HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-10-10 Design Review Board Minutes
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Vice Chairperson Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:46 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 Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner
Walter Banziger Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Michael Pentecost
Randy Wall
Mark Hufstetler
Visitors Present
Brian Caldwell
Britta Caldwell
Carson Taylor
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2010
MOTION:
Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to approve the minutes of February
The motion carried 4-0.
10, 2010 as presented.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost reversed the order of Items 3 and 4.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Caldwell SHR Demo COA/ADR #Z-10021
(Kramer)
601 South Black Avenue
* A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the demolition of
the existing single-family residence and the construction of a new single-
family residence with related site improvements.
Assistant Planner Courtney Kramer presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was for a
contributing structure based on the Historic Inventory. She stated the intent was to keep the
original house and connect a modern addition to the structure with a breezeway. She stated the
tower would be roughly the same size as the footprint of the original house. She noted the
proposal was for construction and rehabilitation in phases. She stated the economic feasibility of
rehabbing the existing structure indicated it would be a bad investment. She stated Staff’s
review had been more focused on the design portion of the proposal and the ultimate decision
would be made by the City Commission. She stated the proposed porch would come within a
few feet of where the existing house ends on the east side of the lot. She stated the City
Commission would review the proposal at their March 29, 2010 meeting. She stated Staff’s
1
Design Review Board Minutes – March 10, 2010
principal concerns were the proposed materials, the window shapes, and the setback from the
street (not observing the pattern of existing setbacks).
Chairperson Livingston joined the DRB.
Brian and Britta Caldwell joined the DRB.
Mr. Wall asked if the setback was too great. Planner Kramer responded that it was greater than
those existing in the neighborhood.
Mr. Caldwell stated they had an ambitious first phase with the two story addition at the rear of
the property. He stated the addition would contain a master bedroom with a full basement. He
stated the front structure had at first been planned to be rehabilitate, but the original concept
could not be proceeded with due to the denial of financing from Freddy Mack and Fanny Mae, so
they only have $30,000.00 to proceed with the project. He stated the square footage was half as
much as what had been originally proposed. He stated the discussion in the Staff Report had
indicated concerns from Staff regarding the massing. He stated the rationale to face the gable to
Alderson Street instead of South Black Avenue was to provide the primary view with the second
story loft to create a balance between the tower and the rest of the site. He stated that given their
budget, the proposed windows were vinyl clad and the proposed siding detail was intended to
mask the window framing. He stated they were excited to build the project and had been
building homes together for half of their married life. Mrs. Caldwell added she would be glad to
be finished building homes.
Mr. Banziger asked if the site was on a corner lot. Mr. Caldwell responded Mr. Banziger was
correct. Mr. Banziger asked the setbacks of adjacent houses. Mr. Caldwell responded the house
across the street was ~75 feet from the right of way; the rest of the houses were setback in the 30
foot range. He added the existing front porch line was on the existing drip line. Mr. Banziger
asked if the pattern of setbacks had been observed. Mr. Caldwell responded that the other homes
in the area were not set back as far as he was proposing. Planner Kramer directed the DRB to a
rendering of the Sanborn Maps depicting the previous building location and layout. Mr.
Caldwell stated they felt the building massing addressed the design guidelines through the way in
which the gable form addressed the street; he added that the proposed patio would place the
structure at the drip line. Mr. Banziger asked the color and material of the water proofing
membrane behind the proposed wood siding and stripping. Mr. Caldwell responded it would be
all one color of matting that was basically a house wrap material in black.
Mr. Wall asked if there were project specific reasons that the financing was not acquired. Mr.
Caldwell responded the financing had been denied because the new construction was found not
to be in keeping with the existing structure. Mr. Wall asked if financing would be available now
if they needed it. Mr. Caldwell responded they would be using cash and would not need
financing.
Mr. Hufstetler asked if the construction of the tower had been reviewed by the DRB. Planner
Kramer responded the tower proposal had not been reviewed by the DRB. Mr. Hufstetler stated
the tower presented a very different appearance when compared to the new and wondered if the
design had been reviewed against the Secretary of Interior Standards. Planner Kramer responded
2
Design Review Board Minutes – March 10, 2010
the original proposal had been reviewed against those Standards. Mr. Hufstetler asked if Mr.
Caldwell had investigated proposing a design more in keeping with the original structure. Mr.
