Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-27-2001 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, MARCH 27,2001 3:30 P.M. MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson,Henry Sorenson, called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Bill Hanson Joanne Mannell Noel Karin Caroline-Assistant Planner Jim Raznoff Dan Glenn Derek Strahn- Historic Preservation Officer Melvin Howe Jeff Monroe -Assistant Planner Dick Pohl Jennifer Willems, Recording Secretary Dawn Smith Henry Sorenson ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 2001 Mr. Pohl moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to amend the minutes. Mr. Pohl noted an adjustment to the minutes, stating on page two, paragraph four, last sentence, it should have read, "Mr. Pohl stated he would like to see a pedestrian friendly, open area,not one which is surrounded only by cars." Motion carried unanimously. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. 777 East Main Street MaSP/COA/DEV-#Z-0100- (Caroline) 777 East Main Street ilk A review of proposed in-ground lighting for the previously City Commission approved site plan. Planner Karin Caroline stated the project had already been approved by City Commission,noting a condition which the City Commission placed on the project. She stated prior to final site plan approval, the plans were to go back to the DRB so they could look at the location of the in-ground lighting and the type of lighting proposed. She reviewed the site plan, showing where the in-ground lighting is located, noting it will be flush in the ground, and angled towards the building. Planner Caroline stated the goal of the lights is to strictly highlight the top and the bottom 3 feet of the building. She stated the light will hit the awning level at approximately 9 feet and then dissipate. Planner Caroline showed the plan with the lights highlighted for easier review, stating the front elevation has 3 or 4 feet of facade where the in-ground lighting would be located,shining towards the building and not going beyond the 9' awning level. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 1 Planner Caroline stated Planning Staff s concern,being there is very little lighting within the parking area, and it would be a safety feature to contain the lighting within the sidewalk scape. She noted Planning Staff commented the light would provide a safe pedestrian passage to and from vehicles. Planner Caroline stated the sidewalks have radiant heat, which will also allow pedestrians to see, noting there are no wall mounted lights in the rear of the building. Planner Caroline presented a picture of the proposed light and explained its high weight handling capability,noting a car would be able to drive over it without harming the lens. She stated within the light itself,it has the capability of being angled, explaining how the proper angling occurs. Planner Caroline stated the possibility of colored lenses,possibly a yellow or amber so as not to have a stark white light. Planner Caroline stated there are also de-fractor lenses available which can defuse the light, making it have a softer, mellow light. She noted the proposed lights are 26 watts each, considerably less than anticipated. Mr.Pohl asked where the lighting was located within the parking lot. Planner Caroline explained the lighting is located in the medians,on the island landscaping. She stated Montana Aleworks will be installing the proper shades which will integrate the two properties together. Mr. Howe asked if the proposed light was more of a parking lot light or a streetlight. Planner Caroline stated the proposed lights are parking lot lights. Ms. Smith asked how many total ground lights will be placed on the site. Planner Caroline stated there will be 34 lights around the building. Mr.Pohl asked about the external signage lighting. Planner Caroline stated the light will be over the sign, noting Junga Juice and It's Greek To Me as examples stating all lights, including those in the awning, will be consistent. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded, to approve the project as presented. The motion carried unanimously. 2. Antique Mall MiSP/COA/DEV-#Z-01014 - (Caroline) Moved from March 13, 2001 612 East Main Street �1k A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations, to allow the remodel of the existing 14,000 s.f., to accommodate four new office spaces and related site improvements. Jeff Sandholln and Tom Simkins joined the DRB. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 2 Planner Caroline presented the board with plans of the existing Antique Mall explaining the remodel of the 14,000 sf building. She stated the building will accommodate four new office spaces,noting two will be on the ground floor and two on the upper level. She explained how the property line runs right up against the bumper of the cars,noting the property line is 20 feet from the building. Planner Caroline noted an access easement would allow access for both CMC Properties, and the Antique Mall. She stated the easement allows for access only and not for parking or storm water retention. Planner Caroline stated because ofthe easement,the project has to stay within the confines of the property lines for the parking and subsequently this is why the applicant