HomeMy WebLinkAboutFrost-Kerin Administrative Project Decision Appeal Application.pdf1
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Allyson C. Bristor, Associate Planner
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Frost/Kerin Administrative Project Decision Appeal No. C-10004
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2010
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission denies the Frost/Kerin appeal based on findings
that the Donahoe garage project (No. Z-10122B) complies with the “Standards for Certificates of
Appropriateness” (Section 18.28.050 BMC).
Staff Recommended Motion: Having reviewed the application materials, heard public
comment, and considered all of the information presented, I move to deny the Frost/Kerin
Administrative Project Decision Appeal application No. C-10004, incorporating by reference
the findings included in the staff memo and the staff recommendation.
BACKGROUND: On May 20, 2010, the Department of Planning received a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) application from Patrick Donahoe, the owner of the property addressed as 613
South 6th Avenue. The COA application requested the demolition of an existing, detached, 10’ x 17’
garage and the new construction of a detached, 20’ x 24’ garage in relatively the same location as the
existing garage. The COA application was reviewed by Planning Staff under the applicable provisions
of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance (Title 18 of the Bozeman Municipal Code). These
provisions included the “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness” (Section 18.28.050 BMC).
Overall, Staff found the COA application as historically appropriate for the Cooper Park Historic
District and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Furthermore, Staff found the COA
application to follow the applicable guidelines of the City’s Design Guidelines for Historic
Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Conditional approval for the
Donahoe COA application was recommended by the Department of Planning on June 9, 2010.
Included in the recommended conditions of approval for the COA was a requirement to establish a
zero lot line agreement between the property owners of 609 and 613 South 6th Avenue. This
agreement was necessary due to the fact that the proposed location of the new garage was less than the
required side yard setback from the northern property line. The property addressed as 609 South 6th
Avenue is the northern adjacent property to 613 South 6th Avenue. A copy of the recorded zero lot
agreement, signed by Mr. Donahoe and the property owners of 609 South 6th Avenue, Rick Kerin and
91
2
Mary Frost, was submitted to the Department of Planning on July 12, 2010. Staff is unsure what
specific information pertaining to the new garage design was delivered to Mr. Kerin and Ms. Frost
when the zero lot line agreement was requested by Mr. Donahoe. Through several verbal
conservations, Mr. Donahoe stated a copy of the proposed building’s elevations and plans were shown
to the adjacent property owners. The Department of Planning approved a building permit for the
Donahoe Garage COA application on July 12, 2010.
On September 27, 2010, the Department of Planning was contacted by Ms. Frost. She issued a
complaint against the ongoing construction of the new detached garage at 613 South 6th Avenue,
because she believed the construction was not in compliance with the approved plans. The City’s
Code Enforcement Officer, Vicki Hasler, visited the construction site and recognized that the
construction work did not appear to comply with the Donahoe Garage COA approved plans. A
“Violation Notice” and “Stop Work Order” was issued by the Department of Planning on September
27, 2010. A correction to the violation was requested to occur no later than September 28, 2010.
Planning Staff immediately met with Mr. Donahoe and his contractor Greg Vidmar on September 28,
2010 to discuss the stop work order on his new garage. Staff, property owner and contractor
recognized that the ongoing construction did not comply with the original approved COA materials.
Mr. Vidmar agreed to submit revised building elevations and plans accurately depicting the
construction that was occurring as an amendment request to the original COA file. Those revised
materials were received by the Department of Planning on September 29, 2010.
On October 6, 2010, Planning Staff met with Mr. Kerin and Ms. Frost and discussed their concerns
related to Mr. Donahoe’s new garage construction. Their concerns were primarily about the extreme
difference in size between Mr. Donahoe’s new garage and their adjacent detached garage, the mass and
scale of the new garage relative to the surrounding structures, and their concerns that the new
construction would negatively impact their property value. Staff also reviewed with Mr. Kerin and
Ms. Frost the applicable code provisions for all COA applications and the process for amending an
approved COA. In conclusion, Staff made copies of the applicable sections of the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance for procedures to appeal an Administrative Design Review decision, so if they
chose to move forward with an appeal they would know how to do so.
Planning Staff reviewed the Donahoe Garage COA Amendment application materials. The materials
were reviewed under the provisions of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance (Title 18 of the
Bozeman Municipal Code), including the “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness” (Section
18.28.050 BMC). Planning and Building Staff conducted a site visit to the property on October 13,
2010 to take photographs of the partially built garage and site and to check the measurements of the
partially built garage. The following measurements of the partially built garage were obtained during
the visit:
• Ridge height from grade: 18’ – 4”
• First floor interior wall height: 10’
• Height to the top of roof rafters: 13’
• Width: 21’-1”
• Depth: 24’-2”
• Grade to first floor level: 9”
• Distance from house: 23’-6”
The following measurement of the existing house was obtained:
92
3
• Ridge height from grade: 18’-11”
The following measurement of the neighbor’s garage located at 609 South 6th Avenue was obtained:
• Ridge height from grade: 10’-3”
Planning Staff reviewed the revised garage drawings for compliance with the Certificate of
Appropriateness Standards in Section 18.28.050 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. These standards
include the City’s Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District. A summary of Staff’s review findings are as follows:
• Height: According to the noted measurements, the revised garage increased only six inches (or
half a foot). According to the recorded measurements obtained from staff’s site visit, which
measures the height of the garage at 4 inches higher than what’s depicted in the drawings, this
increases to 10 inches. While the height of the garage increased with the revisions, the
resulting ridge height is it is still less than the ridge height of the principal house. (Please note:
Staff doesn’t determine subordinate character solely on a building’s height. It is a combination
of the building’s height, footprint square footage and location on the site that can contribute to
its character. Analysis of these other aspects of whether the garage is subordinate to the
principal structure is provided below.)
