HomeMy WebLinkAboutH6 Hand
Report compiled on December 6th 2006
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Hand 2nd Single-Household SP/COA #Z-06143
MEETING DATE: Monday, December 11th 2006 at 6:00 PM.
BACKGROUND: A formal Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness application with
deviations was submitted by Mr. Hand on October 27, 2006. The application is requesting the new
construction of a two-story, single-household residence with an attached one-car garage at 718
North Tracy Avenue. A rear cabin exists to the rear of the lot. One deviation is requested for this
application, from Section 18.16.040, “Lot Area and Width,” to allow two single-household
residences on a lot less than 10,000 square feet in lot area (5,000 square feet required for each
residence).
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: The Department of Planning is not aware of any unresolved issues for
the proposed development at this time.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission approve the Hand 2nd Single-Household
Residence Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness application with deviations (#Z-06261) as
conditioned by Planning Staff.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The Department of Planning is not aware of any fiscal effects for the
proposed development at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please feel free to email Allyson Bristor at abristor@bozeman.net if you have any
questions prior to the public hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________ _________________________________
Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
HAND 2ND SHR SP/COA/DEV FILE #Z-06261
#Z-06261 Hand 2nd SHR SP/COA/DEV Staff Report 1
Item: Zoning Application #Z-06261, a Site Plan and Certificate of
Appropriateness application with one deviation, to allow the
new construction of a two-story, single-household residence
with an attached one-car garage at 718 North Tracy Avenue.
The subject property is zoned as “R-4” (Residential High
Density District) and is located within the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District.
Property Owner: Lucian Hand
434 S. Black Avenue, Apt. 3
Bozeman, MT 59715
Representative: Fat Cat Design
c/o Rob Dougherty
PO Box 7055
Bozeman, MT 59771
Date & Time: City Commission Public Hearing: Monday, December 11, 2006
@ 6:00 pm, in the Community Room, Gallatin County
Courthouse, 311 West Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715
Report By: Allyson C. Bristor, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property is located on the 700-block of North Tracy Avenue, between Cottonwood and
Aspen Streets, and is legally described as Lots 21 & 22, Block 39, Imes Addition, City of Bozeman,
Gallatin County, Montana. The property is 7,050 square feet in lot area (50’ x 141’), zoned as “R-4”
(Residential High Density District) and located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District.
Please refer to the vicinity map on the following page.
#Z-06261 Hand 2nd SHR SP/COA/DEV Staff Report 2
BACKGROUND & PROPOSAL
Representative Robert Dougherty met with Planning Staff members (Allyson Bristor and Brian
Krueger) on August 22, 2006, to preliminary present a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
application for 718 North Tracy Avenue. The lot contains an existing cabin, which is located to the
rear of the lot and is approximately 510 square feet in living area. Planning Staff made several
recommendations of redesign to the representative, to ensure that the new construction would abide
by the Bozeman Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation & the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
and be historically appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. Staff also informed the applicant
that the rear cabin’s kitchen must be removed prior to the construction of the new single-household,
so that it would be considered a guest house (as defined in the Unified Development Ordinance)
rather than a separate single-household residence.
A formal COA application was submitted to the Department of Planning by the representative on
August 25, 2006 (original design a part of file #Z-06207). Additional materials were submitted with
the design plans, but no change in the design had occurred to reflect Staff’s initial concerns. After
further Staff review, the application was denied by the Department of Planning on September 29,
2006 (a copy of the denial letter is attached with this report). The reasons for denial were: 1) the
proposed building is not arranged on its site in a way similar to historic buildings in the area, 2) the
visual impact of proposed surface parking is not minimized and is predominant, 3) the proposed
front yard is not similar in character to its neighbors, 4) the building mass dominates the 50-foot lot
width, 5) the proposed façade is not similar in dimension to those seen traditionally in the
neighborhood and 6) the visual impacts of the garage area maximized rather than minimized because
its front plane is two stories in height.
A modified design was presented to the Department of Planning on October 2, 2006. Changes
proposed to the original design included the following: 1) adding 3’ to the front yard setback, 2)
adding a balcony and door above the garage door and 3) reducing the width of the two main
building elements to 15’ each, so to provide 7’ side yard setbacks. After a meeting with the Planning
Director, Andy Epple, the representative and property owner was informed that conditional
approval could be received with the proposed modifications and thereafter, a building permit would
be approved if “the rear structure will be modified as necessary to ensure its status as a guest house
#Z-06261 Hand 2nd SHR SP/COA/DEV Staff Report 3
(as defined in the UDO)” (a copy of the letter from Andy Epple, dated October 13, 2006 is attached
with this report). Conditional approval was officially issued by the Department of Planning October
20, 2006, and included a condition to remove the kitchen from the rear cabin prior to building
permit issuance (a copy of the letter from Allyson Bristor, dated October 20, 2006, is attached with
this report).
