Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-10 Design Review Board Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2010 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:37 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 Randy Wall Keri Thorpe, Assistant Planner Bill Rea Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Michael Pentecost Visitors Present Sara Biddle Orion Thornton Carson Taylor ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 14, 2010 MOTION : Mr. Wall informally moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to open and continue the minutes of April 14, 2010 to the next meeting of the DRB. The informal motion carried 3-0. Mr. Rea stated he would not be attending the next meeting, but approved all sections in the April 14, 2010 minutes that began with Mr. Rea. ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. Wilbur Solar Panels COA/ADR (Thorpe) th 310 South 7 Avenue * A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the installation of solar panels on the existing flat roof, visible from the public right of way and within the Cooper Park Historic District. Assistant Planner Keri Thorpe presented the Staff memo noting Staff was uneasy with the proposal due to it not remaining in keeping with the Design Guidelines for the Conservation Overlay District. She stated the Historic Preservation Advisory Board had reviewed the proposal and had agreed with Staff. Sara Biddle and Orion Thornton, both from Independent Power Systems, joined the DRB. Ms. Biddle stated she had proposed a design change that had not been included in the packet materials; the angle of the array would be reduced, the panels would be moved back, and three rows of four would be installed instead of what was currently proposed. She directed the DRB to photos of the site with a cone on the roof to illustrate that the array would be shorter than the cone and the cone was barely visible. Mr. Wall asked if the tape measure depicted the angle of the array. Mr. Thornton responded it did represent the angle of the array and represented what it 1 Design Review Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 would look like across the street from the sidewalk. Ms. Biddle stated there would be a large tree blocking most of the view of the array from the sidewalk during the summer months. Mr. Thornton stated that normally the arrays would be flush to the roof, but the house required an angled array set up. Mr. Rea asked the angles involved. Ms. Biddle noted those angles on the rendering. Mr. Rea asked why the other section of roof would not work. Ms. Biddle responded there was too much shade in the other location and the solar exposure was not as good. Mr. Rea asked if the neighbors to the south would have a view of the array. Mr. Thornton responded the neighbors to the north would be of more concern as the rear of the array was not as visually appealing. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost asked Planner Thorpe to clarify that part of the roof was an addition placed more recently and if the Historic Inventory had been done after the roof had been modified. Planner Thorpe responded Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost was correct. Mr. Rea stated he thought the new proposal for the array would be better as the angle had been modified. He stated he could understand the problems with using the other portion of roof. He stated he was supportive of the solar array as amended. He stated he was wondering about the afternoon sun due to the height of the boulevard trees. Mr. Thornton stated there was possible potential on the back roof, but the size of the space would not accommodate the minimum system size; they would look at it a little more, but some panels would have to be placed on the roof and the owner would have to be consulted before the decision could be made. Mr. Rea stated he supported the amended proposal more than the original proposal; he added he was concerned with the neighbors not having been noticed. Mr. Wall stated it was too bad that the owners were not in attendance. He stated the structure was contributing within a historic district which meant more stringent review and regulatory methods. He stated the roof was unaesthetic at best and when the piece of nonconforming structure was touched, it should be brought into conformance. He stated he was a proponent of solar panels but when the solar array was proposed for a nonconforming roof, the process got tough; he suggested the roof be constructed conforming prior to the installation of the panels. He stated there was an issue of aesthetics especially in a historic district; he could not support the proposal because they were intending to change something that already did not fit. He stated sustainability and economics did not really fit in DRB review and recommended the applicant approach the City Commission for review of the proposal. He suggested the neighbors be contacted and letters of support be obtained prior to the City Commission meeting. He suggested the applicant research the building permit history for the site; if they could demonstrate the roof form had been approved by the City it would go a long way toward helping convince the City Commission. He stated he agreed with Mr. Rea’s assessment of the appearance of the roof. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost stated he agreed with Mr. Rea and Mr. Wall, but he would venture that there may have been a building permit and the addition was not inappropriate at the time. He stated what was being proposed was good, but his suspicion was that there would not be less, but more proposals for solar arrays. He stated he was supportive of the fact that the owner was heading in an energy efficient direction, but his concerns were that the proposal was adding insult to injury. He stated he was supportive of the overall idea, but he had a difficult decision due to what the house looked like. 2 Design Review Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 Mr. Rea stated the drawing showed a panel to the extreme north side of the roof and asked if it could be eliminated and the panels more centrally located. Ms. Biddle responded the panels needed to be separated appropriately, but at 25 degrees instead of 35 degrees the panels could be closer. Mr. Thornton stated they would need time to think about how to get the array as low profile as possible. Mr. Rea stated the applicant’s came across as being very credible and willing to work with the City to find solution. He stated he did find the proposal would increase the nonconformity of the roof form, he thought the amended plan would do enough to reduce the visual impact of the array, he thought the mass and scale from the street would not be affected, and he would like to forward to the Planning Director that the neighbors should be contacted to obtain their comments regarding installation of the array. He stated he thought the roof form was so odd now that it did not bother him as much that the solar panels would be there. Mr. Wall stated he felt the solar panels would greater emphasize the inappropriate roof form, he thought the visual impact of the array would be obvious, he would abstain from commenting on the scale and mass, and he felt that it would be more politically neutral to send the proposal to the City Commission; he added buy-in from the neighbors would be key. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost stated he thought the array would greater emphasize the inappropriate roof form, the amended proposal had reduced the visual impact, he did not think the scale or massing would be affected, and he concurred with Mr. Rea that the Planning Director should be told and the neighbors should be contacted. Planner Thorpe suggested submitting the amended proposal to see if Staff was alright with the array as amended. Mr. Thornton stated they would be amenable to taking the time to investigate other options. He added that Independent Power Systems had been in business in Bozeman since 1996 and these issues were crucial to their business surviving; he appreciated their input. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost asked if there was a way to engage an architect or designer to integrate the panels into some sort of roof form to provide for higher design standards; it would reinforce the idea that the arrays would be proposed all the time. Mr. Wall stated the flat surface made it accommodating for the installation of solar panels, but on the other hand, the roof design was making the proposal difficult. Mr. Rea stated there were far worse things that could happen on that roof. 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.} Commission Taylor thanked the DRB for making the time to meet with the Commission on Monday, May 3, 2010. He suggested the DRB think about what they wanted to see from the City Commission or what could be provided to the Board; the definition of their different roles. He stated there were things the DRB seemed to want the Commission known such as the distinction between personal taste and aesthetics. Mr. Rea stated the Board did not let personal taste cloud their judgment with regard to the review of proposals. 3 Design Review Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 ITEM 5.ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:28 p.m. ________________________________ Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Pro Tem City of Bozeman Design Review Board 4 Design Review Board Minutes – April 28, 2010