HomeMy WebLinkAbout062409 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2009
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:30 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
Christopher Livingston, Chair Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner
Michael Pentecost Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Mel Howe Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Elissa Zavora Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary
Visitors Present
Kira Ogle
Kristen Schelvan
Ben Elias
Michael Peris
Kath Williams
Kim Everts
Susan (Kozub) Riggs
Greg Mortenson
Tara Bishop
Deb Rosa
Lowell Springer
Chair Livingston noted this is Mel Howe’s final meeting, as he has submitted his letter of resignation from this board.
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 2009
It was moved by Michael Pentecost, seconded by Mel Howe, that the minutes of the meeting of June 10, 2009, be approved as submitted. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. Bishop/Mortenson Addition/Renovation COA/ADR #Z-09109 (Kramer)
617 South 5th Avenue
* A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of an addition with related site improvements and renovations to the existing structure.
Richard Charlesworth and Susan (Kozub) Riggs, Intrinsik Architecture, and applicant Greg Mortenson joined the DRB.
Assistant Planner Courtney Kramer presented the Staff Report, noting that the Planning staff is looking for guidance from the Design Review Board on this application. She noted that
the subject one-story home has ungangly dormer additions which were added some time in the 1980s. A large addition to the rear that fits in and provides a nice differentiation between
the old and the new is being proposed. The applicant is also proposing revisions that will result in increased height of the structure by providing more headroom in the upstairs and
adding pitched roofs over the dormers. While the Planning staff understands the request, they are also concerned about the increased height within this Cooper Park Historic District.
The Assistant Planner asked for DRB guidance on not only this specific application but on the broader issue of increasing requests for second story additions to existing one-story structures
within historic districts. She noted that Planning staff generally discourages second story additions and encourages rear additions instead, but asked if that is the correct interpretation
of the ordinance. She stated the minutes from this discussion will be part of the recommendation to the Planning Director, who makes the final decision on this application.
Mr. Richard Charlesworth noted the subject house is a hybrid craftsman bungalow with a second story that had minimal headroom. At some point in the 1970s, two dormers were added, with
a very shallow roof over the dormers. He indicated that the requested increase in height will allow for increased headroom in the bedrooms located on the second floor. The 24-foot
by 24-foot rear addition will house a new living room, basement playroom, and new master bedroom on the second floor. To minimize the height, a flat roof is proposed over the addition.
Mr. Charlesworth stated that, since the applicants received the COA for the addition, they have had second thoughts about the headroom in the second story, where the sidewall is approximately
6 feet 8 inches and the ridge is approximately 7 feet 4 inches. The applicant also does not like the aesthetics of the appendages that were added, and want the more traditional look
from the street that would come from adding pitched roofs over the dormers. He characterized this application as an effort to refine an original mistake.
Mr. Charlesworth stated the materials on the dormers would be changed so that they maintain a relationship with the existing house but speak of the new addition. He noted that the rear
addition will have metal siding, and one of the dormers will include that siding while the other dormers will have metal shingles. He stressed that this proposal will add 6 feet in
height to the house, and encouraged the DRB to consider the John Brittingham house, where similar additions were approved.
Ms. Riggs referred to Exhibit 1 in the application, noting it provides their analysis of how this proposal fits into the Associateguidelines. She noted the most unique thing about this
bungalow is the dormers, which detract from its integrity. She stated that the proposal is to make the dormers more functional while making the home more respectful to the character
of the site and the neighborhood. She noted that the dormers are located 9 feet 8 inches back on one side and 13 feet 8 inches back from the front facade on the other side. With those
setbacks and the proposed repeating of the roof pitches over those dormers, any impact from these dormers should be minimized from the streetscape. She recognized the importance of
making the addition distinct yet compatible with the original structure; and she feels that can be accomplished under the application before the Board.
Assistant Planner Courtney Kramer encouraged the Board members to remember that this property is on the national register of historic places, not just in a neighborhood conservation
overlay district. She noted that a perfect restoration would include removal of the dormers; however, staff recognizes the applicant’s desire for additional usable living space. She
concluded by stressing that staff’s interest is in ensuring this house remains a contributing element to the historic district.