On October 24, 2006, the property owner, Lucian Hand, met informally with Planning Staff at the
front counter (Allyson Bristor and Chris Saunders). Mr. Hand expressed concern about the
condition to remove the kitchen unit in the rear cabin. He did not understand the definition of
guest house and thought that the kitchen was able to remain in the cabin. Staff explained that if the
kitchen remains, it is considered a separate single-household residence rather than guest quarters.
Mr. Hand inquired to whether or not the rear cabin could be considered an accessory dwelling unit
(ADU). After further Staff consideration, the Planning Director informed the applicant that the rear
cabin can not be considered an ADU, and if the kitchen remains, a new COA application with
deviations must be filed with the Department of Planning.
A formal COA application with deviations was submitted by Mr. Hand on October 27, 2006, with
further submittal materials received on November 14, 2006. This is application is the subject of this
report. The design represented in the deviation application showed all of the changes previously
made by the representative, EXCEPT for the 3’ addition to the supplied front yard setback. The
application is requesting the new construction of a two-story, single-household residence with an
attached one-car garage at 718 North Tracy Avenue. As already stated, a rear cabin exists to the rear
of the lot. One deviation is requested for this application, from Section 18.16.040, “Lot Area and
Width,” to allow two single-household residences on a lot less than 10,000 square feet in lot area
(5,000 square feet required for each residence).
The Development Review Committee (DRC) conducted their review of the project proposal on
November 29, 2006, and recommended approval of the project pending John Alston’s review of a
revised site plan depicting the service lines. Mr. Alston reviewed the plans with the owner and
representative on December 6, 2006 and submitted recommended conditions of approval for
Planning Staff to include with this report. Administrative Design Review (ADR) Staff completed
the review of the application on December 6th and recommends several design conditions of
approval in this report. This application does not meet the thresholds established in Section
18.62.010.A.2.e of the UDO to warrant review by the Design Review Board.
ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES
The subject property is zoned “R-4” (Residential High Density District). As stated in the Bozeman
Unified Development Ordinance, the intent of the “R-4” residential district is to provide for high
density residential development through a variety of housing types within the City. This will provide
for a variety of compatible housing types to serve the varying needs of the community’s residents.
The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North: Single-Household Residence, zoned as “R-4;”
South: Three-Household Residence, zoned as “R-4;”
East: Three-Household Residence, zoned as “R-4;”
West: City park “Centennial Park,” zoned as “R-4.”
ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan designates this property as “Residential.” This category
designates places where the primary activity is urban density living quarters. Other uses which
#Z-06261 Hand 2nd SHR SP/COA/DEV Staff Report 4
complement residences are also acceptable such as parks, low intensity home based occupations, fire
stations, churches, and schools. The dwelling unit density expected within this classification varies.
Low density areas should have an average minimum density of six units per net acre. Medium
density areas should have an average minimum density of twelve units per net acre. High density
areas should have an average minimum density of eighteen units per net acre.
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 18.28.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness”
A. All work performed in completion of an approved Certificate of Appropriateness shall
be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Published 1995),
published by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural
Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services,
Washington, D.C. (available for review at the Department of Planning).
The Secretary of Interior Standards’ Guidelines are considered in the architectural design
review discussion below. The Guidelines focuses on the proposed construction and its
appropriateness for the surrounding neighborhood.
B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and
compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject
structures or properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, shall focus
upon the following:
1. Height;
The height of the new construction is visually diminished by dividing the residence into
two building “modules,” each with different heights. The two-story module, which
includes the garage, reaches 20’-6” in height and the one-story module to the south
reaches 14’-6”. The tallest point in the building is the barrel roof form which reaches
approximately 26’ in height.
2. Proportions of doors and windows;
The proposed ratio of wall-to-window is appropriate. As conditioned, ADR Staff is
requesting additional information on the color, material and brand of the proposed
window and door fixtures.
3. Relationship of building masses and spaces;
The proposed building mass, and its position on the lot, are ADR Staff’s largest
concerns with the project. Staff appreciates the applicant’s willingness to preserve the
original building on the site. However, Staff acknowledges that it is the existing cabin’s
rear location that forces the mass of the new building toward the front of the lot.
Historically, houses grew in size by expanding with the length of the lot rather than
maximizing the width of the lot. Traditional garage access off the rear alley is also
minimized because of the cabin location and instead, must be located off Tracy Avenue.
There are other houses a part of this block that also have parking in the front yard, but
Staff emphasizes that many of these examples are illegal and non-appropriate and should
#Z-06261 Hand 2nd SHR SP/COA/DEV Staff Report 5
not be the precedent for new construction to follow.
