger responded some of the parcels were developed, but the
covenants for the site required a 100 foot setback; he added re-development had been anticipated for the area and those
developments would be required to improve their half of the roadway per the Unified Development Ordinance.
Mr. Howe asked if the applicant was amenable to Staff conditions. Mr. Cook responded the only issue he had was the 7 or 8 feet required for the pedestrian right of way. Mr. Starner
stated he was supportive of Staff conditions as they wanted to replace the fence and added that he thought the suggested materials would be alright. Mr. Cook added that trees, shrubs,
and ground cover locations would be subject to the location of power lines on the site and the street trees would need to be located on the opposite side of the sidewalk.
Chairperson Livingston asked if the overhead power depicted was accurate. Mr. Sobrepena responded the overhead power had been depicted accurately and they would attempt to tie in to
the existing overhead lines. Chairperson Livingston asked if there were any plans to move the power underground. Mr. Sobrepena responded there were no plans to relocate the power lines.
Mr. Cook added their only concern with landscaping was the installation of boulevard trees under the existing power lines. Planner Krueger responded the boulevard trees would be addressed
during Final Site Plan review. Chairperson Livingston asked if there was a way to place the sidewalk in the setback. Mr. Cook responded the only way would be if the sidewalk were on
the back of the curb which would make snow removal difficult so the City was not supportive of that location.
Mr. Wall stated the site was an industrial area that he did not see a lot of pedestrians using the area. He stated he did not oppose the project, but he hated to see a beautiful half-boulevard
on the outskirts of the City with no one appreciating it.
Mr. Howe stated he liked the project as proposed, it is what it is and it seemed it would do it okay.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he thought the direction everyone was heading was that the proposal was appropriate for the area. He stated sites along the interstate seemed to be
the least appealing, though that would be the first thing people on the interstate would see and those sites would make a statement. He added that he appreciated the applicant’s attempt
to make the proposal better than the existing storage units. He stated the change of materials would help make the proposal a little better. He stated all the discussion of the boulevard
trees would cause potential issues with the power lines and suggested landscaping be included on the back side of the site along the greenway corridor.
Chairperson Livingston stated he kind of felt the same way as Vice Chairperson Pentecost as he had driven out there and envisioned the mature landscaping; he thought landscaping would
be very important, not only for the entryway corridor, but for the site as a whole. He stated he encouraged the same investigation Vice Chairperson Pentecost had suggested regarding
landscaping and use of materials. He stated the low, agrarian nature of the site would make it a nice development and he agreed with Mr. Wall that sidewalks there seemed unnecessary.
Mr. Cook stated the landscaping along the interstate contained 120 trees and was pretty extensive; he added there was a storm drainage easement in that location as well which would assist
in the installation of nice landscaping.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Wall seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Summit Storage SP/COA #Z-09080 with Staff conditions.
The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. Lang Remodel/Addition INFORMAL #I-09005 (Kramer)
1016 South Willson Avenue
* An Informal Application for advice and comment on the remodel of the existing residence and the construction of an addition with related site improvements.
Ed Ugorowski joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Courtney Kramer presented the Staff Report noting the project was located just south of the Bon Ton Historic District and was within a
corridor that could be a potential Historic District. She stated Staff was seeking direction on the height and massing as well as the garage proposed on the front elevation.
Mr. Ugorowski stated he had forwarded the Board photos of adjacent houses. He stated he appreciated the Staff Report, but he had attempted to make the house appear as it had originally,
just larger. He stated the roof height, in comparison to the previously approved similar proposal, would be less of an increase. He stated the Minimal Traditional style had been maintained
and the 30 inch, 8:12 roof pitch would cause a minimal visual impact on Willson Avenue. He stated he was trying to make it look as it had been built originally and he had attempted
to identify where other attached garages were located in the vicinity. He stated the block which the site was located on had two corner houses with a larger scale than was being proposed
and noted locations of other houses with attached garages. He stated the gable would be continued and the intent was to stay in keeping with the original design. He stated it would
be a great opportunity for both property owners to plant some evergreens and other deciduous trees along the common boundary. He stated he appreciated the concern over massing, but
the roof pitch would accommodate adequate lighting. He stated he incorrectly added the square footage regarding lot coverage for the proposal; it should be a total of 3,409 sq. ft.
which would include the attached and detached garages as well as the covered porches. He stated he appreciated the smaller houses adjacent to the site, but the lot in question was 12,000
sq. ft. and could accommodate a larger house. He directed the DRB to photographs of existing homes that had additions included that were night and day differences from the original
structure.
Planner Kramer added that Staff was most concerned with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation guideline #9 that required the addition be differentiated from the
original construction; she directed the DRB to a rendering of another proposal to give them an idea of
types of additions under review under those guidelines.
Mr. Ugorowski stated there should be some flexibility in what owners could do to make it livable. He stated the Secretary of Interior Standards guidelines were open to interpretation
and he saw the proposal meeting only some of those guidelines.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the length of the front property line. Planner Kramer responded she thought the length was 75 feet. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if anything would
be done in the 13 foot setback to the south. Mr. Ugorowski responded nothing would be included in the 13 foot setback.
Mr. Wall asked the maximum height allowable for the site. Planner Kramer responded the maximum height allowable would be 32 feet regardless of roof pitch. Mr. Wall asked if the project
had 28% lot coverage. Planner Kramer responded he was correct and the lot coverage was well below the allowable 40%.