is requesting the deviations. Planner Caroline reviewed the Staff Report, the four requested deviations, and the conditions of Planning Staff. She stated the first deviation was for the reduction of parking spaces due to the limited amount of space within the property line. She noted there are 48 spaces are required with the applicant providing 19 spaces and one handicapped space. Planner Caroline stated the second deviation is to reduce the two-way drive isle, noting the two-way drive isle is normally 26 feet and the deviation request is for 24 feet, in order to accommodate adequate parking and sideyard landscaping. She stated the third deviation is to allow the parking to encroach into the sideyard setback 3 feet, right up to property line. Planner Caroline stated the fourth deviation is for a 3' sidewalk between the building and adjacent parking lots. She noted they are eliminating the sidewalk as a deviation. Planner Caroline stated the applicant is proposing to carry the theme of historic lighting on Main Street within his property and they will care for the existing trees. She stated the applicant has met the landscaping requirements. Planner Caroline reviewed the new north entry canopy area, and the new east lobby and entrance. Questions of Staff: Mr.Pohl stated he recognized there are not enough parking stalls allowed. He asked about the storm water retention area. Planner Caroline showed on the plan where the storm water retention areas will be located. She stated the project lost two parking spaces because of the storm water retention area, explaining this is the reason the parking fell to 19 spaces. Ms. Smith asked about the lack of pedestrian access to the sidewalk area. She asked if the shared easement will be paved. Planner Caroline stated the property will be paved and noted one of the requirements is for curbing around the parking area. She noted the applicants may financially guarantee the perimeter curbing as part of an improvements agreement for a period of one year. Ms. Smith asked if the DRC had any concerns about the handicap access to the sidewalks. Planner Caroline pointed out on the plan where the handicapped space will be located with the appropriate grade, noting the plan will meet all ADA requirements with the sloping of ramps,with an elevator in the building. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 3 Ms. Smith asked about snow storage. Planner Caroline showed where the snow storage area will be located on the plan, stating the snow will be pushed up to the end and to the side,within the access easement. Ms.Smith asked if diagonal parking would elevate potential problems. Mr.Sandholm stated they had thought about diagonal parking but according to the way the easement requirement is written,there is no a possible way to work diagonal parking. Mr. Howe asked who owned the easement. Planner Caroline replied CMC Properties owns the easement. Mr. Simkins stated the easement is old and when his father owned the property he was allowed to use the easement only for access. Mr. Howe asked if there was storm water drain on the main street. Mr. Sandholm stated there was no storm water drain in front of the building. Mr. Howe asked where the water would drain and if the city allows storm water to drain across the sidewalk. Mr.Sandholm stated he did not know about any other property other than what is in front of his property, but assumed the water would drain to the gutters. Mr. Howe asked if water is retained because there is no way to get into a storm drain or because of a law stating each property has to provide it's own storm water retention. Mr. Sandholm stated he believed it is required and also to reach the storm drain a long pipe would have to be put in. Mr. Howe asked about reducing the parking by over half. Planner Caroline explained the lot restraints justified the parking and maxed out the site. She stated the footprint of the building shows storm water retention,which limits the parking along with the access easement. Mr. Hanson asked if there was any discussion comparing the difficult constraints of allowing any compact stalls although they do not achieve the adequate number stalls. He stated he is concerned there is no continuation of the sidewalk around the building. Mr. Hanson suggested reconfiguring the site with compact stalls. Planner Caroline stated there would be a requirement for curb stops and stated if they had an 18' stall there could not be a 3'minimum,because the bumper can not hang into the access. Mr.Simkins stated the access easement was written with tight constraints placed on it years ago. Mr. Hanson stated everything is draining to the street and because of the natural grade,water will dump on main street. Mr. Howe asked if drainage is allowed on the sidewalk. Planner Caroline stated the water has to be retained on site. Planner Caroline stated she would talk to the Engineering Department. Mr. Hanson asked if the 48 stalls were based on gross office space. Planner Caroline stated they calculated the stalls at 85%. Mr. Sandholm stated they tried to keep the existing building the same and add entries to provide access to the office space. Mr. Hanson asked if the openings for the windows are the same and if the windows were all new. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 4 Mr.Sandholm stated the upper elevation windows are existing from a previous version of the building before the concrete front was added. Mr.Pohl stated he is concerned about constraints of the site,noting he is concerned about parking on the site. Mr. Sandholm stated the AleWorks has ample parking and they have talked about shared parking with them. Mr. Pohl stated that if shared parking is a possibility then something needs to be put in writing. Mr. Simkins stated there is a limit to what can be done downtown where there is very limited space. Mr.Pohl asked if improvements were made at the entrance access and if they are locked into ghe only access for the CMC property. Planner Caroline stated there could be a drive approach,which could be shared,but not the only access for the CMC property. Mr.Pohl asked if there were other uses,would parking then decrease. Planner Caroline stated retail use would increase the parking requirements. Chairperson Sorenson asked if owners had offered to provide$5,000 per space. Planner Caroline stated in the B-3 zoning district the applicant would be required to pay into the parking commission fund Mr.Howe asked how much distance is allowed between properties to share parking. Planner Caroline stated she believed it to be up to 1000 feet. Planner Strahn stated you are allowed to cross a street to share parking. Mr.Howe stated the community design center at the MSU School of Architecture has done extensive work on pre-design planning on the library. He stated they have used the access as a shared access, which is a concern of many people. Mr. Howe asked if Community Design Center has shown any willingness to work with the applicant. Mr. Sandholm stated they have contacted then and have not received a response,but hopes to work with them on a shared access. Mr.Hanson stated the easement the applicant is working with was development years ago,they have done anything to try and have it revised. Mr. Sandholm stated CMC is very difficult to deal with. Mr.Hanson stated there is 8 or 9 feet beyond,towards the fence,which is contributed to the easement, and he suggested the space be pushed toward the front of the building. Mr.Pohl stated if the parking stall could shift in the future,then a sidewalk could be put in. Planner Caroline stated if the property owner changes hands there could be the possibility of changing the parking. Mr.Hanson stated he would like to see an effort made to have a viable access to the building on the east side. Mr.Howe stated it the owner of the land uses the access as a two way access,people are then walking thru a roadway. Mr. Simkin stated this is why they have left the curbing open for plans, which will hopefully happen in the future. there are life safety concerns that deal with the public and they are forced to access the entrance thru the driveway. Mr. Hanson stated there are life safety concerns which deal with the public and they are forced to access the entrance thru the driveway. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 5 Chairperson Sorenson liked the basic approach to the building and stated if the applicant is already losing 2 stalls to stormwater retetion, why not lose another 2 stalls and have a sidewalk to Main Street. Mr.Hanson stated the handicapped stall could be parallel,and it would help the storm water retention area. Chairperson Sorenson stated a 3 foot sidewalk could be put in by losing one more stall would make the site safer. Mr. Sandholm asked if the DRC would accept this. Mr. Simkins stated he felt the parking stalls were valuable. Mr. Sorenson stated hopefully not as valuable as someone getting hurt in the parking area. Planner Caroline stated two possible recommendations from the DRB, one being the possibility of removing the parking spaces to the north of the east entry, minus the handicap space and incorporating a minimum 3' sidewalk to link the east entry to Main Street. She stated the second possible recommendation could be to get every opportunity for future development to the east and to get the 3' minimum to 5' city standard sidewalk up against the building in the proper location if the adjacent property changes ownership. Mr.Hanson asked if the DRB approved this and the owner changed hands,would they have to go back and review the site. Mr.Howe suggested buying the land from the new owner if possible. Mr.Hanson asked the other DRB members how they felt about the magnitude of the parking shortfall. He stated he believes the parking issue will take care of itself and would like to see the project come in on the east side of Main Street. He stated by not having adequate parking stalls they impact surrounding areas, and to what level does the Board accept it. Mr.Pohl stated he would like to see something in writing stating there could be shared parking with another business,but as it stands now,he is very concerned with the parking issue. Planner Caroline stated an agreement could be drawn up and placed on the project as a condition,then it would be up to the property owner to secure the agreement. Mr. Hanson suggested letting some of the parking shortfall come from some place else. Mr. Simkins asked about the proposal of the reduction of parking on this side of town. Planner Caroline stated the proposal has gone through a ZCA and is on the backburner and the City Commission is looking at having this district able to pay into a parking fund. She stated this too still being reviewed. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded, to approve the project with the addition of two recommendations, the first being the owner achieve an agreement with the neighboring property owner for a minimum of 18 parking stalls to be used in conjunction of what can be provided on site and secondly,a pedestrian access be developed from Main Street to the east entry of the new facility. Motion carried unanimously. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 6 3. Wilson ADU/CUP/COA/DEV -#Z-01008 - (Strahn) 1002 South Third Avenue A Conditional Use Permit Application and a Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations, to allow the removal of an existing single car garage and the construction of a two car, two story garage/office/accessory dwelling unit. Brent Wilson(property owner),EJ Engler(Architect Designer),Thomas Bitnar(Architect Designer), and Ken Ryder(contractor),joined the DRB Historic Preservation Officer/Planner,Derek Strahn,presented the DRB with four additional letters of public comment received by the Planning Department. He stated two of the letters were in opposition of and two letters were in support of the project. Planner Strahn noted a total of 19 letters had been received, 10 in opposition to and 9 in support of the proposed project. Planner Strahn explained the background with respect to the public comment process to the DRB. He noted the project is a Conditional Use Permit to create an accessory dwelling unit in the upper portion of the garage structure with deviations being requested from zoning standards. He stated the project was advertised in the newspaper,posted on site,and neighbors within 200 feet of the site were given legal notice and invited to comment. Planner Strahn stated most comments have been from neighbors in the immediate proximity of the site with some coming from outside of the neighborhood. Planner Strahn reviewed the staff report, giving the DRB a few arguments as to why Planning Staff feels the recommendations are justified. He stated the project is well designed and staff recognized the proposed materials and the design features are of an unusually high quality. Planner Strahn noted the design of the project constitutes a dramatic alteration to a historic property. He stated the dimensions of the building are 100'x 155',noting the existing house structure is approximately 3400 sf of usable space. He stated the existing garage is 264 sf,which would be removed with the new proposal. Planner Strahn stated significant modifications of the project are to include a more than 2,400 sf addition to the south elevation, a 1,056 sf enclosed colonnade addition, a 1,780 sf garage accessory dwelling unit addition, noting the total amount of space to be added to the project is approximately 5,257 sf. He stated the combined total of the existing property with the additions will equal 8,657 sf,amounting to an increase of 142%of the usable space on the property. Planner Strahn stated the garage and accessory dwelling unit alone would constitute a sizable structure which would exceed the size and scale of some of the surrounding units in the immediate vicinity. He stated there are at least two smaller neighboring homes which are presently smaller than the proposed garage. Planner Strahn stated the colonnade is an enclosed,42 foot structure,noting the combined length of the total north elevation along West Cleveland Avenue would be 128 feet. Planner Strahn stated there are now two required deviations. He stated the first deviation was to allow the garage/accessory dwelling unit structure to encroach 14 feet into the rear yard setback,and the second deviation would allow the garage/accessory dwelling unit structure to occupy more than 25% of the required 20' rear yard setback. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 7 Planner Strahn stated staff feels in many respects, the lot and this particular neighborhood can accommodate a large scale renovation. He stated staff has significant concerns regarding the scale and length of proposed north elevation. He noted imparticularly staff is concerned with the 42 foot distance on the enclosed attachment connecting the accessory structure with the main residence. Planner Strahn stated there are no other structures of this size and scale in this particular neighborhood. He stated staff recommends eliminating the 42'connecting structure. He emphasized the importance of the structure being compatible with the historic flavor of neighborhood and could potentially set an adverse precedence. Planner Strahn stated staffs desire is to come up with a compromise to find a way for the project to move forward, while making the project historically compatible, addressing neighborhood concerns, and to better meet the requirements outlined in the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance. Planner Strahn stated specifics on why the colonnade is a problematic issue with respects to the project,noting historic appropriateness is the number one criterian for granting deviations in the older part of town. He stated two other criteria for granting deviations are impact on abutting properties, and