The proposed construction’s total building width of 36 feet far surpasses the average
building width seen on this block of North Tracy Avenue, which is 23 feet. Despite the
applicants’ intent to minimize the building width by a moderate change in building plane
and the division into two rectangular “modules,” the mass dominates the 50-foot lot
width. A building plane setback that is equal to the building module width would be
more appropriate. As conditioned, Staff is requiring the two-story module to be set back
from the front one-story module by 15 feet. This condition minimizes the visual
impacts of the garage.
4. Roof shape;
A couple of non-traditional roof shapes are proposed with the project, including a flat
and barrel roof. With conditions, Staff finds that both shapes are set back far enough
from the street that they are not detracting from the visual continuity of the street.
5. Scale;
The two-story scale of the garage module is inappropriate for the surrounding
neighborhood. To minimize the visual impact of the garage, Staff is requiring the two-
story module to be set back from the front one-story module by 15 feet.
6. Directional expression;
Staff finds the proposal heavy in massing for the front of the lot. However, the
representative adds appropriate design features that helps the building address its Tracy
Avenue frontage, including a sidewalk connection to the front of the house and a
centrally located front door.
7. Architectural details
The proposed construction is incorporating traditional materials, including stucco and
vertical wood siding. As conditioned, ADR Staff is requesting the two building modules
to be different colors of stucco. Staff is also conditioning the applicant to provide a
color and material palette of the proposed construction with Final Site Plan submittal.
8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment
As conditioned, the basement egress window wells shall be shielded by low-profile
landscaping and/or groundcover. However, no obstruction to the window well opening
shall occur. In addition, all mechanical equipment must be screened. Ground-mounted
equipment shall be screened from all views by either dense plant material or a solid wall.
Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be either fully screened by incorporating the
equipment into the roof form or be fully hidden behind a parapet wall.
9. Materials and color scheme
ADR Staff is conditioning the applicant to provide a color and material palette of the
proposed construction with Final Site Plan submittal.
C. Contemporary, nonperiod and innovative design of new structures and additions to
existing structures shall be encouraged when such new construction or additions do
#Z-06261 Hand 2nd SHR SP/COA/DEV Staff Report 6
not destroy significant historical, cultural or architectural structures, or their
components, and when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the
structure and the surrounding structures.
ADR Staff finds the design of the proposed construction, with conditions of approval, as
compatible with the foregoing elements of the surrounding residential neighborhood.
D. When applying the standards of subsections A-C, the review authority shall be
guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District which are hereby incorporated by this reference. When reviewing a
contemporary, non-period, or innovative design of new structures, or addition to
existing structure, the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for
the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to determine whether the proposal
is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures.
The Introduction, Chapters 2, 3 and the Appendix of the Bozeman Design Guidelines for
the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District apply to this project, as the project is new
infill and construction, as well as work on a “non-historically significant” property, in the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay.
Chapter 2: Streetscape: Continue the pattern of street trees in a block.
As conditioned by ADR Staff, the applicant shall supply boulevard trees for every 50 feet of
lot frontage. Boulevard trees shall be approved by the City Forester, Ryon Stover, by calling
582-3200.
Chapter 2: Building Form: Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from
the visual continuity of the street are discouraged.
Flat and barrel roof forms are not seen on this block of North Tracy Avenue, nor are they
seen in the greater northeast neighborhood area. With conditions, Staff finds that both
shapes are set back far enough from the street that they are not detracting from the visual
continuity of the street.
Chapter 2: Materials: Use building materials that appear similar to those used
traditionally in the area.
The proposed construction is incorporating traditional materials, including stucco and
vertical wood siding. As conditioned, ADR Staff is requesting the two building modules to
be different colors of stucco to help visually break the massing of the new construction.
Chapter 2: Parking: Minimize the visual impact of surface parking in residential
neighborhoods.
In the traditional neighborhood pattern, surface parking occurs to the rear of the lot and
utilizes alley access. The proposed construction is proposing a driveway area in the front
yard rather than the rear, placed in front of the garage. With the conditions of approval, the
garage is minimized by being set back 15 feet from the front building plane.
Chapter 3: Building Mass and Scale: Construct a new building to be similar in mass
and scale to those residences seen traditionally.
#Z-06261 Hand 2nd SHR SP/COA/DEV Staff Report 7
The proposed construction’s total building width of 36 feet far surpasses the average
building width seen on this block of North Tracy Avenue, which is 23 feet. Despite the
applicants’ intent to minimize the building width by a moderate change in building plane and
the division into two rectangular “modules,” the mass dominates the 50-foot lot width. A
building plane setback that is equal to the building module width would be more
appropriate. As conditioned, Staff is requiring the two-story module to be set back from the
front one-story module by 15 feet. This condition minimizes the visual impacts of the
garage.
