Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-1995 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1995 Members Present: Cliff Chisholm Kim Walker Mara-Gai Katz Paul Gleye John DeHaas Walt Willett Ed McCrone Staff Present: Georgiann Youngstrom Dave Skelton Lanette Windemaker Patrick Morris Debbie Arkell Visitors Present: Rob Gilbert John Daniels Mrs . John DeHaas United Methodist Pastor David Seabury Mark Black Rob P. King Mr. Shearman George Mattson Greg Morgan Lowell Springer Andrew Epple A. Discuss need for special meeting on August 29, 1995 Kim Walker called the meeting to order. She asked about the need for the special meeting. Planner Windemaker stated that there is an overage of items to be considered by the Board and since there are five Tuesdays in August we would like to have a meeting this day in order to lessen the number of items on the next meeting agenda. The following stated they would be there: Cliff Chisholm, John DeHaas , Mara-Gai Katz, Ed McCrone, and Walt Willett. Roger Cruwys has left word with the Planning Office that he will also be in attendance. B. Consent Agenda 1. United Methodist Sign COA Z-9593 John DeHaas stated that he cannot vote on this project as he would be prejudiced if he voted at this time. Cliff Chisholm thanked him and stated that the Board will separate this proposal from the rest of the consent agenda. Kim Walker moved, seconded by Ed McCrone, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for signage. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote of those members voting. RR-7 2 . Best Western Sign COA Z-95L Paul Gleye moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness application for signage. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote of the members present . 3 . Willmuth COA Z-9595 Paul Gleye moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness application for a new single family residence. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 4. Wong' s Sign COA Z-9477 Paul Gleye moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness application. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 5. R.J. Cain Sign COA Z-9 2 Paul Gleye moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness application for proposed alterations consisting of installation of an awning and a window sign, subject to eight conditions of approval . The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote of the members present. B. Project Review 1. American Bank MaSP Z-9568 Planner Skelton stated, and presented a memo, that the American Bank proposed project had been placed on the Consent Agenda but because it has a deviation, it will need to be pulled from the consent agenda and put on the Project Review. Planner Skelton reviewed the project for the Board. He stated that the DRB had done an informal review in July on this project and had generally agreed that it met the intent and purpose of the Entryway Overlay guidelines . Planner Skelton stated that the staff summary outlines how each item has been addressed and noted that some items have changed since the informal review. Planner Skelton stated that one area that has changed is the number of trees required. Due to the guidelines set forth in the Design Objectives Plan for Entryway Corridors, the number of trees is increased. Planner Skelton stated that during the informal review concern was expressed by the Beaver Pond Plaza owners about loss of parking with the construction of the professional building. Since that time they have informally approved a shared access onto West Main, he said. Planner Skelton stated he had met with Bud Cunlhen had been told that the Beaver Pond Plaza plans to seek approval from the Department of Transportation to redo their street access that will provide better access . Planner Skelton stated that the deviation involves an encroachment of 4 ' into the front yard on West Main with parking space in the north west corner. He stated that staff recommends a berm of 1 in 6 and understub grade with more low profile landscaping. He noted that because detention ponds are being placed in the front yards of developments the Planning Staff is placing requirements that the depth be no more than 18" . Planner Skelton stated that staff is asking for additional landscaping in lieu of one parking space. He noted that this is allowed under the zone code. Planner Skelton reviewed the 8 conditions for approval . He pointed out that the DRB' s recommendation will go to the City Commission. Planner Skelton stated that he has not received any comments from the adjacent owners other than those from the Beaver Pond Plaza. Cliff Chisholm asked if the additional landscaping was being required due to the deviation. Planner Skelton confirmed that it is in order to provide additional buffering and screening. Cliff Chisholm asked if there will be more trees than shown on the site plan. Planner Skelton stated the applicant did their site plan according to the zone code without the Design Objectives Plan for Entryway Corridors , as it is not part of the package. However, he noted, they will be required to have more trees due to these guidelines . Kim Walker stated she could not recall who had made mention of a berm at the east side of the covered parking lot structure at the informal review. Planner Skelton noted that Rob Gilbert was in attendance for any questions . John DeHaas moved, seconded by Paul Gleye, to recommend conditional approval of the project with the deviation. The Motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present 2 . Shearman COA Z-9594 Planner Windemaker stated that the proposed project is the reroofing of a dwelling and that the roofing material will be dark green metal to match the house colors . She stated that in evaluating the neighborhood the only metal roof within one block of the site is on the garage which is on the same lot. Planner Windemaker reviewed the comments of the Historic Preservation Officer, Derek Strahn, regarding the inappropriateness of the material for the roof . He encouraged the use of new materials that are more in character of the neighborhood which would be three tab asphalt or wood shingles . Cliff Chisholm stated that it looked as though the house had been added to a number of times . Planner Windemaker stated it does have a number of additions and