Chairperson Livingston asked what would happen to the previously approved proposal for a different site (Bennett site) within a potential Historic District. Planner Kramer responded
the integrity of individual structures would be considered and if most of those properties were not found to be maintaining that integrity, the Historic District could not be formed.
Chairperson Livingston asked if Staff thought the house could potentially be a contributing factor to the Historic District. Planner Kramer responded the house could be a contributing
factor to a future Historic District. Chairperson Livingston asked what it would take to create a Historic District. Planner Kramer responded the community would need to be involved
and cited the Bon Ton Historic District as being formed when the Commission had intended to make Willson Avenue a commercial corridor and the property owners had been opposed to commercial
development in that location. She added that if less than 50% of the property owners agreed with the creation of a Historic District, then the creation would fail. Chairperson Livingston
asked the size of the original structure. Mr. Ugorowski responded the original structure was 1,310 sq. ft. in size.
Mr. Howe stated he thought the proposal was appropriate for the site and noted he thought the proposed mass, height, scale, etc. would be appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Wall stated he appreciated the time and effort Planner Kramer had put into the Staff Report and it had been an interesting read. He stated there seemed to be a pod of Minimal Traditional
houses with diverse designs throughout the rest of the neighborhood. He stated he had viewed the site from all sides and noted the existing spruces were perfect shielding. He stated
he had looked at the Bennett property as well and had determined that the structure did not look historical to him. He stated he thought the proposed height and rehabilitation would
be appropriate as it was within the allowable height and noted the façade facing Willson Avenue would be the most important. He stated he thought the dormers should be eliminated and
he was in opposition to the single-car garage as it was not in Minimal Traditional style and it was unsafe to back onto Willson; he suggested placing the garage elsewhere and keeping
the west façade
Minimal Traditional. He suggested maintaining the colonial shutter style as it appeared on a number of those styles of buildings and suggested the porch should be minimal as part of
the Minimal Traditional style. He stated he thought the overall massing and scale would be appropriate for the neighborhood as the remodel would be set apart from the original construction.
He stated he was supportive of the balance of the remodel given the existing neighborhood and reiterated that the west façade should maintain the Minimal Traditional style. Mr. Ugorowski
stated he would prefer not to remove the form from the north end. Mr. Wall responded the elimination of the round window on one elevation and the inclusion of symmetry would assist
in the Minimal Traditional style.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he was thinking of how the public would view the proposal and had determined that most of them would be looking at the site from Willson Avenue. He
stated he thought the garage should be articulated from the house; heel height modifications, etc. He stated if the applicant was comfortable backing onto Willson Avenue, then he had
no problem with backing out of a garage onto Willson Avenue. He stated he was not concerned with the proposed massing of the structure and suggested articulation of the garage would
preserve the original form and provide an adequate view from Willson Avenue. He stated he thought the overall mass and scale would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Planner Kramer asked if the garage could be stepped back one foot or if the window well would be in the way. Mr. Ugorowski responded the window well was less of an issue than the break
in the roof form.
Chairperson Livingston stated he had been watching the Bennett project and lived in that area. He stated he had doubled the square footage of his house and had included a differentiation
between the original and new construction. He stated he thought the Staff Report had been well done and suggested the existing Historic Inventory should be updated. He stated the existing
house was a beautiful house and might be the best example in that area. He stated he thought the proposed height increase would be appropriate for the structure and he thought the massing
would be appropriate as well, but he did not know if any of those items would be appropriate in a Historic District. He stated he had investigated the Minimal Traditional design and
had not seen any two story houses; he noted if there are none, there could be a problem including the site in a future Historic District. He stated he thought the proposed mass and
height would be appropriate for the house but did not think the proposed mass and height would be appropriate for the Historic District. He stated the flagship house for a post-war,
Minimal Traditional neighborhood would be this house. He suggested the dormers be changed to a gable dormer to match the style. He stated he was torn between some of Staff’s inquiries;
he added he thought the proposal would be a nice house, but was uncertain it could be included in the Historic District once the modifications had been completed. He noted the project
was well designed, but he did not think the applicant would be able to accomplish both historic contribution and the proposed addition.
Mr. Howe stated he was trained to look only at the façade; he suggested the façade looked nice the way it is and would look nice with or without the garage. Planner Kramer agreed that
if the
front of the house remained as is, Staff would feel comfortable saying the structure could potentially contribute to a Historic District. Chairperson Livingston stated the entry was
a jewel among architectural features and if that could be preserved, it would help identify the style. Planner Kramer added that the HPAB had been considering keeping a Bozeman register
of historic homes. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked at what point an addition departed from being okay in the back but not okay on the side. Planner Kramer responded that the bigger
the addition, the more it would need to be starkly defined.
Chairperson Livingston stated the other point was that the client’s perspective was that the proposal was completely in keeping with the character of the house as it was an addition
of more Minimal Traditional design. He added there was a different perception provided by different perceivers but there was a size constriction that went along with the every style.
Mr. Ugorowski added that the cost of the lot and the cost of the land would need to be considered; if property values increase, people won’t purchase their lots unless their homes can
reflect the value of the lot.
ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes)
{Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
There was no public comment forthcoming.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board