Chapter 3: Secondary Structures: Locate a garage such that its visual impacts will be
minimized is encouraged.
As conditioned, Staff is requiring the two-story module to be set back from the front one-
story module by 15 feet. This condition minimizes the visual impacts of the garage.
Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from Underlying Zoning Requirements”
Section 18.28.070 specifies the required criteria for granting deviations from the underlying zoning
requirements. In the discussion below, ADR Staff has evaluated the applicant's request in light of
these criteria.
A. Modifications shall be more historically appropriate for the building and site in
question and the adjacent properties;
ADR Staff finds the addition of a second single-household residence as more historically
appropriate for the undersized site in question. The deviation for lot area will allow the cabin to
continue its existence as a very small single-household, which has been its use since its
construction, or movement to the site, in the 1930s. The deviation will also allow a new single-
household to fill a physical gap in the North Tracy Avenue streetscape. Because of the existing
cabin’s unique location in the rear of the lot, a large front yard setback exists, which is in direct
contrast to the historic pattern of the neighborhood block. With the conditions of approval, the
proposal of a single-household in the front of the lot is more historically appropriate for the site
rather than an empty yard. It will add pedestrian interest at the street level.
It is the determination of the Historic Preservation Office and ADR Staff that, with conditions
of approval, the project generally meets Criteria A of Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from
Underlying Zoning Requirements,” of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
B. Modifications will have minimal adverse effect on abutting properties or the
permitted uses thereof;
Because the cabin has existed on site since the 1930s, surface parking is already located off the
rear alley. This parking will remain with the proposed construction, while additional spaces are
supplied in the enclosed garage and front driveway. There is no shortage of parking for the
existing cabin and the proposed construction.
It is the determination of the Historic Preservation Office and ADR Staff that, with conditions
of approval, the project generally meets Criteria B of Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from
Underlying Zoning Requirements,” of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
C. Modifications shall assure the protection of the public health, safety and general
welfare.
#Z-06261 Hand 2nd SHR SP/COA/DEV Staff Report 8
It is the determination of the Historic Preservation Office and ADR Staff that, with conditions
of approval, the project generally meets Criteria C of Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from
Underlying Zoning Requirements,” of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
Section 18.34 “Site Plan and Master Site Plan Review Criteria”
In considering applications for site plan approval under this title, the Planning Director, City
Commission, DRC, and when appropriate, the ADR Staff, the DRB or WRB shall consider the
following:
A. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy;
The development proposal is in conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan
including the “Residential” land use designation. This classification designates places where
the primary activity is urban density living quarters. Other uses that complement residences
are also acceptable, such as parks, low intensity home based occupations, fire stations,
churches and schools. The dwelling unit density expected within this category varies and a
variety of housing types should be blended to achieve the desired density, with large areas of
single type housing discouraged. Additionally, all residential housing should be arranged
with consideration given to the existing character of adjacent development.
B. Conformance to this title, including the cessation of any current violations;
The application is in general compliance with the requirements set forth in the Bozeman
Unified Development Ordinance. Any areas not addressed in the applicant’s proposal have
been identified as code provisions that must be addressed on the Final Site Plan (FSP).
Planning Provisions
Per Section 18.34.130.A, “Final Site Plan,” no later than six months after the
date of approval of a preliminary site plan or master site plan, the applicant shall
submit to the Department of Planning seven (7) copies of a Final Site Plan. The
Final Site Plan shall contain all of the conditions, corrections and modifications
approved by the Department of Planning.
Per Section 18.38.060, “Yard and Height Encroachments,” eaves and gutters
may not extend more than 2.5 feet into a required side yard setback.
Per Section 18.42.130, “Fences, Walls and Hedges,” all new fences must
conform to code requirements.
Per Section 18.42.150, “Lighting,” if installed, all lighting shall comply with
said Section requirements.
Per Section 18.44.100, “Street Vision Triangle,” trees which are located in the
street vision triangle and which pre-existed the adoption of this title may be
allowed to remain, provided the trees are trimmed such that no limbs or foliage
exist below a height of ten feet above the centerline grades of intersecting streets.
Per Section 18.64.100, “Building Permit Requirements,” a building permit
shall be obtained for said work and all required fees shall be paid prior to
construction, and within one (1) year of Certificate of Appropriateness approval
or this approval shall become null and void.
#Z-06261 Hand 2nd SHR SP/COA/DEV Staff Report 9
Per Section 18.64.110, “Permit Issuance,” any modifications to the submitted
and approved drawings shall invalidate the project's approval unless the applicant
submits the proposed modifications for review and approval by the Department
of Planning prior to undertaking said modifications.