roof slopes . She noted that the Queen Anne part of the home is preserved. Mr Shearman, the applicant, stated that the house has been added on to three times and the Queen Anne part is not the original roof but part of one of the additions . He stated that he is interested in the reroofing due to the cost of repair of the facia each year after ice build up. Planner Windemaker noted she had received two letters in support of the application. Ed McCrone asked what the siding was on the garage. Mr. Shearman stated the roof and the sides are metal and the structure was built in 1972 . Cliff Chisholm agreed with staff that the applicant should be encouraged to use traditional roofing. Paul Gleye asked if the proposed metal roof would be standing seam or channel . Mr. Shearman replied that it would be channel roofing similar to the new school on Durston. Paul Gleye asked for an idea in the difference of the cost between the metal roofing and the traditional roofing. Mr. Shearman stated that a bid on three tab asphalt shingles for one side was $2 , 800 . He stated that the cost for metal roofing for the entire structure is $1, 000 . He noted that with the metal roofing he will not need the added expense of plywood under the shingles and that he will be able to do the work himself. Kim Walker stated that she thinks the Board can encourage the traditional roofing but that she is not in complete agreement with Derek Strahn' s comments because the home has been added onto so much. She stated that the roof should be a dark muted green so it will blend in with the neighborhood. Ed McCrone stated that he has done both kinds of roofs and that the traditional roofing is labor intensive. He noted that the roofing might not get done at all if the applicant is required to do the traditional and then the home would deteriorate even more. Kim Walker asked if the applicant was replacing the facia with metal also at this time. Mr. Shearman stated he was not but was planning on doing that at a later time. He said he felt the roof would avoid the ice break up that has happened every spring on the home. Walt Willett asked if the the roof on the shed on the end of the home was going to stay also. The applicant replied that it is a roof over a patio and that the color will change but the roof will stay. Walt Willett stated that since the metal is already on the garage and the fiberglass patio roof will be staying he didn' t have a problem with the metal on the home. Kim Walker stated that the range of color for the roof should be included in the motion. John DeHaas stated that he felt the Board can' t look at only the economy for the project as there is not any other metal in the neighborhood. He stated that he doubted the metal roof alone will cure the ice build up and damage. He noted that metal roofs are not truly residential . Kim Walker moved, seconded by Walt Willett, to approve the project with the condition that the roof be a dull muted green in color or if the color is changed that it be approved by staff . The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote of the members voting. John DeHaas abstained. 3 . Morgan MiSP COA w/ Deviations Z-9586 Planner Morris stated this proposed project was a minor site plan and certificate of appropriateness application. Planner Morris stated that staff in general approves of the request. He stated the applicant is requesting three deviations . Planner Morris reviewed the three deviations . He stated the first deviation would permit encroachments into the side yard and rear yard setbacks leaving 911 setbacks . He stated this is a large deviation however, in the Conservation Overlay District full encroachments are a possibility. Planner Morris stated the second deviation is in the lot area. He stated that the zone code requires 5, 000 square feet of lot for each single-family use and that technically this a second single- family residence on the lot and therefore 10, 000 square feet is required. Planner Morris stated the third deviation has the accessory building exceeding the height of the principle structure by 313" . Planner Morris stated that staff has looked at each deviation individually. He said staff can support deviation #1 due to the buffer created by garages on the adjacent lots and the increased usable yard area on the lot created by having the detached garage/apartment rather than attaching the garage/apartment to the existing structure. Planner Morris stated with regard to deviation #2 that the proposed project could have been attached to the rear of the existing structure and would have then been considered a two family dwelling unit and 6, 000 square feet of lot area would be sufficient . He stated that now as a detached structure it would need 5, 000 square feet for each structure. He noted that the lot cannot support two large single family units but this project is a garage with a small apartment above. Therefore, he said, staff can support this request. Planner Morris stated with regard to deviation #3 that by virtue of this unit having a dwelling above and a storage unit of vehicles underneath, it could be technically considered the principle unit on the lot and would therefore be the larger structure. He stated that staff feels the intent of the code is to prevent significant or abrupt changes in height between principal and accessory structures on individual lots and significant or abrupt height variations between structures located on adjacent lots . Planner Morris noted that staff can support this deviation since the height variation is limited to approximately 3 ' 311 . Planner Morris noted that he had received two letters in opposition to the proposal with the height being the main concern. Planner Morris stated that staff recommends approval with a recommendation to the City Commission for approval of the deviation requests . John DeHaas stated that in his mind there are four deviations . He listed them as a rear yard deviation, side yard deviation, lot size, and height. He stated when the city grants deviations there should be some benefit gained by the public and he doesn' t see any gain from granting the deviations for this project. John DeHaas stated that he feels merely trying to house Bozeman is a flimsy excuse to grant deviations when larger housing projects can do a much better job . He stated that