Responding to Elissa Zavora, Assistant Planner Kramer stated it appears the dormers were constructed before the Certificate of Appropriateness process was implemented. She estimated
that they were constructed sometime between 1984 and 1992. She noted that the historic district was created in 1984, but it took quite a length of time to complete the inventory of
structures.
Responding to Michael Pentecost, Mr. Charlesworth stated the interior wall height is to remain at 6 feet 8 inches; and scissor trusses are to be used to increase the interior height
without increasing the exterior height.
Responding to Chair Livingston, Assistant Planner Kramer stated she does not believe the Brittingham house is now contributing to the historic district. She stressed that this is a
singular example in the Cooper Park historic district, which generally contains single-story structures.
Mr. Greg Mortenson, applicant, stated he and his family moved to this home in 1995; and his children were born there. Although this property is located within an historic district,
over half of the homes are now rentals; and he has had to put up with drugs and other undesirable activities. He and his wife have a bedroom in a nook in the hallway; and they would
like to have a bedroom of their own. His family are the second longest residents on the block; and their desire is to remain there for the next twenty years. He wants to have a pitched
roof on the dormers to address problems he currently encounters with icing and leaking. While he could remove the dormers and return the structure to its original single-level status,
he has two teenagers and wants this to remain his home.
Mr. Charlesworth noted that one of the neighboring houses is not being maintained and, in fact is at the point that demolition may be the only option.
Responding to Mel Howe, Assistant Planner Kramer stated that the combined houses within the Cooper Park historic district create the district; those houses directly around Cooper Park
are the primary contributors to the district. She stressed that, even though a house may not be individually listed on the register, it should still be a contributing property.
Mr. Charlesworth noted that this renovation will make the property more contributing by removing a basement apartment and moving the garage, which currently sits in the side yard and
gains access from the street, to the alley, making it more historically appropriate.
Mr. Mel Howe stated he thinks the design is nice, and he supports the application in total.
Ms. Elissa Zavora noted that she, too, lives in the Cooper Park historic district. She stated they purchased their home in 1997 and are now surrounded by rentals and are seeing those
properties deteriorating. She concluded by voicing her support for this application, and noted it is important to keep homeowners in the properties if at all possible.
Mr. Michael Pentecost addressed the four questions listed in the staff report. He stated that he finds the pitch appropriate for the residence; he does not feel that this application
adversely affects neighboring houses; he believes that it maintains the character of the house; and he finds it appropriate. Since he feels this application does not negatively impact
the site or the immediate area, he supports the application.
Chair Christopher Livingston characterized the original dormers as the “worst of weekend projects”. He finds that this proposal provides a nice addition and revisions to the dormers
that complement the original structure and fit with the site and the area.
Responding to Assistant Planner Kramer, Chair Livingston noted that people want more square footage and, as a result, more and more applications of this type are being received. He
does not believe the increased roof pitch and pitched roofs over the dormers will overwhelm the house or change its character and, as a result, will not negatively impact the area.
Chair Livingston turned his attention to the larger issue of whether second stories should be allowed in generally single-story historic or conservation overlay districts. He stated
that each of those must be considered on an individual basis, taking into consideration the structure, the surrounding area, and impacts on adjacent properties.
Assistant Planner Kramer thanked the Board members for their input and noted that the inventory needs to be updated.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. West Paw Addition SP/COA #Z-09090 (Krueger)
32050 East Frontage Road
* A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of an 18,874 sq. ft. addition with related site improvements.
Kim Everts, Comma Q Architects, joined the Design Review Board on behalf of the applicant.
Associate Planner Brian Krueger stated the original West Paw building was constructed in 2001 and, at that time, future expansion to the south was planned. This nearly 20,000-square-foot
expansion includes a mezzanine area as well as the main floor and an expanded loading facility on the west side. The addition is to be of the same building materials, same forms and
overall fenestration pattern as the original structure.
