HomeMy WebLinkAbout082609 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2009
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:35 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
Bill Rea Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Christopher Livingston
Mark Hufstetler
Randy Wall
Visitors Present
Rob Pertzborn
Henry Foch
Susan Riggs
Ben Lloyd
Dennis Steinhauer
Julie Shea
Steve Shea
Mr. Hufstetler introduced himself to the DRB. He stated he worked for RTI, whose main office was in Butte, but he lived in Bozeman. He stated he was also part of the Historic Preservation
Advisory Board and he was happy to be here. Mr. Wall responded that he was glad to see the architectural historian position filled on the Board.
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2009
MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of July 22, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 5-0.
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.
Rob Pertzborn, Susan Riggs, and Henry Foch joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting that the last DRC meeting had been earlier in the day
and presented the Board with those comments. She noted which items had been changed for the applicant. She stated the Planning Director had recommended the DRB review both proposals
on the agenda for the evening. She noted the location of the proposal was within the Bon Ton Historic District and the overall lot area was 11,200 sq. ft. She noted a residence existed
on the site and the original house had first appeared on the Sanborn Map in 1904. She described that the house was drastically altered in 1943 and no longer retained its historic integrity.
She noted the proposal was to relocate the existing house to the west side of the site with construction of a new residence to be located on the existing homes site. She noted there
were two deviations being requested for the proposal; she added Staff was supportive of the requested Deviations given the pattern of the surrounding neighborhood. She noted the existing
house had only minor alterations proposed including painting and the construction of a porch. She directed the DRB to the proposed design of the new residence and noted that the proposal
included a detached garage. She stated relevant comments had been outlined in the Staff Report and noted Staff had some concerns with the new house’s design due to its significant location
in the Bon Ton Historic District; she added they had suggested a more traditional front porch design and that the carport should face Grand Avenue.
Ms. Riggs stated the owner was out of town and was not able to attend the meeting, though she sent her apologies. She stated it was great that an architectural historian was on the
DRB. She stated their goal for the project was that it would be never be mistaken for an older home and they hoped that in 50 years the structure could be considered historically significant.
She stated the only Deviations requested were to encroach into the College Street setback, though the only features encroaching would be the porch and front façade. She summarized
the proposal and noted the existing structure would be salvaged and renovated with changes to the floor plan. She stated street trees would be added on College Street as well as front
yard trees and hedges; she added the DRC had required the landscape plan be finalized with the Final Site Plan submittal. She stated the new construction would have a small footprint
with a corner entry porch to address both College Street and Grand Avenue. She noted each residence would have two bedrooms with two off street parking spaces; she added the carport
would be minimal, would be setback from the street, and would only be 11 feet in height. She added the carport height could be reduced to 10 feet and landscaping and fencing would help
minimize the view of the carport from the street. She stated the owner was supportive of the movies at the Story Mansion, but was concerned that the movie was directed toward her home
and noted the owner had requested the six foot height of the fence to provide privacy.
Mr. Foch stated the consistent diversity in the neighborhood gave the proposal its unique character. He stated the design had been approached with humility and as much care as could
be given. He stated the ranch style home on the lot was directly across the street from the Story Mansion. He stated he had tried to provide a new element to the site to give significance
to the surrounding structures. He stated the main entrance would be located on Grand Avenue and the
owner would like it to feel more like the structure faced College Street. He stated reducing the size of the garage and placing it off the alley would be a great improvement to that
location. He stated the front porch would address both streets with the primary massing of the building being as close as possible to the street in both directions. He stated he had
been tasked with fitting the program on the site and not overpowering adjacent structures. He stated the primary element was a contemporary interpretation of a historic form and they
felt it was appropriate for the location. He stated the flat roof proposed would provide an opportunity for the owner to have an outdoor space on the second floor. He stated the owner
had requested maximization of the private rear yard given that parking would also need to be included in that location. He directed the Board to the floor plans of the proposed structure
and noted the owner had requested the house be arranged in such a way as to provide privacy. He noted the elements on the corner would have fenestration and openings that were consistent
with both historic and contemporary structures. He noted a corner front porch had been included and would be very inviting. He stated a side porch would face Grand Avenue and the grounds
of the Story Mansion while providing sunlight for the stairway. He stated the back deck would have a connection to the garage with a carport being included on the front of the garage.