Caldwell responded they had felt the original concept of the site had been maintained, though
they had achieved the concept in a different way. Mr. Hufstetler stated the front deck area
seemed to be in contrast to the surrounding area and asked if alternative design possibilities had
been investigated. Mr. Caldwell responded their idea had been a sort of separate pavilion with
recessed gutters in the trim detailing and the flat roof had been included to pick up the design of
the tower; he had used cues from the neighborhood in the design of the proposal.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the color of the tower was orange right now. Mr. Caldwell
responded it was currently gray, but would rust to an orange color. Vice Chairperson Pentecost
verified it would be a cor-ten color. Mr. Caldwell clarified that it would be more rust colored
than orange. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if there was a requirement other than a guideline
stating the setback pattern should be maintained. Planner Kramer responded there was no
requirement for the setback pattern, but a recommendation from the design guidelines. Vice
Chairperson Pentecost asked if there were guidelines dictating which architectural feature must
be built to the existing setback pattern. Planner Kramer responded there were no guidelines
dictating which architectural feature would be built to the existing setback pattern. Vice
Chairperson Pentecost asked what would be included in phase 3 of the construction. Mr.
Caldwell responded it would be a garage, the ADU had been foregone, and the garage would
have a workshop space above. Mrs. Caldwell added that the removal of the ADU was due to the
parents coming along with it.
Chairperson Livingston called for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the public
comment period was closed.
Mr. Wall suggested the Board go to page 11 of the Staff Report and address the four items set
forth by Planner Kramer. He stated he liked the overall shape, form, and massing and it felt as
though the Board was more faced with the demolition of the existing structure. He stated the
whole procedure would have been different if the applicant were not applying for the demolition
and would instead have been reviewed and approved by Staff. He stated he thought that the
proposed setback conformed with what existed. He stated he liked the contrast of forms and the
one thing he liked about the proposed gable was that the heights would be similar; the dormer
would take away from the proposal. He stated he did not like vinyl windows either, but liked the
avant-garde way Mr. Caldwell had taken those on. He suggested there was already a statement
on the site with the construction of the tower and added that the form and massing complimented
what already existed. He stated time would tell if the structure was found to be appropriate for
the neighborhood; it was a bold interpretation of the design guidelines and it complemented
itself. He stated he was supportive of the proposal overall.
Mr. Banziger stated he thought the proposed would fit into the overall context of the
neighborhood and the setback pattern; diversity should be included. He stated the roof form and
front gable as proposed were appropriate and a more historic approach would not be appropriate
for the site; he had no objection to the slope facing Black Avenue. He stated he was also not a
fan of vinyl windows, but how the applicant had dealt with the concealing/downplaying of those
windows would be appropriate. He stated what he liked about the older historic neighborhoods
was their diverse and eclectic design; the proposal reflected the eclectic design within the
3
Design Review Board Minutes – March 10, 2010
neighborhood as it would constantly be evolving. He stated he was overall supportive of the
proposal and found it to be unique and interesting.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he was the token historian of the group. He stated he did not believe the
context of the neighborhood had not been maintained with the proposal. He stated he concurred
with Staff that the setback pattern for the neighborhood should be maintained. He stated he saw
the proposal as more post industrial than contemporary architecture. He stated he thought it was
a better design before when the original structure was proposed to be kept. He stated he found
the gable design to be extremely harsh amongst a streetscape that was not harsh; he found the
proposal to be more in keeping with the north side of Bozeman. He stated he concurred with
Staff regarding the appropriateness of the overall mass and he did not think the addition of a
dormer would help it. He stated he felt obligated to express affection for the old house though he
had never been inside; he questioned the analysis of the end of life of the house though he
understood economic constraints had been part of it. He stated he was not supportive of the
project as proposed.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the applicant was building the house with conservation
efforts. Mr. Caldwell responded they were including conservation efforts such as super
insulation, passive home design through the alleviation of thermal bridges, less square footage,
and SIP insulated concrete walls for the basement. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the vinyl
windows had been chosen due to cost or if conservation efforts had been made with the proposed
windows. Mr. Caldwell responded they had investigated conservation efforts with regard to the
windows, but the cost was too great.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he did not think the proposal fit in with the surrounding
neighborhood. He stated he had no problem with the proposed setback. He stated he did not
think the proposed roof form should be a front gable as it would appear to have been thrown on
to fit better and would not be appropriate. He stated he thought the proposed windows were
appropriate for the site; he disagreed that the old window design should be included. He stated
he thought a disservice would be done if the applicant tried to take a pure, clean form and tweak
it to make it look old; he suggested the bold statement that had already been made and should be
maintained. He stated he did not have a problem with the design, massing, form, or scale. He
stated the main point had not been addressed; the demolition of the existing contributing
structure. He stated he did not think it was appropriate to tear down the existing contributing
structure and the more that were removed, the fewer contributing structures in Bozeman. He
added that he had looked at the house to purchase and had declined to buy it due to some issues
that would cause it to be a money pit.