• Proportion of doors and windows: The proposed wall-to-door/window ratio as appropriate
for a secondary, garage structure. Further, the proposed architectural detailing of the windows
and doors (including garage) to be similar to those used traditionally in the surrounding area.
• Relationship of building masses and spaces: As recommended in the design guidelines, the
garage is placed to the rear of the lot and is no more than one-and-one-half story in height. The
garage has a minimal impact on the character of the street because of its rear lot location. The
placement of the garage close to the shared north property line is appropriate because it
continues the original garage position for the two properties (613 and 609 South 6th Avenue)
that share a driveway. The garage can be partially viewed from the street because it is slightly
to the side of the principal house, but its visual impacts are minimized because it is
significantly set back from the principal house’s front plane. Overall, Staff finds this location
as subordinate in character.
The garage has significantly increased in size from the original small garage in order to
accommodate a vehicle and supply additional storage space, which is typical of contemporary
garage construction. This type of change to secondary structures typically has more impact on
the character of the rear alley than the street. Staff examined the alley and found several
detached structures located close to, if not directly on, the alley right-of-way lines. None are
larger than one-and-one-half story in building height. The proposed garage is taller in height
than the other structures, but it is still less than one-and-one-half story in height. Therefore, the
garage falls into the acceptable range of building height for the accessory structures in this
alley. The proposed garage also is appropriate because it keeps the vehicle access to the front,
which is the pattern of all of the detached structures along the alley (i.e. there are no driveways
off the alley). Lastly, the 6-foot setback from the alley right-of-way line helps to minimize the
building massing of the proposed garage. The taller garage is not located right on the alley
right-of-way lines as it smaller neighbors are located. This location helps to create a more
subordinate character for the garage.
• Roof shape: The proposed garage roof pitch and shape matches that of the principal house,
which Staff finds as appropriate.
• Scale: See the above discussion under “Relationship of building masses and spaces.”
93
4
• Directional expression: The proposed horizontal lap siding on the garage, as well as the
pronounced belly band at the top of the first floor, helps to emphasize a horizontal direction for
the garage, which helps to minimize the building height.
• Architectural details: Staff finds the proposed architectural materials and details, including the
siding, trim, banding, shingles, windows, fascia, outlookers, and doors, as appropriate because
they are similar to the traditional materials seen in the surrounding area.
• Concealment of nonperiod appurtenances: Staff thinks the establishment of a landscape
buffer at the top of the foundation level to help disguise the cut and fill for the new
construction. This foundation landscaping was required to be shown on the site plan as a
condition of approval of the COA.
• Materials and color schemes: See the comments under “Architectural details.”
Overall, based on the above analysis and findings, Staff concluded that the amended COA application
is historically appropriate for the Cooper Park Historic District and the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District. Furthermore, Staff concludes that the COA application complied with the applicable
guidelines of the City’s Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District publication. Based on these conclusions, Staff finds that the Donahoe
garage project (No. Z-10122B) complies with the “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness”
(Section 18.28.050 BMC).
Conditional approval for the Donahoe COA amendment application (File No. Z-10122B) was
recommended by the Department of Planning on October 21, 2010. Included in the recommended
conditions was a requirement to submit a revised site plan showing a landscape buffer around the new
garage’s foundation. The revised site plan was submitted to the Department of Planning on November
1, 2010, and was determined to comply with the condition of approval.
On October 28, 2010, an electronic notice of intent to appeal from Ms. Frost and Mr. Kerin was
received via email by the City Clerk’s office. A complete appeal application was hand delivered to the
City Clerk’s office on October 29, 2010.
At their November 15, 2010 public hearing, the City Commission requested the Frost/Kerin Appeal
application be placed on the November 29, 2010 Commission agenda for consideration, unless the
required minimum public noticing time period could not be met. If the minimum noticing could not be
met, the Commission requested the appeal application be reviewed at the next earliest scheduled public
hearing. Staff interpreted this motion to signify a waiver of the requirement to transfer the entire
record of the appeal application to the Commission no less than fourteen days prior to the appeal
hearing.
Staff recognized that the minimum time period for public notice could not be met with the November
29, 2010 public hearing date. Therefore, Staff assigned the project to the next earliest public hearing
date of December 6, 2010.
Ms. Frost notified the City Clerk’s office on November 20, 2010 and stated that she has a conflict with
that proposed public hearing date of December 6, 2010. She respectfully requested that the appeal
application be scheduled on a date that she we can be in attendance. While Ms. Frost is not able to
attend the December 6th appeal hearing, Mr. Kerin will be present to present their appeal application.
Therefore, Staff is moving forward with the December 6th hearing date.
In conclusion, Planning Staff recommends the City Commission deny the Frost/Kerin appeal on the
grounds that the Donahoe garage project (No. Z-10122B) is found to comply with the “Standards for
94
5
Certificates of Appropriateness” (Section 18.28.050 BMC).
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None.
ALTERNATIVES: Approve the appeal application with revised findings that the Donohoe garage
project (No. A-10122B) does not comply with the “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness”
(Section 18.28.050 BMC).
.
FISCAL EFFECTS: None identified.
Attachments: Appellant Application Materials
Donahoe Garage COA Materials
(#Z-10122 & #Z-10122B)
Staff’s drawing comparing the Donahoe
garage to the existing Kerin/Frost
garage
Memo date: November 24, 2010
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146