Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-1995 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 BOARD PRESENT: Cliff Chisholm John DeHaas Ellen Kreighbaum Mara-Gai Katz Maire O 'Neill Roger Cruwys STAFF PRESENT: Georgiann Youngstrom Lanette Windemaker Patrick Morris Catherine McCoy Dave Skelton VISITORS PRESENT: Harwood Cranston Barry Simmons Gerry Gaston Mr. Weir Mr. McKenna George Mattson Mr. Neasel Dick Prugh Patty Carlson Consent Item 1 . Cranston COA Z-9567 MOTION - Ellen Kreighbaum moved, Maire O 'Neill seconded to approve the proposed project. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. Project Review 1. TCI Sign COA Z-9573 This project was removed from the consent item agenda at the request of Planner Morris . Cliff Chisholm asked him to explain why he wanted it removed. Planner Morris explained that the staff was uncertain whether the applicant would follow one of the conditions set out in the staff report. Generally before an item is place on the consent agenda the applicant is spoken with to see if they are willing to follow the conditions and due to a minor miscommunication, this was not done, Planner Morris explained. Planner Morris reviewed the project stating that it will bring the TCI sign into conformance with the sign codes . He noted that the staff feel it is a very good proposal and that the only concern is whether the landscaping will be in ratio to the sign. He gave background on what ratio of landscape to sign area is required. Cliff Chisholm asked for the square footage required at the base of the sign. Planner Morris stated 260 s . f . of landscape. Cliff Chisholm noted that the applicant does not have a landscape plan at this time. He said he was inclined to table the discussion until the next meeting unless the staff and applicant have some other way to approach this . Barry Simmons of Montana Signworks representing TCI said that TCI is getting pressure from their upper people to bring their sign into compliance and that the program is in limbo waiting for this review process to complete. He said TCI wants to get the sign in compliance and also for their own corporate identification, therefore they are not interested in postponing this process . He pointed out that TCI is not opposed to landscaping but not sure of the cost for the required landscaping. Cliff Chisholm said if time is the major concern and the board approves the application with the staff conditions then they would have the approval they need. Barry Simmons asked if the board has ever given a variance to the landscaping. Cliff Chisholm responded it is the rule and it has been in place for a while. He pointed out that a variance is where you claim there is a hardship such as not enough room while a deviation is where we can meet the letter but can provide the intent . Cliff Chisolm then recommended that TCI conform to the landscape condition. Barry Simmons said the landscape is in place but apparently not adequate. Cliff Chisholm moved, John DeHaas second, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the staff conditions as outlined. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. 2 . Lucky Lills CUP Z-9564 Roger Cruwys asked that this project be taken from the consent agenda. Cliff Chisholm asked Roger Cruwys to save time by identifying the points of concern. Roger Cruwys has asked Planner Skelton to bring to the attention of the planners the excess lawn to the rear of this proposed project and asked why some of the space could not be reallocated around the building. He said he has an aversion to a building with so much concrete around it. Gerry Gaston said they wanted to put parking in the back of the building so they would not be encroaching onto the stream setback. Roger Cruwys and Gerry Gaston then discussed the placement of the landscape. Planner Skelton said Lucky Lil ' s would need a variance if they move the parking any further back and the city commission was adamant the last time this project was proposed that they have additional parking as in the zone code. He also pointed out that St. Estephe Street is private and so no on- street parking is allowed. Maire O 'Neill commented that perhaps a few of the parking spaces could be given up since they have over the number required by the zone code and the space could be used in landscaping around the building. Planner Skelton said that the plan can carry that way perhaps with a few parking spaces let go. Cliff Chisholm said that it is a good comment but that the applicant is put into a conflicting position between requirements . Roger Cruwys stated that he didn ' t like to see such a close area. Planner Skelton reviewed the staff conditions in the staff report including only two tube of neon lighting would be allowed. Gerry Gaston stated that they have taken all the neon lighting off the sign but one tube of low intensity around the facia and that the proposed project would like it to stay that way. Planner Skelton said that the staff will allow them to do some neon but that the presented plans do not show any neon lighting. Gerry Gaston stated that the sign architect had been to DRB previously to discuss the sign. Cliff Chisholm asked Planner Skelton if the record showed what was recommended on the previous plan. Planner Skelton reported from the file that the light may have two tubes . Cliff Chisholm stated that now the applicant has taken off all but one tube. Maire O'Neill asked what the requirement given by the city commission was . Planner Skelton stated that the plan of the applicant has no indication where the tube will be and that the city commission had accepted the recommendation of the DRB but the city commission had denied the previous variance request and therefore, the whole thing was denied. Maire O 'Neill said she supported the reduction of the tubes and the placement of one just on the facia. Ellen Kreighbaum questioned whether it was going to be highlighted on the cupola. Gerry Gaston said not now as all of those tubes have been taken off . Cliff Chisholm questioned Roger Cruwys again on a proposal for the landscaping. Roger Cruwys suggestion for the applicant is to take a look at having more breathing space around the building, but that he would not want to make it a requirement . Planner Skelton stated that recommendation #2 needs to be amended. Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by John DeHaas, to recommend approval subject to staff conditions with the alteration of condition #2 to say that the applicant have one strip of neon lighting that conforms to city code to be on the facia of the sign and to be further aware of consequences if required less parking spaces that it might help to provide for a green buffer around the building. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 3 . Weir COA w/deviation Z-9576 Planner Skelton reviewed the proposed project and stated that the board' s purpose will be to make a recommendation to the city commission regarding this project. He pointed out the site plan included in the staff report. To the immediate south there is a bomb shelter and the single car garage will need to be located for access from Tracy, he said. Planner Skelton said that he had received letter supporting this garage and pointed out it is in the North Tracy District and except for the proposed metal roof the project is acceptable for that district. He said there is a composition asphalt shingle roof on the existing residence. Planner Skelton did a two block survey of roofs in the neighborhood and found buildings with partial or complete metal roofing, so there is evidence of metal roofing in the area. Therefore, Planner Skelton is including as a condition that the applicant consider placing T-lock asphalt shingles on the proposed project, but is not requiring that roofing in the conditions . He has talked to Mr. Weir about this condition and Mr. Weir has said he will consider it and has not decided yet. John DeHaas moved, Maire O'Neill seconded, to recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with deviation according to the staff conditions . Ellen Kreighbaum asked if the motion included condition #1 that the applicant consider, but not be required, using asphalt shingles . John DeHaas said it is a gray area when there are other buildings in the area with them and that it is unknown how the city commission will respond. Planner Skelton pointed out that his own concerns were high about the metal roof until he took the survey and saw the number of other metal roofs . He commented that the metal roof would hold up under the snow load also. Cliff Chisholm responded that metal has nothing to do with a roof holding up, it is the trusses under the roof that holds it up. Cliff Chisholm asked for any further discussion on the motion. He directed to have this included in the motion - the deviation is because the building will take the place of a previous building and will be in the same area. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. 4 . McKenna COA w/deviation Z-9575 Planner Windemaker reviewed the project. She stated that the proposed project will mirror the existing house and that the deviation consists of bringing the side yard down to 41 . She reviewed Derek Stran' s comments that the project should be acceptable. Planner Windemaker stated that the staff recommends approval of the proposed project with the two conditions in the staff report . John DeHaas commented that the project can' t be moved in closer because of the mature trees and that he would hate to see any of the trees go. Planner Windemaker stated that they will lose one of the trees . John DeHaas said if they moved further in the yard they would lose another tree. Cliff Chisholm asked if the judgement of the staff was that the project conforms to a well established pattern in the neighborhood. Planner Windemaker responded that it was . Cliff Chisholm moved, that due to the established pattern in the neighborhood and keeping as much mature vegetation as possible, to recommended approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with deviations with the conditions set forth in the staff report,Mara-Gai Katz seconded. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. 5 . Neasel COA Z-9574 Planner Morris reviewed the proposed project including that it is in the Conservation Overlay District and that the existing building has cedar shake shingles on it now. He stated that condition #2 of the staff report raises an issue concerning the proposed gable roof over the structure. He feels it would overpower the structure and that the roof needs to be realigned to the present gable roof . He noted that the applicant would like to leave the project as proposed. Planner Morris showed on the plans the difference the change would make on the north elevation. Planner Morris stated that the board had also received a copy from the applicant of how the project might look if done according to the staff proposal . Cliff Chisholm asked how tall the ridge of the addition will be. Planner Morris said he did not have that answer now but that it is well within code requirements . Cliff Chisholm stated that he shares staff concern that as proposed the project doesn' t have the right proportion to be sitting on top of this house. He wondered if something could be done to lower the wall plates . He asked if it has a flat ceiling or if it has trusses as typically 2nd story houses have low contour ceilings . The applicant showed a diagram to the board with more information and stated that the plate height is 7 ' and that the gable change would place the plate height up even more. She pointed out there is mature vegetation around the project and that the top will be obscured by this vegetation. She pointed out that many houses in the neighborhood have similar structures and that the collar ties go up to 9 ' as they are trying to get an intimate attic feeling. She also said they