Per Section 18.74.020.A.2, “Standards for Improvements,” all construction
activities shall comply. This shall include routine cleaning/sweeping of material
that is dragged to adjacent streets. The City may require a guarantee as allowed
for under this section at any time during the construction to ensure any damages
or cleaning that are required are complete. The developer shall be responsible to
reimburse the City for all costs associated with the work if it becomes necessary
for the City to correct any problems that are identified.
Engineering Provisions
a) The Final Site Plan shall be adequately dimensioned and labeled with a legend of
linetypes and symbols used provided.
b) Sewer and water services shall be shown on the Final Site Plan and approved by the
Water & Sewer Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications for service shall be
completed by the applicant.
c) The drive approach shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s standard approach
(i.e., concrete apron, sidewalk section, and drop-curb) and shown as such on the Final
Site Plan. A City Curb Cut and Sidewalk Permit shall be obtained prior to Final Site Plan
approval.
d) Drive approach and public street intersection street vision triangles shall be free of
plantings which at mature growth will obscure vision with the street visionP triangle.
e) Proposed water/sewer services shall maintain a minimum horizontal separation of 10’ to
landscape trees and lot lighting improvements.
C. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations;
The proposal will conform to all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations. The
plans will be further evaluated against the requirements of the International Building Code at
the time application is made for a Building Permit.
D. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property;
With the conditions outlined by the ADR Staff, the elements of the site plan including the
architectural design, landscaping, circulation, orientation, mass, and height is compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood and arranged in an appropriate manner for lots within “R-4”
zoning and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
E. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking
conditions;
With conditions, the front garage access is minimized by being set back from the front
entrance and front plane of the proposed residence.
#Z-06261 Hand 2nd SHR SP/COA/DEV Staff Report 10
F. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress;
Primary pedestrian ingress and egress will occur at the front of the house and through the
garage and door.
G. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular
use, open space, and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural
vegetation;
As conditioned by ADR Staff, a boulevard tree should be added, upon approval by the City
Forester.
H. Open space;
Open space is provided in the yard space between the existing and proposed residences.
I. Building location and height;
As described in the “Standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness” section of this report,
the proposed scale of the new construction is appropriate and in proportion for the
surrounding residential neighborhood with the recommended conditions of approval/
J. Setbacks;
As described in the “Deviations from Underlying Zoning Requirements” section of this
report, the deviation for lot area is justified because of the historic pattern of the houses
along North Tracy Avenue. The existing cabin’s use as a single-household has continued
since its construction, or movement to the site, in the 1930’s.
K. Lighting;
All proposed lighting on site shall conform to the requirements outlined in the Bozeman
Unified Development Ordinance.
L. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities;
The location of existing water and sewer mains, as well as nearby fire hydrants, shall be
properly depicted on the FSP materials, and shall be approved by the City’s Water & Sewer
Superintendent, John Alston.
M. Site surface drainage;
Site surface drainage will be reviewed by the Engineering Department upon FSP submittal.
N. Loading and unloading areas;
The loading and unloading areas will likely occur at the front driveway and door areas.
O. Grading;
Grading proposed for the new construction will be reviewed by the Engineering
Department upon FSP submittal.
#Z-06261 Hand 2nd SHR SP/COA/DEV Staff Report 11
P. Signage;
Non-applicable.
Q. Screening;
All mechanical equipment must be screened. Ground-mounted equipment shall be screened
from all views by either dense plant material or a solid wall. Rooftop mechanical equipment
shall be either fully screened by incorporating the equipment into the roof form or be fully
hidden behind a parapet wall.
R. Overlay district provisions;
The site falls within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Therefore, the
project is subject to review under the “Standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness,” as
defined in Chapter 18.28 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
S. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties;
Non-applicable.
T. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or
other means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either:
a. Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved
configuration or use of the property or cause the development to become
nonconforming;
b. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to
which the City is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or
more elements of the development to become nonconforming.
Non-applicable.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Department of Planning received two letters of public comment in regards to this project.
Each letter expressed support of the project as proposed and is included with this report.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Based on the following analysis, Administrative Design Review Staff and the Development Review
Commission find that this Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness application with deviations is
in general compliance with the adopted Growth Policy and the Unified Development Ordinance.
The following conditions of approval are recommended:
Conditions of Approval
1. All chain/wire fencing on the site shall be removed or replaced. If replaced, the
fence details shall be included in the Final Site Plan materials.
2. The yard area located southeast of the existing cabin shall be grass and/or
landscaped.