He directed the Board to the proposed upstairs floor plan. He noted there had been a basement plan included and noted the locations of the window wells. He directed the Board to the
proposed elevations and noted it was a contemporary interpretation of a classic form. He noted the applicant was agreeable to reducing the proposed height to that of Staff recommendations.
He noted there was an error on the elevation regarding the intermediate piece and noted that location on the rendering. He stated the windows had been designed to limit disruptions
from outside of the residence. He noted which elevations would face the grounds of the Story Mansion and added a recessed side porch would be included to help break up the scale and
massing of the structure. He noted the location of the carport in relation to the landscaping and fencing proposed for the site. He directed the Board to the south elevation and noted
plenty of glazing had been proposed to take advantage of the southern exposure. He stated the proximity of the house being constructed to the house being moved required less fenestration
and glazing on that façade to provide for privacy to both residences.
Mr. Wall asked Planner Bristor if there was a subdivision proposal presented with the submittal. Planner Bristor responded a subdivision would be proposed in the future. Ms. Riggs
responded that a Subdivision Exemption would be sought to provide a lot for each structure through the boundary realignment review process. Mr. Wall verified the location of the side
yards for each of the residences. Planner Bristor noted that location on the site plan. Mr. Wall asked why house B couldn’t remove five feet to the south. Ms. Riggs responded that
house A had deep eaves and the lot area needed to be larger for that lot; she added that house B had been designed for the area that remained after house A had been determined. Mr.
Wall asked if the existing house encroached into the setback. Mr. Foch responded it encroached 8 feet into the setback.
Mr. Hufstetler asked how the eaves would be articulated for the single story massing, were there overhangs or material articulation. Mr. Foch responded they had attempted to maintain
an eave overhang on the taller portion of the structure and a parapet wall would be included in the flat
roof portion. Mr. Hufstetler asked the material that would be used for the railings and if the applicant had considered a more historic approach. Mr. Foch responded the railing and
architectural detailing had been proposed as more contemporary and had been meant to relate to the adjacent structure; he added he was uncertain of the material to be used for the railing.
Mr. Hufstetler asked if the applicant had seen the original structure on the site. Ms. Riggs responded they had seen the photograph, but had not included it in their submittal. Mr.
Hufstetler stated the existing home might be considered for the historic inventory if it had been updated.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost verified that the existing house was non-contributing. Planner Bristor responded he was correct. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the house were moved,
would the status of the structure be in detriment. Planner Bristor responded the movement of a house would likely make the structure’s classification non-contributing. Mr. Hufstetler
added that movement of the structure did not automatically disqualify the building from historic register. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked for clarification of Staff’s interpretation
of a traditional front porch. Planner Bristor responded a traditional front porch would not be an alcove, recessed porch area, but instead an extended porch with columns; she added
a corner entry could have traditional columns, railings, and roof form. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the redefinition of the property into two lots would cause ramifications
regarding RSL lots. Planner Bristor responded that RSL lots are irrelevant because it will be a subdivision exemption in the future. Both lots would meet the minimum size requirement
of 5,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Rea asked if Staff was alright with the lot coverage percentage. Planner Bristor responded the lots would both be under the 40% maximum allowable lot coverage. Mr. Rea asked how
Staff felt about porch roof encroachments into the setbacks. Planner Bristor that porches are recommended in the design guidelines, however, porches can only encroach when there is
a required front yard setback greater than 15’. A new Deviation would need to be called out to allow that encroachment. Mr. Foch responded the porch had been considered throughout
the design process and a covered porch had been desirable to the owner so the recessed porch had been proposed. Planner Bristor added that overall porches were a positive aspect for
pedestrian scale and overall Staff felt the massing was increased by a recessed entry due to the emphasis on the overhanging second floor.
Mr. Wall thanked Planner Bristor for her good work on the Staff Report. He stated he was struggling with the proposal and noted the location was very critical and visual given the Story
Mansion and College Street adjacency. He stated the Mansion site was slated to be one of the most visited places in Bozeman. He stated the ranch style architecture really sticks out
in that neighborhood. He stated his opinion was that if the structure were altered, it should be made to be contributing to the Overlay District; he added this proposal did nothing
to add to the contribution of the structure. He suggested getting the non-contributing house into a contributing state and suggested the ranch style architecture would not suffice.