would really like to have a south facing roof . Maire O 'Neill agrees with the argument about the mature trees and the fact that the addition is set back. She said the proposed project is balanced and will function for the needs as presented. Roger Cruwys agreed with her. Ellen Kreighbaum said that clearly there is a concern if staff proposed design is going to raise the wall up it will defeat the purpose. The applicant said when designing the project they felt it needed to go up to get sufficient header. Cliff Chisholm said he didn' t have a strong objection to the project as presented. He said it does seem that on the south side of the house the 2nd story will be quite prominent . The applicant said there are large trees on that side. Roger Cruwys asked if the applicant had investigated any other roof design. The applicant responded that they had looked at other roof designs but everything in their neighborhood is gabled and they choose to continue in that pattern. Cliff Chisholm moved, Maire O'Neill seconded, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness . The applicant asked if they could be given permission in the motion to use cedar shingles like the existing building if they had the money to do so. Cliff Chisholm amended the motion to include the roof would be acceptable as cedar or metal and to approve the application as proposed. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. 6. Carlson COA w/deviation Z-9571 Cliff Chisholm turned the meeting over to Ellen Kreighbaum as his office is involved with this project and then excused himself from the meeting. Planner Morris reviewed the project stating that it is in the conservation overlay district. He stated that the existing building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places . The deviation has to do with an 18" additional encroachment in the setback, he said. Planner Morris stated that the staff does not have any objections to the proposed project and would have placed it on the consent agenda if it did not have the deviation. Ellen Kreighbaum asked Planner Morris if he could speak to Derek Stran' s letter concerning the replacement of the proposed balcony with larger dimensions . Planner Morris stated that the staff did take a look at the concern of the balcony with no entry and had not had a problem with it and said it was an issue that Derek had raised. Ellen Kreighbaum stated that she would like to know why they chose a flat roof instead of another design. Planner Morris said the applicant feels very, very strongly about the balcony and that at some later date they plan on an opening being placed onto the balcony. Dick Prugh of Prugh and Lenon Architects represented the applicant and said according to Dick Slecten the present porch is not the original porch. He showed a drawing to the board talking about the floor plan and the position of the front porch. He stated if the porch is not the original then where or when does the historical elements of the house take place. Dick Prugh stated that in reviewing the project he had visited with Derek Stran about the balcony and other balconies in Bozeman. He pointed out that this is just an idea to change the house but that it will be used from time to time for the owners . Dick Prugh gave information concerning the present structure of the porch and corner of the house and pointed out that the change in this area will reinforce this portion of the building and include building code footings . John DeHaas said that this building was once a pivotal building on the application of the historical register and some of the things talked about were keeping it there. He commented that the rock does need to be taken out from the porch that predates more than 45 years . He stated that a placement of a door later onto the balcony will change the facade of the building. Ellen Kreighbaum asked if the deeper porch demands that the roof line be changed or if the same roof design is being used. Patty Carlson stated that the porch ceiling is flat and because the hip structure is decorative they wanted to save it. She explained the problems with snow settlement on part of the roof and the subsequent leakage. She wondered concerning the balcony window if the original architect of the building was intended for it to be a door at some point due to the unusual height and how low it is to the floor. Maire O'Neill said after taking Derek Stran ' s comments into account and what the original intents of the home seem to have been that she tended to support the application as it seems reasonable. Roger Cruwys said he also supported it. Mara-Gai Katz also concurred that she supported it . John DeHaas said he was torn as he loved the old building but he sees the problems in it. Ellen Kreighbaum stated that she understood the reason and supports making the lower deck deeper. She commented that there are other homes in the Bozeman area with windows the same height as the tall window on the balcony and didn' t feel it was that unusual. She said that the proposed second-story balcony is too big and bulky and that she could support the upper balcony although she could support the rest. Mara-Gai Katz questioned if the flat roof problem would be taken care of by replacing it with a flat roof . Patty Carlson stated that the only problem with the 3 square foot flat roof is the flashing on the side of the building that is unattractive and noted the proposed project will cover it. She reviewed the interior condition on purchase of the building and the restoration which has taken place. Maire O'Neill stated that the house seems to be in good hands for preservation and supports the proposal . Marie O'Neill moved, Roger Cruwys seconded, to recommend approval for the Certificate of Appropriateness with deviations . The motion carried with a 3 -1 vote and one abstaining. Those voting in favor were Maire O'Neill, Roger Cruwys, and Mara-Gai Katz; opposed was Ellen Kreighbaum; abstained John DeHaas .