#Z-06261 Hand 2nd SHR SP/COA/DEV Staff Report 12
3. The Final Site Plan materials shall include the following:
a. A revised site plan that shows the two-story building module set back 15
feet from the one-story building module;
b. A revised site plan that shows the proposed location and species of the
boulevard tree;
c. A revised site plan that shows separate services for the proposed and
existing residences;
d. A revised site plan that shows a written notation that the two building
modules will be different colors of stucco.
All modified materials shall be subject to final design review and approval by
Administrative Design Review Staff.
4. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall provide a color palette and
sample materials board to the Department of Planning, for final design review and
approval by Administrative Design Review Staff.
CONCLUSION
Administrative Design Review Staff and the Development Review Committee reviewed the Hand
2nd SHR Site Plan/COA application with deviations, and as a result recommend to the City
Commission conditional approval of said application with the proposed conditions and code
provisions.
If the City Commission wishes to deny the deviation request, the applicant may proceed
with the construction of the single-household residence as conditionally approved in
application #Z-06207, which includes the removal of the kitchen in the existing cabin.
Attachments: Applicant’s Submittal Materials
Copy of the original denial letter for #Z-06207, dated September 29, 2006
Copy of the letter from Andy Epple, dated October 13, 2006
Copy of the original approval letter for #Z-06207, dated October 20, 2006
Revised site plan showing Staff’s request for the 15-foot setback
Two letters of public comment
Report Sent To: Lucian Hand, 424 South Black Avenue, Apt. 3, Bozeman, MT 59715
Fat Cat Design, c/o Rob Dougherty, PO Box 7055, Bozeman, MT 59771
Lucian Hand, Application for COA with One Deviation, Revised 11/14/06 Page 1 of 8
718
N Tracy Ave
Application for COA with One Deviation
Lucian Hand
434 S Black, Apt 3
Bozeman, MT 59715
Lucian_Hand@Yahoo.com
406-581-7852
Designed by:
Rob Doherty, Fat Cat Design
3-d renderings by Lucian Hand
Lucian Hand, Application for COA with One Deviation, Revised 11/14/06 Page 2 of 8
Application for COA with One Deviation
• Application to construct single-household dwelling at 718 N Tracy and maintain 510 sq ft log cabin ‘as-is’
located near the alley
• Neighborhood is zoned R-4, “Residential High Density”
• Like most of the Imes Addition, this lot is 50’ x 141’ (7050 sq ft)
• BMC 18.16.040 specifies 5000 sq ft per SHD
⇒ One deviation is necessary in order to add an SHD to the lot while retaining the cabin in its established
function as a dwelling
History / Background:
This lot has a one-room log cabin built ~1930 and placed to the rear of the lot. The cabin has ~ 430 sq ft of
livable space and ~ 80 sq ft storage (~510 total sq ft). The cabin is a one-room dwelling configured with a
kitchenette, ¾ bath, sleeping loft, and reading areas. In 1974 an addition added an entry/laundry area,
small second-floor reading area, and outdoor storage.
In 2002 Ed Adamson re-roofed the cabin, remodeled the interior, and discussed a proposed house with plan-
ning...but didn’t get further. In 2003 Michael McGee and Colton Behr bough the property intending to main-
tain the cabin and build a house. They designed a house, but met opposition from Planning and abandoned
the project. I bought the property in March, 2005 and immediately began working on plans for a SHD to co-
exist with the cabin. 18 months and several architects later, Rob Dougherty came up with the design pro-
posed here.
This design provides room for a family, co-exists well with the cabin, and compliments the neighborhood. In
Oct 2006, Planning reviewed this design and granted a Conditional COA (designating cabin a “Guest House”
and increasing front yard setback 3’). As a guest house, the cabin could never be rented and cooking facili-
ties would have to be removed (BMC 18.80.1290). This would effectively destroy the function and character
of this building, eliminate a unit of affordable housing, and change the historical utility of the cabin.
Being in the R4 district, it is customary for similar lots to include 2 or more dwelling units. Several neighbor-
ing lots support 3 or 4 dwelling units. Two neighboring lots include detached dwellings.
Situated 20’ from the alley and 5’ from the South lot line, the cabin is situated where one might place a ga-
rage with ADU. This lot has adequate area and frontage for a duplex or ADU. If there were a garage under
the cabin, it would be an ADU and no deviation would be needed. However, per the Planning Director’s in-
terpretation of BMC 18.40.030, an ADU is only allowed above a garage (in the R-2, R-3, R-4, and R-0 dis-
tricts). The cabin with yard, parking area, and garden, occupies the back 46’ of this lot leaving 95’ available
for a second dwelling.