He stated the industrial modern architectural genre proposed for the new house was not appropriate for a neighborhood that was clearly Victorian in style. He stated each home should
be judged in the context of the neighborhood around it. He doubted that either house could be judged as contributing or
historically significant even in 50 years. He stated the current architectural ranch house style was inconsistent with the existing neighborhood and the industrial architectural style
of the new house was not appropriate for the Bon Ton Historic District especially due to its proximity to the Story Mansion. He stated the Staff comments indicated that the proposal
would need to be modified. He stated if he were pushed to a vote this evening he would not be able to support the proposal.
Mr. Hufstetler stated there were some things proposed that he would like to see. He stated he was happy to see respect to the ranch style home and he thought one day the house could
be contributing. He stated he understood the design philosophy of the new house: a period form being successful on quite a few projects in town, but he was uncertain that the current
proposal would be a successful period form of architecture. He stated the historic farm house form had been placed in a neighborhood that would not have had that type of architecture.
He stated it did not fit visually and he was concerned about the inset porch; he suggested an actual porch on the Grand Avenue side would be more appropriate and the porch did not really
help to articulate the elevation. He stated the opening did not articulate well with the second floor windows above it. He stated the rear, flat roof deck area proposed for the roof
would be highly visible from the street and the neighbors would likely not be appreciative; he agreed with Staff that the roof should have a slope to it and that a flat roof is inappropriate.
He suggested a series of angled rooflines would be more appropriate.
Mr. Rea complimented Planner Bristor for her Staff Report and thanked the applicant for their hard work on the proposal. He asked if elimination of the ranch house had been considered.
Planner Bristor responded it had not been discussed. Ms. Riggs added the owner had wanted to preserve the existing house. Mr. Foch explained that the owner had made the decision to
preserve the structure. Mr. Rea stated he lived near the location and he agreed with Mr. Hufstetler’s comments. He stated he supported the greater offset between the gable and flat
roof portions of house B and he thought the offset of the farmhouse element would be helpful in relation to College St. He supported Staff recommendations regarding the windows, and
added the absence of a front porch is his biggest concern for the proposal. He added he thought a front porch would break up the mass. He stated he supported Staff with regard to the
flat roof off of Grand Street, and suggested a flat roof for the garage and the elimination of the carport. He added he did not think the garage is appropriate in the proposed location.
He stated the entry porch is too small and too broken up; he suggested a shed roof on the Grand Avenue side, but understood the setback issues in that location would not make that possible.
He stated he was supportive of a five foot fence and he did not think it needed to be four feet high; he suggested the proposed materials for the fencing would warp in the sun. He
stated the thing that bothered him most was that it seemed like a Cattail Creek Subdivision solution dropped into the Bon Ton Historic District. He stated he would likely support the
proposal as he was glad to see a solution for the corner, but he did not think the proposal would be appropriate for the neighborhood.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he had no problem with the proposed flat roof, he agreed that there should be a greater offset between the gable and flat roof portions of house B,
he did not
agree that the windows would be inappropriate for the project as a whole, he stated the architecture proposed for the front porch wouldn’t look like a traditional front porch, he saw
no issue with the proposed height for the new construction, he thought the carport would cause additional massing on the form but he did not have a problem with it overall, and he did
not see the height of the fence as an issue. He stated in looking at the proposal as a whole, the structure might not be a contributing structure, but it wasn’t hard for him to see
the traditional house he can see anywhere in Bozeman. He stated he thought it would be a great disservice to try to imitate something done in the past. He stated he did not have a
problem with the contemporary eye house design of a traditional form and to take a site and place something there that replicates what had already been done would be inappropriate;
he suggested the architecture should be new and he was supportive of the proposal as submitted.
Chairperson Livingston stated he was happy with the comments back and forth. He stated he found the Grand Avenue streetscape as bizarre. He stated he liked the goofy romantic notion
of what had happened to this house throughout its character changes. He stated he believed the gable was facing College Street and had included a front porch. He stated to know the
fate of the non-contributing structure was suspect as the inventory had not been updated since the late 80’s. He stated he thought the proposed flat roof would be fine, he thought the
proposed windows would be fine, he was not bothered by the recessed front porch, larger porches would not be necessary, the height proposed for the structure would be fine, and the fence
height should be five feet. He stated he liked what the house would do on the corner as it would anchor the site. He stated he liked the idea that it won’t look like a new house supposed
to look like an old house. He stated he thought the proposal would give significance to the corner as well. He stated he thought it would be an interesting project and suggested the
conversations would not occur if the owner had opted for an ADU instead. He stated the combination of the two structures would be fine, but he was concerned with it’s proximity to the
Story Mansion.
MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Hufstetler seconded, to forward a recommendation of denial to the BOA for Rudolf Residences SP/COA/DEV #Z-09154.
Mr. Rea stated the height issue did not concern him because of the trees, and he agreed with Chairperson Livingston’s comments regarding the flat roof. He stated he was glad the corner
was being looked at for development. Chairperson Livingston asked if the project would be acceptable with Staff comments. Mr. Wall and Mr. Hufstetler concurred that they would not
be able support the proposal even with Staff conditions.
The motion failed 2-3. Those voting in favor being Mr. Wall and Mr. Hufstetler. Those voting in opposition being Mr. Rea, Vice Chairperson Pentecost, and Chairperson Livingston.
MOTION: Mr. Pentecost moved to forward a recommendation of approval to the BOA for Rudolf Residences SP/COA/DEV #Z-09154 with Staff comments. The motion died.
MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Wall seconded, to open and continue the proposal to the
next meeting of the DRB.
Mr. Wall suggested the DRB members could give direction to the applicant prior to taking the vote. He urged the Board that their consideration for such an important location should
not be swayed by meeting schedules for the Board of Adjustment.
Chairperson Livingston stated he was comfortable with the project and was not necessarily in agreement with Staff comments.
Mr. Hufstetler requested responses to his concerns such as the lack of architectural detail on the Grand façade, the roof deck, and the flat roof.
Mr. Rea stated his concerns were with the porch detailing with better articulation of form on Grand Ave. elevation, and the detached garage off of Grand Avenue could be more sensitive
to the existing fabric of the neighborhood. Mr. Pertzborn asked if he would alienate the other three board members if he took the recommendations of the two members who were in disagreement
with the proposal as presented.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost suggested the design was a bit Spartan but he did not have a problem with it as proposed.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he was not implying that the new residence should replicate the past. Vice Chairperson Pentecost added the irony would be discussing whether or not it was a contributing
structure in 50 years. He added that if the project is continued and comes back, what would be changed to be brought back. Mr. Rea stated he disagreed and added that most members had
at least some issues with the proposal. Mr. Wall concurred with Mr. Rea and added it was not the Board’s job to design the proposal and the open and continuance was completely appropriate.
Chairperson Livingston concurred that an open and continuance would be appropriate.
The motion carried 4-1. Those voting aye being Mr. Wall, Mr. Hufstetler, Mr. Rea, and Chairperson Livingston. Those voting nay being Vice Chairperson Pentecost.
Mr. Foch asked for clarification of non-conforming and non-contributing. Mr. Wall explained.
The Board took a short recess.
2. Shea Residence SP/COA/DEV #Z-09164 (Bristor)
530 East Curtiss Street
* A Site Plan with Certificate of Appropriateness and two Deviations to allow the construction of a new single-household residence to be built on the lot with related site improvements.
Steve Shea, Julie Shea, and Ben Lloyd joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor
presented the Staff Report noting the location of the proposal at the intersection of Curtiss Street and South Wallace Avenue. She noted the size of the lot was 9,752 sq. ft., a new
house was proposed on the current rear lot, and three Deviations were being requested. She stated Staff was supportive of the requested Deviations and two single-family households would
be contained on one lot. She stated the owners intended to come back with a Subdivision Exemption application which would require one of the Deviations to allow less than the required
lot size. She stated the existing shed would need to be relocated on or off the site. She stated a combination of stone, wood, and horizontal siding was being proposed for the new
house. She noted Staff’s comments regarding the proposal and noted their concern with the carport form linked and the primary entrance detailing.
