Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-06 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 2006 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Michael Pentecost Allyson Bristor, Historic Pres. Officer and Associate Planner Mel Howe Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Brian Krueger Dawn Smith Scott Hedglin Christopher Livingston Bill Lea Visitors Present Ben Lloyd ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 8 AND 22, 2006 Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of March 8th or March 22nd. MOTION: Mr. Hedglin moved, Mr. Livingston seconded, to approve the March 8, 2006, minutes as submitted. The motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Smith noted Mr. Livingston made the motion on top of page 5 of the March 22, 2006 minutes. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to approve the minutes of March 2, 2006, as amended. The motion carried unanimously. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Talbot Residence COA #Z-06020 (Bristor) 424 South Tracy Avenue * A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the demolition of the existing residential structure and the existing garage and the new construction of a residential structure which stands as a contributing building in the South Tracy – South Black Historic District and garage on 11,329 sq. ft. lot zoned R-2 (Residential, Two-Household Density) District. Mr. Ben Lloyd joined the DRB Associate Planner and Historic Preservation Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report, stating the DRB should make a recommendation to the City Commission. Mr. Pentecost asked if the letter from David Scott had been reviewed and asked Planner Bristor address Mr. Scott’s concerns. Planner Bristor noted when a structure deteriorates to a certain degree, it becomes difficult to support the renovation of the existing structure. Mr. Pentecost asked if this structure was part of a set of buildings. Planner Bristor noted it is not, and it was not designed by a significant architect in Bozeman’s history. Mr. Livingston asked why the accessory dwelling unit was allowed at the rear of the neighbor’s residence to the north. Planner Bristor noted it was constructed in the late 1980’s and may have been a permitted use at that time. Mr. Livingston noted it is next to one of the oldest houses in town. He asked if ADU’s are allowed in this district. Planner Bristor explained that ADU’s are permitted in R-2 zoning. Mr. Hedglin asked if both shed additions were added at a later date. He asked what else on the exterior of the building was not original. Planner Bristor noted some of the windows were not original, one shed addition was originally an enclosed porch, and the back of the house was added on. She noted neither of the shed additions are the original. Mr. Rea asked if there was any economic study done to evaluate the structure and the cost to repair it. Planner Bristor noted Staff hadn’t required a study; however, DRB could. Mr. Rea asked if the structure would be replaced with a historic or contemporary structure. Planner Bristor noted Staff would like a traditional form/design structure to be considered with new construction; however, there is a fine line to cross as to where the design is imitating historic design, and Staff was pleased a more appropriate construction was proposed rather than one of contemporary design. Mr. Howe noted the DRB is being asked to evaluate ADR Staff’s recommendation to bring the project to the DRB. He did not believe the DRB was required to recommend whether or not the structure should be demolished. He noted the Board has to review a proposed structure to determine if it is acceptable. Mr. Krueger asked when the historic inventory was done. Planner Bristor noted it was done in 1984 with the second page of the inventory added in 1989; therefore, it is dated information. Chairperson Smith noted that page 4 of the Staff Report stated that the DRB is charged with evaluating the demolition of a property. Planner Bristor noted each site requires a site visit by the ADR Staff to determine if the property is still contributing. Chairperson Smith asked if the existing house is currently a duplex. Planner Bristor noted it is currently vacant, but its most current use was a duplex. Chairperson Smith asked how many contributing houses have been demolished. Chairperson Smith asked for the percentage of homes being demolished as opposed to rehabilitated. Planner Bristor noted the rehab numbers are significantly higher than those of demolition. Chairperson Smith asked if the home was located within a historic district. Planner Bristor noted it is located in the South Tracy-South Black Historic District. Chairperson Smith asked if enough structures are demolished, could it affect the integrity of the historic neighborhood. Planner Bristor noted it could definitely conflict it. Mr. Pentecost asked if the front porch encroachment was allowed. Planner Bristor noted it was if the porch covers 1/3 or less of the front of the home. Mr. Lloyd presented the project. He noted a reconstruction can contribute to the historic district and contribute to the vitality of the district. He noted the scale was in compliance with the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Krueger asked for the proposed materials for the front porch and steps. Mr. Lloyd noted the materials and color palette were among the conditions of approval, he noted the materials would complement the rest of the structure. Mr. Krueger asked if the height of the chimneys exceeds the height limitations. Mr. Lloyd noted the main chimney was above the roof pitch as it is a main design feature of the structure. Mr. Rea asked if was a basement was proposed. Mr. Lloyd noted there is; however no apartment is proposed. Mr. Hedglin asked how much larger the proposed house is than the existing house. Mr. Lloyd noted it would be about 40% larger. Mr. Livingston asked why egress windows are proposed in the basement. Mr. Lloyd noted for future uses including bedrooms and/or family room. Mr. Pentecost asked if there was an exterior door to the basement. Mr. Lloyd noted there was not. Mr. Livingston asked if an apartment could be installed later. Planner Bristor noted there were limitations preventing an apartment, with the combination of an ADU unit above the garage. Chairperson Smith asked if any of the elements of the existing structure would be reused in the new structure. Mr. Lloyd noted none of the structure is reusable in the proposed structure. Planner Bristor noted DRB could add the condition suggesting the reuse of the materials where possible. Mr. Livingston asked what could be done to preserve the structure. He asked