The cabin has been well maintained over the decades and is an established component of this neighbor-
hood. It has two parking spots and a small yard, making it ideal for a young couple with dogs. Affordable
dwellings, especially ones that accommodate pets, are difficult to find in Bozeman. This cabin helps to fill
this important niche.
Scope of the Project:
We propose to add a single-household dwelling to the front area of this lot, while maintaining
the cabin as a dwelling. The new dwelling is intended as a place where we can raise a family. Being ad-
jacent to a park, it seems an ideal location. As a dwelling, the cabin provides supplemental income as a
rental or can be used by my father if his health necessitates. (he is recovering from a sinus tumor). The
cabin already has two dedicated parking spaces. The new house will have three parking spaces (garage,
driveway, and street). Thus, there is sufficient parking for the proposed use.
The proposed home has been designed to support a young family while maintaining the cabin in its well-
established role as a dwelling unit. This project represents an investment of ~$450K, demonstrating my
commitment to the well-being of this neighborhood. We believe the proposal is consistent with the charac-
ter and style of the neighborhood, and will contribute to this area of Bozeman.
Lucian Hand, Application for COA with One Deviation, Revised 11/14/06 Page 3 of 8
Neighboring architectural styles include Arts & Crafts, Post-
War Cottage, Greek revival, Victorian, and Suburban Ranch.
It is an eclectic mix, but quality construction and interior/
exterior relationship are common themes. The proposed
design utilizes simple forms and roof pitch, but adds a
curved roof over the reading-room to the upper-rear of the
structure.
North Neighbor, SHD
South Neighbor, 3-HD
Recently renovated home, at 3rd and Peach.
Note the stucco finish and parapet wall over the garage.
Post-War Cottage, 3 doors South
Principal façade is ~17’ wide
Nicely renovated 3-HD with business/shop
Principal façade is ~60’ wide, setbacks are ~5’ on all sides
Neighborhood Character
This neighborhood is an eclectic mix of architectural
styles and configurations. In the immediate neighbor-
hood (Imes addition block 39) 5 of the 9 other lots
have 2 or more dwellings per lot (see Neighborhood
View). All lots use street or street-accessed parking.
In 2002, the city commission approved an excellent
infill project that allowed three detached dwellings at
718 N Black (one block East). Two of the lots adjoin-
ing ours have two detached dwellings. One adjoining
lot has a total of 4 dwellings.
Consistent with the high-density nature of this
neighborhood, setbacks range from ~5’ to 20’ with
some lots having less setback. Principal facades on
this block range from 17’ to 66’.
Yards are not large, but the neighborhood supports an
excellent urban forest. The proposed project will retain
4 existing mature trees on this lot (shown in drawings).
Lucian Hand, Application for COA with One Deviation, Revised 11/14/06 Page 4 of 8
Attention to Neighborhood Aesthetics and Character / Compliance with Design Guidelines:
◊ The proposed design balances innovative design with attention to traditional forms.
Topography / Landscape
• The site sits ~20” above the sidewalk and slopes to the North. Attention has been given to protecting and
utilizing the existing topography.
• Mature existing trees will be retained as-shown in drawings.
• Driveway will have retaining walls designed to blend with the landscaping
• Window wells will be architecturally designed and integrated with landscaping (NOT galvanized steel)
Street Patterns / Building Form
• Site Layout: Required setbacks are 15’ front-yard and 5’ side-yard. Neighboring houses use 19’ and 20’
front-yard setbacks and 5’ and 11’ side-yard setbacks.
• The proposed dwelling uses 19’, 23’, and 27’ setbacks for the South, entrance, and North modules
respectively and 7’ side-yard setbacks. It has been placed to compliment neighboring setbacks and
optimize neighboring views and solar access.
• Parking: As with all lots on this block and most in the neighborhood, the proposed design uses street-
accessed parking. The two alley-accessed parking spaces for the cabin will remain, leaving three parking
spaces for the new house (garage, driveway, and one on-street space). In keeping with all recommenda-
tions of BMC 18.16.070, the garage is ‘subordinate’ to the main structure.
• The principal façade includes architectural and landscaping details to emphasize its dominance.
• The garage entrance is recessed 8’ behind the principal façade and sits below grade.
• The master bedroom occupies the space over the garage. Emphasis is given to this with a porch,
window, and other architectural details.
• The garage door will be architecturally designed and will occupy only 8” of the principal façade.
• Size and Scale: Being on a park and close to schools, this is an ideal location for raising a family. A mod-
ern home intended for a family needs a garage and is challenging to design with < 2,000 sq ft.
• We believe this design makes excellent use of ~1900 sq ft of living space. Breaking the masses up
into smaller modules adds visual interest and helps it relate to the surroundings.