Mr. Lloyd stated Steve and Julie Shea had decided to go smaller instead of larger and had proposed a modest footprint for the structure. He stated the materials proposed were consistent
with the neighborhood and many corrugated metal flat roof forms were in evidence in the same neighborhood. He stated the goal of the carport was to provide shelter for one vehicle and
the opportunity to mount photovoltaic cells. He stated he felt the carport would help diminish the appearance of the accessory structure. He stated the site was on a fairly busy cul-de-sac
with an access to the library and the front elevation design had been proposed to address that traffic. He stated the orientation of the house had been intended to support passive energy
options so the house had been oriented east to west.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he was interested in the specifics of the carport’s roof structure and asked if a flat roof had to be used to accommodate a photovoltaic system. Mr. Lloyd responded
it would need to be a flat roof or slanted in the other direction, but for the most efficiency, the flat roof would be the best option. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the hearth depicted on
the floor plan would include a chimney. Mr. Lloyd responded a modest, metal flume would be included for the wood stove (not shown on the elevation). Mr. Hufstetler asked if glass brick
would be included on the east elevation. Ms. Shea responded there was no glass brick proposed. Mr. Lloyd added it was just the configuration of the windows.
Mr. Wall asked if there was a subdivision application under review at this time. Planner Bristor responded the Deviations would need to be addressed prior to the Subdivision Exemption
Application being submitted in the future.
Mr. Rea asked if the driveway existed and if he left the library after heavy drinking, would he go into the properties driveway. Ms. Shea responded he would be in the driveway and in
their kitchen. Mr. Rea asked for clarification of the panel orientation on the carport. Mr. Lloyd stated his preference would be to leave the flat roof as proposed with the panel installation
itself being tilted.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked why Staff comments were focusing on the fence. Planner Bristor responded the existing 6’ fence was too tall for the front yard location and would need
to be four feet in height or lower to be in a front yard area. She added Staff was supportive of a
more visible and transparent design in that location. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the applicant would pull the fence down to four feet. Mr. Lloyd responded that they would
prefer to leave the fence at its existing height. Planner Bristor responded the fence height had not been called out as a specific Deviation. Mr. Lloyd responded they could request
the Deviation. Planner Bristor responded they could discuss the fence after the meeting, but the project would need to be re-noticed to call out the fourth Deviation request.
Chairperson Livingston asked what type of stone was being proposed. Mr. Shea responded he liked the Shist style of random rubble with a plaster type finish. Mr. Wall asked if the stone
shown on the rendering was the same. Mr. Lloyd responded it was similar, but would have a flatter type appearance.
Mr. Wall stated he liked the proposal as the eastern part of town had its own flair. He stated he thought the proposal was appropriate for the site given the industrial nature of the
surrounding development.
Mr. Rea stated he liked concrete ribboning but did not think it would be appropriate for the site. He stated he was fine with the carport as depicted, but he would like to see the roof
angled to the south more and he would prefer to see the primary structure holding the panels. He stated he was fine with the fence, but would not comment on the height. He stated he
suspected the only traffic on Wallace that would come right into the kitchen would be from the library.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he took one look at the design and he thought it was the coolest little house he had seen in a long time. He stated he agreed with Mr. Rea that an angle to the
roof should be included. He stated the carport design was a little uninspiring and suggested adding to it. He stated overall he was supportive of the project.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost applauded the applicant on the scaling down direction in which they were going. He stated he had no problems with either the entry or the carport. He stated
he looked at the flat roof with the solar panels and saw the echo of the two flat roof forms (on the house and carport), but when the solar panels were installed he might think the roof
should be flat; he added he thought it would be fine either way. He stated he thought the fence intersected nicely into the front and he saw no problems with it as proposed.
Chairperson Livingston stated he thought the project was nice. He stated the surface parking would be appropriate with pervious coverage, he thought the front entrance was fine as proposed,
he stated to optimize the solar panels they would need to be at a 45 degree angle. Mr. Shea responded they were attempting to get solar tracking panels and the angle would always be
changing with relation to the sun. Chairperson Livingston stated the majority of the view would be from Burke Park. He stated he thought the proposal would be good and the house already
stood out; he added the new construction would be appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. He noted solar panels would present a funky nature when seen on the carport, he noted
he would not prefer to see the panels himself.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he appreciated the flat roof on the garage as an anchor to the flat roof on the house.
Mr. Wall stated another concern was the massing of the elevation when the solar panels are extended and he agreed that the flat roof would be fine.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the BOA for Shea Residence SP/COA/DEV #Z-09164. The motion carried 5-0.
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 8:20 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board