HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-26-03 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2003
NOTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson pro tem Carpenter called the meeting to order at 3:48 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Christopher Livingston Susan Kozub, Assistant Planner
Joseph Thomas Dara MacDonald, Assistant Planner
Mel Howe Hillary Hertler, Historic Preservation Planner
Randy Carpenter Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Visitors Present
Lark Gould
Gartz Gould
Pete Stein
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2003
The minutes of August 12, 2003 were continued to the next meeting due to lack of a quorum.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
A. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. Gould Informal #I-03030 (Kozub)
212 North Church Avenue
* An Informal Application for advice and comment on the removal of an existing structure and the construction of a new single-family residence with related site improvements.
G. Gartzmann Gould, K. Lark Pelling Gould, and Pete Stein joined the DRB. Planner Kozub presented the staff report noting the lot was approximately 10,300 sq. ft. She stated Staff
felt the proposal was not compatible with the neighborhood and reminded the DRB that the area was a potential Historic District within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District,
noting there were Victorian style homes and Craftsman style homes in the area. She stated Staff’s major concern was the building’s mass and scale. She stated the proposed house would
occupy 75.8% of the lot width, compared to the surrounding homes, which only occupy an average of 50% of the lot width, and the majority of the properties exceed the required side yard
setbacks. She added the proposed building would be larger in footprint than most of the surrounding homes. She also noted the structure would be one of the only stucco buildings in
the area, but that was not the reason for denial of the proposal. She stated that the whole point of the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District was to evaluate the appropriateness of a proposal and that, although the design would be appropriate in other parts of town (i.e. South Willson ), it is
not, in Staff’s opinion, appropriate for the North Church Neighborhood.
Mr. Stein stated he had consulted a copy of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay tip sheet that indicated specifically how to build a larger house in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District and added there was dramatic conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and the aesthetics of the neighborhood. He stated he knew some of the buildings to the north and south of
the proposal did not meet code requirements and he took special care to break the proposal into elements in keeping with the surrounding houses. Mr. Stein cited famous architects who
have had similar difficulties in the past. He added that Staff recommendations would make the neighborhood like Disney World.
Mr. Gould stated he was frustrated because they had created a design to fit the neighborhood and the lot. He added he had used the zoning regulations and planning handouts in designing
the proposal. He stated the DRB should follow guidelines that had already been established.
Mr. Howe stated he found himself biased with regard to the proposal and must abstain from commenting.
Mr. Livingston asked if the percentage of lot width coverage on the Sanborn maps was up to date. Planner Kozub responded that the map was based on development in 1948, but Staff had
walked the neighborhood and noted any front or side additions.
Chairperson pro tem Carpenter asked Planner Kozub to reiterate what was required of the DRB at that time. Planner Kozub replied Staff was requesting input from the DRB on the appropriateness
of the design within the context of the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Livingston stated he had always been fond of the northeast side of Bozeman due to the random character and the differences in historical style. He stated there seemed to be a gross
amount of unused space on the lot and the site was in a neighborhood that could handle a substantial amount of diversity. He stated the five foot setback tends to crowd the houses.
He stated he looked at the “street wall” (view of the front elevations of houses from the street) and how this proposal would affect the “street wall”. He stated the relationships
between features on the proposal and features on neighboring homes caused relief for the “street wall”. He added he did not have an objection to the five foot side yard setback and
he thought the gable being recessed and steeply sloped would not be a problem. He stated, overall, he did not have an objection to the proposal.
Mr. Thomas stated he liked the design and added a family in the 21st century was trying to accommodate themselves on a 19th century lot.
Chairperson pro tem Carpenter stated he liked the design, but Staff made legitimate points. He stated the applicant made a genuine effort to stay in keeping with the surrounding area.
He
stated he understood the concerns of Staff in the neighborhood, but thought that, in the end, it would be a good project for the city and for the neighborhood.
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.}
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
_____________________________________________
Randy Carpenter, Chairperson, pro tem
City of Bozeman Design Review Board