Associate Planner Krueger stated that staff forwarded a recommendation for approval with no design conditions. During its review of the application, the Development Review Committee
added conditions requiring an increase in landscaping to screen the loading area and requirements for reseeding and restoring the pasture portion of the lot. Also, the DRC is requiring
that the landscaping along I-90 be installed again, since the deer destroyed the original landscaping, and is requiring that protection zones be provided during construction.
Kim Everts voiced concurrence with the staff report and indicated she has nothing to add at this time.
Elissa Zavora identified errors in the calculation of landscaping points; however, she noted that the landscaping proposed does exceed the needed points. She then voiced appreciation
for the amount of drought resistant landscaping being proposed.
Responding to questions from Ms. Zavora, Associate Planner Krueger stated the zone code requires that landscaping be maintained once it is installed. He noted that he expects the applicant
will provide protection for the landscaping being replanted along the I-90 corridor, although it has not been specifically required.
Chair Livingston stated he feels that overall, this addition will make the proportion of the building a little nicer, and he finds it appropriate.
MOTION: It was moved by Mel Howe, seconded by Michael Pentecost, that the Design Review Board forward a recommendation for approval of West Paw Addition SP/COA #Z-09090 with
no conditions. The motion carried 4-0.
2. Greater Yellowstone/Gallatin Seed CUP/COA/DEV #Z-09092 (Bristor)
215 South Wallace Avenue
* A Conditional Use Permit with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application and Deviations to allow a change in use to office use and improvements to Building C with related site improvements.
Ben Elias, CTA Architects, joined the DRB. Several other members of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and Gallatin Seed Complex remained in the audience.
Associate Planner Allyson Bristor noted the Design Review Board saw this project as an informal project about a month ago. She noted that under this application, the use is to be changed
from a warehouse to an office in Building C of the Gallatin Seed Complex. Site improvements, including landscaping and striping in the parking areas, are to be included. The exterior
is to be improved by removing the existing metal siding, making the improvements and then putting the metal siding back on. A porch addition will be constructed on the south elevation,
and solar panels are to be added to the roof. Associate Planner Bristor stated that some conditions were crafted today at the Development Review Committee meeting. The only condition
being proposed for Design Review Board consideration is a requirement that documentation of the building is updated for the inventory. She indicated that staff is awaiting feedback
from the DRB regarding the other suggested conditions for consideration as included in the Staff Memo.
Mr. Ben Elias, architect representing the applicant, identified a few minor changes that have been made since the informal review. He noted the initial concept was to have a solid
railing across the front of the new porch. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition wanted more openness, so that has been replaced with wooden posts and metal pipes. The solar panels on
the roof will be designed as part of the mechanical systems and, therefore, are not included in this application. The west elevation is to be a “living wall”, and a trellis with a vegetative
cover, possibly hops, is proposed. That cover will serve to shield and cool the air space on the west side of the building. Signage will be painted on the building to match the character
of the Gallatin Seed Company.
Associate Planner Allyson Bristor noted an additional deviation has emerged, since a 2-foot by 21-foot portion of the covered deck encroaches into the front yard setback. Staff supports
the deviation because the deck adds emphasis to the windows and entrances; however, the applicant has the choice of seeking the deviation, removing the awning, or shortening the deck.
Responding to Michael Pentecost, Mr. Elias stated the diagonal area at the entry shown on the informal design has been removed. He noted that, after looking at a three dimensional model,
it was determined the front desk person would not have a good experience. With the change in design, the front desk person will now have a nice view of Peets Hill instead of the wall
that had been initially proposed.
Michael Pentecost noted that the comments from the informal review have been well addressed, and the applicant has done a great job in presenting the new plan.
In response to comments from Elissa Zavora, Planner Bristor stated there were a couple landscape comments made during the Development Review Committee’s meeting today. She noted that
steps must be taken to ensure an irrigation system is in place, and the landscape plan must distinguish between what exists and what is proposed.
