Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout091009 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN 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 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. 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