about the terms “contributing structure” and “primary contributing structure.” He asked what structures should be kept, which should be allowed to be demolished, were only the “primary contributing structures” to be save, and was the City setting a precedent that allowed an owner to let his home fall into disrepair, then demolish it and rebuild. He was concerned and struggled with the concept. He noted he was concerned as to how the new structure would fit in the neighborhood and if it should blend better. He noted he had a difficult time supporting a tear-down of the existing structure. Mr. Pentecost noted he looked at the scale of the street and noted he began to question if the proposed house was too large. It has two stories and a raised basement with egress windows, neither of which may be appropriate. He noted the proposal replaces a small house with a very large house. Mr. Krueger noted he struggled with demolition of the existing structure. He noted the City doesn’t have a demolition by neglect ordinance, which could fine property owners that allows allow a property to deteriorate significantly. He stated the house could be rehabilitated. Mr. Howe noted the project as proposed looks nice, and fits the architecture and scale of the neighborhood. He stated it is large; however, large and small houses appear side-by-side all over the City. He stated the demolition could be supported as every structure has a service-life and this house was probably built to last one or two generations. He stated he would support the tear-down. Mr. Rea commented that the height of the structure doesn’t bother him as much as the base material. He would support the new proposed project. He noted he is torn by a tear-down; however, the solution/new design offered justifies it. Mr. Hedglin stated he felt it was an appropriate design. He noted there are enough good reasons in the proposal to justify the demolition. He noted the structure was not unique to Bozeman, but a pattern book design. Chairperson Smith noted the demolition of the structure concerned her as the demolition should be based on factual not emotional information. She noted it shouldn’t be up to people to decide whether or not to demolish it. She stated the City is doing itself a disservice by not having specific guidelines as to when a structure can be demolished. She stated she was first concerned with the scale of the project; however, there were larger homes on the block corners that have rock on the bases. She noted the proposed structure would compliment those structures. She asked if the exposed basement wall was appropriate. She stated the City Code should address stacked parking, spaces in front of and inside garages, as it would not be used that way. Mr. Hedglin asked how high the porch was from the ground. Mr. Lloyd noted it is twice as high as the existing one or about 30 inches above the ground. He noted it was raised to create more private space on the porch itself. Mr. Rea asked for explanation of the materials for the base of the house. Mr. Lloyd noted it is stucco with brick proposed on the chimneys. Mr. Krueger noted the steps may have stone materials. Mr. Lloyd concurred, and explained the possible construction materials of the back steps/patio. Mr. Krueger asked Planner Bristor if the historic material was usually a rougher concrete product. Planner Bristor noted concrete was probably used to patch the breaks. Mr. Lloyd noted lime stucco was also often used. Mr. Pentecost stated he’d like to go through an “exercise” to examine “demolition” vs. “rehabilitation.” He asked if the structure wasn’t torn down, the foundation had to be removed and be reconstructed. He noted the floors would have to be evaluated. He stated with the new seismic code, a considerable amount of new construction would have to occur. He noted the walls wouldn’t meet today’s energy code, and the windows would be replaced. He noted the roof would also have to be reconstructed. He stated the outside of the house has the cosmetic aspects. Mr. Lloyd noted making the house plumb would aggravate the integrity of the home. Mr. Pentecost noted the house would then be an old house with new materials in it. He suggested they should be rebuilding a new house in the old neighborhood. Mr. Lloyd noted the home is in the most disrepair of any home he has seen. Mr. Howe asked what weight the owner’s wishes have on the decision. Mr. Lloyd noted the owner wishes to have the project consistent with the neighborhood. MOTION: Mr. Krueger moved, Mr. Pentecost seconded, to recommend approval of application #Z-06038 with Staff Conditions and the addition of condition #6 to state the applicant should consider using a concrete material for only the portions of the raised foundation in the front and south façade which supports the porch roof. Mr. Krueger noted he had seen the proposed condition #6 used in other applications. He noted stucco could also be used on the sides and rear of the structure. Mr. Lloyd noted he would explore the possibility. Chairperson Smith asked for an explanation of the difference between the concrete and stucco. Mr. Lloyd noted stucco allowed for texture and softened the look with shadowing. Chairperson Smith asked if it would be for the front portion of the porch. Mr. Krueger noted the front of the porch should wrap around to the south side. Mr. Pentecost noted “board formed” concrete is not new, but has evolved to large panelized systems for foundations. He suggested a Plexiglas form be used to make a statement that the house is of today. Mr. Hedglin concurred with Mr. Pentecost. He noted the Board shouldn’t be tweaking the design. He stated the design was appropriate. Mr. Lloyd noted he appreciated the comments and the condition asking him to consider using a different material. MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to amend the motion to add condition #7 for the applicant to consider a more delicate scale to the vertical porch columns. Chairperson Smith cautioned adding to many suggestive conditions. The amendment carried 4-3 with Mr. Rea, Mr. Howe, Mr. Hedgelin, and chair voting in favor. The amended motion carried with 6-1 with Mr. Livingston voting against. Mr. Livingston commented that though he knew the vote would be in favor of the project, he felt more historic fabric had been destroyed. He asked the applicant to recycle as much of the materials as possible. 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 to comment. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Krueger announced he is resigning from the DRB to work for the City. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m. _______________________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board