Elissa Zavora stated she questions some of the existing trees for which landscape points are being taken; however, she finds that overall the plan meets the point requirements. She
also noted that the plan looks nice.
Mel Howe stated he finds this proposal is an excellent example of re-using an existing structure and developing it to maintain its use in the future.
Responding to Chair Livingston, Ben Elias stated the parapet height between Building B and Building C will possibly need to be increased approximately one foot to provide for fire separation,
the rest of Building C’s parapet will not need to increase in height.
Further responding to the Chair, Mr. Elias stated the metal siding from the north side of this building, between Building B and Building C, will be used to fill any new areas resulting
from the new sized windows and doors; and any space created on the north side of the building will be replaced with similar material.
Christopher Livingston stated he feels this is a nice project. He then questioned Condition No. 3 of the conditions to be considered by the DRB, which could potentially limit the interior
planning for the site since it requires that the loading dock doors be replaced with the same size doors.
Ben Elias stated a large central expanse is proposed. He then noted it is their intent to remove the large back door and replace it with framing for new store front windows and to enlarge
the small door to make it the same size as the others.
Associate Planner Bristor stated that some elevations show use of existing door openings, although she also sees some elevations where different sized doors or different locations are
shown. She indicated that staff’s recommendation is that the existing windows be identified as
well as those to be changed. She asked if the Design Review Board feels the need to distinguish the new windows and doors or if the proposed plan is alright.
Responding to Chair Livingston, Lowell Springer stated that not all of the existing doors and windows are the same size. He then noted that over the years, several of the doors and
windows have been changed out, so there are many different sizes and styles in the building today.
Associate Planner Bristor noted that if federal tax credits are sought for this project, the integrity of the structure, including the windows and doors, will be carefully considered.
Responding to Lowell Springer, Planner Bristor stated the comments regarding the size and location of the windows and doors will be taken into consideration but are not part of the conditions.
MOTION: It was moved by Michael Pentecost, seconded by Elissa Zavora, that the Design Review Board forward to the Commission a recommendation for approval of the Greater Yellowstone/Gallatin
Seed CUP/COA/DEV #Z-09092 with conditions recommended by Staff and the DRC. The motion carried 4-0.
3. American Legion SP/COA #Z-09085 (Bristor)
225 East Main Street
* A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of main level commercial space and a bar with a second level banquet hall and related site improvements.
Kira Ogle and Kristen Schelvan, Legends Studio, joined the Design Review Board on behalf of the applicant. Michael Pentecost announced that he shares office space with Kira Ogle; however,
he is not financially involved in this project. He also announced that he will not be biased in his consideration of this application.
Associate Planner Allyson Bristor gave the Staff Report. She noted that this is the first building to be reconstructed at the explosion site on East Main Street. She stated the east
wall of the building, which is a shared wall with the adjacent building (Starky’s), is still standing although its structural integrity is not yet known. She noted that the uses formerly
at this site are to be retained, although their locations are to be changed within the two-story building. The bar is to be moved from the basement to the main floor; a banquet hall
and community center are to be located on the second floor; and the basement is to be used for storage. The two-story building is to include a brick facade with sandstone accent. The
overall design is very traditional; and staff has encouraged the applicant’s architect to incorporate 2009-2010 design elements into the new structure. The awning elements emphasizing
the entry and the 2nd floor windows are a reflection of those new design elements. The rear elevation includes a second entrance for people to access the building; and the applicant
hopes to erect the existing sign, which was saved, near the rear entrance. She indicated that this will require a separate application for historic sign designation; and the applicant
has chosen to wait until August, when the fees for such designations go into effect. She stated that staff has recommended the old sign not be included on the front elevation since
it does not go with the style of the new building.
Associate Planner Bristor stated rebuilding of the sites along East Main Street that were lost in the explosion is extremely important for the community. She noted that staff wants
those rebuilt structures to be historically appropriate for Main Street, but also wants them to be an example of today’s design. She highlighted some of the suggestions in staff’s memo,
which include using a different color of brick instead of the red proposed and mortar detail that is traditional in nature. She then asked if the windows should be double hung instead
of single hung, as proposed.