if the project was to be attached to the existing building he may have gone along with it although he doubted that a second story would be approved connected to the existing building. Paul Gleye stated that there is an existing garage on the lot in the proposed area and that the encroachment is in keeping with the Design Review regulations . He stated that there is a tradition in the area of carriage houses from the 1905 period and this structure would have been a carriage house and the project is not pushing the limits with the other homes in the area. Kim Walker stated that she concurred with Paul' s comments . She said the project is designed well and that the encroachment gives the yard needed room. She noted the area above the garage could have other uses also. Ed McCrone stated that he also concurred and noted that the area is zoned R-3a. He said that the project seems to meet the intent of this district and there is an excellence in design and design quality. Kim Walker moved, seconded by Paul Gleye, to recommend conditional approval of the project with the deviations . The motion carried with the following voice vote: Yea - Cliff Chisholm, Paul Gleye, Mara-Gai Katz, Ed McCrone, Kim Walker, Walt Willett; No - John DeHaas . 4. Cowdrey PUD Concept Z-9591 Planner Arkell reviewed the PUD concept. She stated that the concept plan review with the comments the Board will give will be used by the applicant to prepare the full PUD plan application. Planner Arkell stated that the original PUD was approved for 70 units at Koch, Dickerson, and 22nd. She stated that 32 units were built in Phase I and due to economic factors Phase II was not built. She stated since that time an area was taken from the project to build Kid' s Depot and the time has elapsed for the PUD approval . Planner Arkell stated that the applicant now will do 28 more units . She noted that the site plan shows the existing buildings and the parking lots . She stated that the parking lot to the east is not constructed. Planner Arkell stated that the proposal is to do two 8-plex and one 12 -plex just south of Koch Street. She noted that the elevations are identical to the existing structures . Planner Arkell stated that the 12-plex will be 2 1/2 stories and the 8-plexes will be two story. She commented that while Kid' s Depot was not part of this development, the applicant kept the roof pitch and general design of the existing and proposed structures in it' s design. Planner Arkell stated that this review is the place to talk about any problems the Board may see in the proposed project. Cliff Chisholm asked about the 15% density bonus . Planner Arkell stated that the original PUD had an approved 15% density bonus and what the applicant is asking now is to take out the Kid' s Depot area. She stated they could ask for up to a 30% bonus through a Conditional Use Permit but that they are asking for 15% overall bonus with a PUD. That is why they have 28 units . Cliff Chisholm asked if the city will see the project at this point as a brand new PUD application or as some continuation. Planner Arkell said it looked like a continuation due to the existing structures and amenities . Cliff Chisholm stated that he had a hard time with the PUD as there is no particular excellence of design in cramming the most apartments in the project. stated that the parking worried him with the dead end in the new space and was wondering if it didn' t need to go through the adjacent property. He noted that the parking area was not serving the living area. Cliff Chisholm concurred with Ed McCrone' s comments . Paul Gleye stated that the parking spaces are quite a different area and that he liked the parking as it was quite hidden from the city. Kim Walker asked if a suggestion had been made to the applicant of not doing a PUD submittal as there are a lot of inherent problems with this submittal . Planner Arkell referred to her memo on PUD criteria Residential #8 in which the 30% open space and the set backs will have to truly be in excess to be accepted. Kim Walker asked about the parking. Planner Arkell stated they need three more spaces than shown to meet zone code. Kim Walker asked how they would met the increase landscaping and parking and open space in the entire PUD. Planner Arkell stated if the applicant eliminated 8 of the proposed units they would need a Conditional Use Permit and not a PUD. John DeHaas stated that he didn' t think they could meet the parking requirements . He said he felt they were asking to go back to the 1980' s but that they have to meet today' s conditions and requirements . He stated that even only 20 units might have severe problems . Cliff Chisholm stated that the review is hinged on the assumption that with further development on this property the Board would be reviewing the existing structures and making the site come up to code. Planner Arkell stated that was not necessarily true. Kim Walker asked if Phase II is put under a PUD, will the Board look at the whole project. Planner Arkell stated that the part of the code she was referring to were suggestions but not required as conditions . Kim Walker noted that they have been used as conditions in other situations . Planner Arkell stated they can be used as basis for conditions . Cliff Chisholm questioned if it is the city' s position that the Board will be going back to make major revisions in the existing project . Planner Arkell stated that the new project should comply with the new code, and the old project should be allowed to remain as is, as it complied with the code in effect at the time the project was approved. 5 . For Your Information - Landon Industrial MaSP Planner Arkell stated that this project has been withdrawn by the applicant. D. Invitation - Jim Heisel Planning Director Andy Epple stated that Jim Heisel has invited members of the DRB to tour his nursery to get a feel for what different plant varieties look like, their texture, color, etc . He stated that Mr. Heisel offered the tour as educational and helpful for the Board who make decisions and suggestions on landscaping for various applicants . He asked for a day that most would be available. Kim Walker suggested August 17 , 1995, 3-5 p.m. Most concurred that they could attend at that time. Mr. Epple said he would contact Jim Heisel and make arrangements for that day.