• Masses have been broken up into 15’ wide modules and laterally staggered to soften their appear-
ance. Contrasting colors and materials emphasize the pieces.
• Allowable height is 38’. The proposed dwelling is 26’ tall, similar to the median height of neighbor-
ing houses.
• Style and Character: Homes in the neighborhood range from cottages to multi-household dwellings.
While the neighborhood ’style’ is an eclectic mix, the prevailing characteristic is simple forms careful atten-
tion to detail. Consistent with the neighborhood and existing cabin, the proposed home uses simple geo-
metric forms and materials familiar to classic homes throughout Bozeman.
• The design is comprised of two principal modules to be constructed from Insulated Concrete Forms
(ICF), an eco-friendly, highly-insulating, and durable building method that readily accepts stucco
finish. A combination of varying heights and setbacks, combined with contrasting color scheme
breaks up the home into smaller modules reminiscent of cottages found in the area.
• The shed roof over the South module mimics the cabin.
• The North module with parapet wall (flat-roof façade) is a well-used form throughout Bozeman’s
historic district. The simple rectangular shape visually anchors the structure
• The barrel roof over the ‘loft’ area adds interest and a contemporary look.
• Choice of materials
• Siding will be traditional stucco and antique wood. As seen in numerous other recent projects,
these materials combine well to provide a contemporary look while complimenting historical sur-
roundings.
Lucian Hand, Application for COA with One Deviation, Revised 11/14/06 Page 5 of 8
Hierarchy of Public and Private Space
The front-yard setback has been carefully chosen to compliment neighboring setbacks while still main-
taining a back yard (private space).
• Two mature trees in the front yard will remain, providing a buffer to the park
• Front walkway will gradually set up from the sidewalk.
• Front porch guides people into the home, with a clear-through view to the backyard.
Summary
BMC 18.28.050 encourages “contemporary, non-period, and innovative design” provided it is
“compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and surrounding structures.” This house has
been carefully designed to compliment the neighboring houses and contribute to the character of the
neighborhood. Throughout Bozeman, innovative designs compliment and enhance neighborhoods.
Neighbors that have viewed this proposed design have given strong positive feedback. We believe this
house will compliment neighboring houses and enhance this neighborhood.
Existing Cabin, West Elevation
Note the shed roof, simple form, and ma-
ture tree which offers privacy and shade.
Existing Log-Cabin, South-East View
The proposed SHD has been designed
to compliment the existing cabin
Lucian Hand, Application for COA with One Deviation, Revised 11/14/06 Page 6 of 8 718 N Tracy Cottonwood St
Aspen St
Garage
3-HD
Office/Shop
SHD
SHD
SHD
3-HD
3-HD
3-HD
SHD
SHD
SHD 2-HD
SHD Proposed Black Ave Garage Garage
Garage
Garage
SHD Tracy Ave Parking Spaces Imes addition block 39 consists of 10 lots, R-4 Zone • All lots use street or street-accessed parking • 5 lots have 2 or more dwellings • Side-yard setbacks are typically 5’ to 8’, although some are larger • Street façades range from 17’ to 66’. • Architectural styles include Arts & Crafts, Post-War Cottage, Greek revival, Victorian, and Suburban Ranch SHD
39
Proposed: Construction of SHD at 718 N Tracy
Existing log-cabin SHD to remain as-is
Neighborhood View
50 ft
Lucian Hand, Application for COA with One Deviation, Revised 11/14/06 Page 7 of 8
Lucian Hand, Application for COA with One Deviation, Revised 11/14/06 Page 8 of 8
IMES Block 32:
#8,9
Sue Ann Haggerty
312 N 21st Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59718-3132
#10,11,12
Charles Soper
124 N Black Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715-3606
#13,14
Jon & Colee Wingo
5 E Aspen St.
Bozeman, MT 59715-2901
#15,16
Joann & David Robinson
501 N Tracy Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715-3530
IMES Block #39:
#1-5
Leland & Diana Lewis
P.O. Box 1067
Manhattan, MT 59741-1067
#6-8
L2III LLC
4020 Graf St.
Bozeman, MT 59715-7170
#9-12
Raymond Brence, Michael Brence & Peggy Hum-
phrey
701 N Black Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715-2906
#13-14
Brian & Constance Wagner
702 N Tracy Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715-2818
#15,16
George Thompson
12 Hill St.
Bozeman, MT 59715-6015
#17,18
Sloane P. Reed
710 N Tracy Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715-2812
#19,20
Barry Bain
714 N Tracy Ave., Apt 2
Bozeman, MT 59715-2860
#23,24
Donald & Penny Black
1510 Rainbow Rd.
Bozeman, MT 59715-8382
Property owners within 200 ft. of 718 N Tracy