Associate Planner Bristor noted that since the Development Review Committee review ended before this meeting. The Staff conditions approved by them are included in the Memo to the DRB.
She stated that this application does not require DRB review; however, Planning Director Epple and the ADR staff want the Design Review Board’s input and comments for consideration.
Kira Ogle, architect representing the applicant, stated that the American Legion is viewing this tragedy as an opportunity to improve their facility. She noted that locating the bar
on the ground level will be a huge improvement for them. Since this reconstruction is a costly project, the American Legion will need to take out a loan; and they hope to generate some
revenues to help fund the project in addition to meeting their own needs. She added that the proposed 2nd floor community center space will help to achieve those desired revenues.
She noted that many of the members were not thrilled with the exterior of their previous building and see this as an opportunity to provide more presence on Main Street. The Board of
Directors likes the more classical style but realizes the importance of also incorporating some current contemporary elements.
Kira Ogle noted that the previous building was constructed in the early 1940s and subsequently went through a renovation designed by Fred Wilson. While the renovation was not significant,
his detailing included the minimalist design incorporated into the front entry, which was an appropriate location for the existing sign. She recognized that, while it would be nice
to include the old sign in the front elevation, it exceeds the allowable signage under the current code. Since the American Legion wishes to keep this part of its history, it has agreed
to locate that sign at the rear entrance.
Kira Ogle stated the exterior materials are those chosen by their Board of Directors. They include red brick on the front – not a clean, crisp red but a combination of browns and reds
– in combination with golden brick and sandstone. The windows are to be dark bronze, and the awnings will match that color. The awnings and signage are more contemporary, with the
sign being stainless steel that is laser cut and lit in the back (possibly neon). The back will be more minimalist and will be metal with either split face CMU or ground face CMU.
She showed the Board a palette board with samples of each of the materials proposed.
Responding to Mel Howe, Kira Ogle stated the age of the existing sign is not known; however, the American Legion is trying to determine that. She then indicated that the photo of the
previous structure was taken from Google Earth street view.
Further responding to Mr. Howe, Kira Ogle stated that the windows along Main Street are larger because her clients want more light and more visibility to attract customers. She stated
it is anticipated there will be seating so that people can sit by the windows and look out.
Mel Howe stated he wants the existing round sign to be incorporated into the front exterior of the building rather than at the rear entrance.
Kira Ogle responded that many of the American Legion members would also like to see the old sign back on the front of the new building while others feel it would be acceptable to locate
that sign at the rear entrance. She then noted that the Planning staff has encouraged locating the old sign at the rear of the structure and incorporating a new sign in the front elevation.
Responding to Michael Pentecost, Kira Ogle stated there was a little recess for the side, 2nd floor entrance on the front elevation, which was located on the east end of the building,
but it was not as pronounced as the new entrance. She then indicated that the words “American Legion” are to be located on the top of the building and the address is to be included
on the awning.
Further responding to Mr. Pentecost, Ms. Ogle stated the many of the American Legion members would like to see their old salvaged sign put back up, particularly since it was there previously
and would provide remembrance of the old structure.
Michael Pentecost noted that the American Legion is made up of members of the armed services, and that carries weight with him.
Responding to Mr. Pentecost, Associate Planner Allyson Bristor stated that the current zone code established a 12-square-foot maximum for projecting signs on Main Street. The existing
sign is a 5-foot-diameter round sign that exceeds that square footage; however, the applicant could seek an historic designation from the Commission that would allow it to be re-erected
on this site.
Responding to Michael Pentecost, Planner Bristor stated that her intent in suggesting a double hung window was to provide windows with a break in the center of the window.
Further responding to Mr. Pentecost, the Planner stated that DRC approved Condition No. 6 acknowledges there is a shared wall that may need to have some work done on it.