Chairperson Livingston stated he did not think the proposal fit in with the neighborhood context,
he liked the roof form and windows as proposed, and he did not see a problem with the proposed
setback. He stated he liked the proposal overall. He stated he had always been consistent with
regard to comments that erring on the side of saving historic structures due to the status of the
historic survey for Bozeman. He stated his feeling was that it would set a bad precedent for the
City. He stated ¾ of the problems with his house were likely the same problems he was facing
with his property and it was just buying an old house. He stated the Board had seen projects
where people had let the house fall apart entirely to propagate the elimination of the existing
structure to provide for new construction. He stated the applicant should have known better as
4
Design Review Board Minutes – March 10, 2010
he is an architectural professional, but he could also see the problems the applicant was facing
with regard to repairs. He stated he thought the project would fit in well with the neighborhood,
but he was having a hard time allowing another historic structure to be demolished.
Mr. Caldwell stated the historic registry indicated the only historic relevance was that the
structure was still located on the site. He stated its historic relevance was questionable as it was
then much like a mobile home would be now. Mrs. Caldwell stated the application was not
meant to be seen to orchestrate the demolition of the house; they had originally intended to
preserve the structure. Chairperson Livingston responded he had only made the comment due to
previous proposals with well meaning intentions for preservation.
Mr. Hufstetler added that, as the token historian, he would argue strenuously that the house could
be salvaged as it had a nice level of integrity and was one of the pioneers in that part of
Bozeman.
Mr. Taylor stated it would be inappropriate for him to say anything as the proposal would
ultimately be reviewed by the Commission. He appreciated the time everyone had spent on the
proposal.
MOTION
: Mr. Wall moved, Chairperson Livingston seconded, to forward a recommendation
of approval to the City Commission for demolition of the contributing structure.
Mr. Wall stated the comments that were given by Board members were contained in the minutes;
the real issue at hand was to allow the demolition of the contributing structure.
The motion failed 1-4
with Chairperson Livingston, Vice Chairperson Pentecost, Mr. Banziger,
and Mr. Hufstetler voting in opposition.
Mr. Wall stated it was evident that a lot of work had gone into the project and Mr. Caldwell’s
reputation was well known. He stated the Board had agreed that the proposed design of the new
construction was well done and he was frustrated because of all the talk of consistency when he
was left out to dry on the F&H Building at the last meeting. He stated he was also frustrated
over major concerns that he had over the project at College Street and Grand Avenue when a
post modern interpretation of a building had been plunked into a neighborhood where the corner
was most visible given the use of the Story Mansion. He stated he was frustrated with the calling
he saw the Board having when consistency was decided on a case to case basis. Chairperson
Livingston responded that the Staff Report had indicated the structure was foregone and not
salvageable. Mr. Banziger added that he would vote in favor of saving the structure if it were
possible, but if it was a foregone conclusion that the building was unsalvageable, he would
support its removal. Mr. Caldwell responded it was incumbent upon him to show that the
structure was beyond its economic lifespan and he should have addressed in the beginning the
extent of outside third party understanding of the structure; they had worked with Nishkian
Monks with regard to preservation. Mr. Wall suggested documents from Nishkian Monks be
included in the City Commission materials.
Mr. Caldwell stated that for the record, he apologized for his 30 minute tardiness, and apologized
that engineering reports had not been included in the packets to the DRB. He stated he had
5
Design Review Board Minutes – March 10, 2010
presented the information in the way the UDO required; the square footage of rehabbing the
building would be twice as much. He stated he would have prepared the demolition
documentation if it were a required part of his submittal materials. He asked the Board to
provide comments on the design.
MOTION
: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval
to the City Commission for the proposed design as set forth as part of the submittal materials.
Mr. Banziger suggested the inclusion of the language “exclusive of demolition”.
AMENDED MOTION
: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the proposed design as set forth as part
of the submittal materials exclusive of demolition.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he felt the design comments had been included in the minutes.
He suggested if a structural engineer were hired to tell someone the building was bad, the
building would be bad. He stated he did not think he was qualified to determine if a building
should be demolished.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he concurred with Mr. Pentecost and when a house was purchased as a
possible rehabilitation project it was a “buyer beware situation”. He suggested the applicant’s
reputation in the community should not be considered during the review of the project and he
STRONGLY felt the Historic Preservation Advisory Board should have reviewed the proposal.
Mr. Wall stated he had seen projects go both ways and it was all fine and dandy to stick to your
guns, but it seemed each of the proposals was reviewed on a site to site basis. He thought it was
high and mighty of the Board to require the repair of the structure.
Mr. Caldwell stated money was a very real issue and that he should have known better than to
buy the property was an unfair statement. He stated he thought the issue had been discussed
enough and suggested he had heard the Board’s comments.
Mr. Hufstetler stated the Board was not the advocate of the applicant but of the City of Bozeman
and the efforts of historic preservation.
The motion carried 4-1
with Mr. Hufstetler voting in opposition.
ITEM 3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS (Opened and continued from 2/24/10.)
Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Wall seconded, to maintain the current slate of officers. The motion
carried 5-0.
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.
6
Design Review Board Minutes – March 10, 2010
ITEM 6.ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board
7
Design Review Board Minutes – March 10, 2010