Mr. Pentecost turned attention to the issue of red brick and the width of the mortar. Planner Bristor stated that the traditional buildings along Main Street are red brick, and staff
would like to see the new structures built with a different color brick or with a combination of materials that might include some red brick along with other colors and types of materials.
She noted that the new JFL building remodel was recently completed and has no visible mortar joints. She feels that the more conventional mortar lines are preferable, and suggested
that even wider mortar lines could be beneficial in providing varying color and depth to the building.
Responding to Chair Livingston, Kira Ogle stated a structural engineer will need to provide the height of the parapet to Starky’s. She stressed, however, that, due to drifting and structural
requirements with the other building, this new building will need to be a couple courses of block above that building. She assured the Board that every effort will be made to maintain
a consistent height around the new structure. Also, every effort will be made to keep the floor courses the same; however, the elevator may make it difficult to do so.
Responding to Chair Livingston, Kira Ogle stated the windows in the front on the second floor will be operable.
Chair Livingston asked the Board members to address whether the existing sign should be on the front of the building.
Mel Howe stated he feels the existing sign should be on the front of the building.
Kira Ogle noted that the American Legion wants to get the new structure constructed as quickly as possible so they can move beyond the tragedy that has happened.
Michael Pentecost voiced his support for the asymmetrical windows that have been proposed, and the fact that they are reversed between the first and second floors. He noted that he
does not actually see red brick in the palette that the applicant has shown, and has no problem with the one that is proposed. He does support the use of wider mortar lines that say
this is a new building in an old location. He then indicated his support for putting the round sign back in the front, suggesting that it could be viewed as an odd element, placed in
a background of original yellow brick that says “at one time this stood here” and encourages people to not forget the original location.
Responding to Planner Bristor, Mr. Pentecost said he would rather see the original sign hang inside than at the rear entrance. He then indicated he would fight hard to place the sign
on the front, as long as it is very well designed into the elevation. He noted that this would allow it to become a memorial to the original building.
Mel Howe noted the properties of the sign need to be considered, and it may need to be repainted, rather than allowing a ratty sign to be incorporated into a new structure.
Kira Ogle stated a majority of the American Legion board would prefer to see the old sign on the front; a minority would be satisfied with it on the back of the building. She then noted
that, remarkably, there was no damage done to the sign in either the explosion or subsequent fire. She indicated that the American Legion intends to have the outer ring of the sign
repainted, but that is the only part of the sign that needs to be touched up.
Chair Christopher Livingston noted the windows look good, and he appreciates the fact that they are operable. He likes the brick proposed and the wider mortar lines that Planner Bristor
has proposed. He would like to see a rendering of this building with the building to the east (Starky’s) to ensure that the heights of the buildings and the building bands are compatible.
He then expressed concern about the second color of brick proposed, particularly when combined with the sandstone bands. He is also concerned about the proposed sandstone at ground
level, particularly since it could become easily damaged or marked. He proposed that the applicant consider a bronze or black metal panel to match the store front, noting it would be
more indestructible and would maintain its appearance better. He also voiced his preference for the split face CMU for the back elevation. He concluded by stating that, if the original
sign were put on the back of the building, it might as well be in the basement. He believes that putting it on the front is important to rebuilding of this building, no matter how much
it breaks the sign code.
In light of the DRB member comments, Associate Planner Bristor stated that the Design Review Board could be engaged in reviewing the application for historic designation of this sign
when it comes in.
MOTION: It was moved by Michael Pentecost, seconded by Elissa Zavora, that the Design Review Board forward to the Planning Director a recommendation for approval of American Legion
SP/COA #Z-09085 subject to the conditions recommended by staff, and that the Design Review Board review a proposal to incorporate the existing round American Legion sign for location
and context on the front of the new building. The motion carried 4-0.
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 to come before the Design Review Board at this time, at 7:40 p.m. it was moved by Michael Pentecost, seconded by Elissa Zavora, that the meeting be adjourned.
The motion carried 4-0.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board