public health, safety, and welfare. Planner Strahn noted with code requirements, and the Secretary ofthe Interior's Standards,historic appropriateness becomes a major issue in reviewing the proj ect. Planner Strahn mentioned three examples of newer renovation proj ects which had connections,noting the significant size difference between the proposed projects and the examples given. He stated another reason he felt the colonnade should be eliminated from the project,noting the openness and mature landscaping are in staffs opinion significant character defining features in the neighborhood and throughout the historic part of Bozeman. He stated detached accessory structures are a far more common place than attached structures. Planner Strahn stated privacy and yard space,needing to be defined,is typically done in the older part of town with hedges and fences,not with a 42' wall. He stated if the colonnade were eliminated,it would be possible to preserve one mature existing tree,noting four mature trees on site would be cut down and additional trees would be added in the project. He stated as proposed four mature trees on site would be cut down. Planner Strahn noted the 3`d point on why the colonnade should be eliminated from the proj ect being the consistently voiced neighborhood concerns about the colonnade. He stated to grant a deviation to the project, it must have a minimal adverse impact on abutting properties. Planner Strahn affirmed the 4t"reason to eliminate the colonnade in staff s opinion is because it is something in which can be eliminated with minimal adverse impact to the overall project, allowing the significant modifications to the house, and the significant new structure go forward. Planner Strahn stated the colonnade is a transitional space,not a living area,so elimination can take place in staffs opinion more readily than if it were a definable living space. He pointed out the mechanical equipment is located within the lower level of the colonnade and would have to be relocated if the colonnade were eliminated. He identified staff s opinion, explaining staff feels the mechanical equipment can be relocated without affecting the overall project. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 8 Planner Strahn stated the 5"reason,suggesting detaching the garage from the main residence would bring the project into conformance with the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance. He then explained the code for detached garages, stating a detached garage would bring the need for a deviation that much less. He identified the 61"reason, stating if the garage structure is detached from the house, it would be much more compatible with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. He stated the Standards read specifically, "Attached exterior additions shall be located at the rear on an inconspicuous side of the historic building, and limited in size and scale in relation to the historic building." He agreed the colonnade is located to the rear of the existing structure but is not inconspicuous. He stated the Secretary of the Interior recommends against"designing anew addition so that its size and scale in relation to the historic building are out ofproportion,thus diminishing the historic character of the original structure." Planner Strahn stated the project is complicated and people have very strong opinions in relationship to the project because they are concerned about what happens in the historic district. He stated staff has struggled to find a compromise which would allow the essence of the project to move forward while making it more historically appropriate and meeting neighborhood concerns. He concluded by stating staff believes by eliminating the colonnade they have a possible compromise. Planner Strahn reviewed the conditions noting condition #1 comes straight out of the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance related to accessory dwelling units. He emphasized the importance of condition #6, affirming its significance by stating in order to make the project more historically appropriate, more compatible with the zoning ordinance, and to preserve one additional mature tree, as well as addressing significant neighborhood concerns, the proposed colonnade should be eliminated. He stated along with the elimination of the colonnade the existing tree should be retained,and yard space and privacy need to be defined with hedges and fences of a limited height and the mechanical systems be relocated. Planner Strahn reiterated the rest of the conditions as stated on the staff report,mentioning the fact staff would like to see a sample of the masonry and explained a building permit would need to be obtained as well as to follow condition#11. Questions of Staff: Mr. Hanson stated the site plan shows the 26 turning radius and a 26' alley setback and asked if the alley setback becomes 18 feet if the garage is not attached. He also stated the turning radius is a functional issue. Planner Strahn stated the applicants have met the provisions for turning radius. Mr.Hanson asked how much%of the lot coverage can be used for the accessory structure and noted they applicant is over the allowed percentage. Planner Strahn stated the code allows 25%of the rear yard to be occupied. He stated they are at about 30% or more now. Mr. Howe stated the building is on the Historical register as a single entity. Planner Strahn noted it is a contributing part of the property in the Bon Ton Historic District. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 9 Mr.Howe stated his opinion in which the accessory unit is part of the main structure if it is connected. Planner Strahn noted the code defines a garage as an accessory structure. Moreover, an accessory dwelling unit, according to the code, is defined as an accessory structure. Mr. Howe stated it is arguable the garage is an accessory structure. He asked if the colonnade were shorter giving the setback required,would it then be acceptable. Planner Strahn stated staff is not recommending to do this. He stated a tree would be eliminated and suggested staff is willing to support the deviation of a garage encroachment in the rear setback,which is common in the old part of town. Mr. Howe asked if the tree being saved was a maple and how much life it has left. Mr. Pohl stated the life of the tree is approximately 100 years so the tree has approximately 60 years of life left. Mr. Howe asked Planner Strahn if he was aware of the design criteria for the colonnade. Planner Strahn stated he had spoken with the owners and the architect extensively and noted his understanding was the owners feel strongly the colonnade is needed as part of the project. Mr.Raznoff stated in his understanding the mechanical equipment is located under to colonnade and asked Planner Strahn if the area was full in height and if a person could walk thru it. Planner Strahn replied with a"yes". Mr.Raznoff asked Planner Strahn if the recommendation to eliminate the colonnade would effect the mechanical equipment and if so could the equipment be maintained without eliminating it. Planner Strahn stated in his recommendation he suggests relocating the mechanical equipment. Mr.Raznoff asked if the walls connecting garages to the front of the house are corner lots or exterior lots. Planner Strahn stated they are in fact corner lots. Mr. Pohl asked Planner Strahn for more information about context of the addition to the south. Planner Strahn explained the project is a modern addition and noted staff recommendation to the architects was to maintain the traditional craftsman style look. He stated the traditional look will be maintained in the most visible parts of the structure. Planner Strahn reflected the Zoning Ordinance does mention new and innovative design being introduced in the older part of town. He stated The Secretary of the Interior specifically talks about new addition being a clear product of their time and in some way distinguished from the essential character of the original structure, as long as the new addition was compatible in site and scale. Mr. Thomas Bitnar stated after he worked with his client designing the project, he presented it to Planner Strahn. He suggested the amount of square footage proposed for the site is allowed on the lot, noting the roof is the same on the garage addition and on the house. Mr. Bitnar presented a picture of an extremely large home built in the 1880's. He argued the issue of the size of the project home comparing it to the home shown in the 1880 picture. Mr. Bitnar showed pictures of existing homes in the Bon Ton Historic District, describing the modernization of the homes over the years. He stated he disagrees with Planner Strahn about the length of the fagade wall and presented a sketch of what the wall would look like when the landscaping is complete. Mr. Bitnar argued the issue of historic buildings having something new. He stated he is in strong opposition to what Planner Strahn has presented in his staff report. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 10 He suggested Cleveland Avenue is similar to that of Willson Avenue stating they are both noisy with traffic and suggested people are going to do what they can to protect their property from crime,traffic and keep it secure. Mr. Ryder stated as a builder he looks at things from a functional standpoint. He stated he has been the contractor on several projects with attachments. Mr. Ryder stated his issue is with the criterian for the length of the colonnade, and asked what the criteria to establish an acceptable length. He stated the site is very functional, and more,than just a transitional element. Mr.Ryder stated he has had several meetings with his plumbing and mechanical contractors to figure out where to locate the mechanical apparatus. He suggests having the full basement below the colonnade will provide the needed space for the mechanical equipment. He stated he disagreed with Planner Strahn in finding space underneath the existing structure for the mechanical equipment, noting it would be very problematic. Mr. Ryder stated the colonnade is an essential element in the overall design of the structure, noting the owners feel very strong about the colonnade. Mr. Hanson asked the owner how the colonnade space would be used. Mr. Wilson stated uses for the colonnade as storage, laundry room, closets, and a mudroom. Mr. Hanson asked what functional aspect of the space is dictating the 42' from the main building. Mr. Wilson stated it is the connection to the garage and would like to see the garage as far back to the alley as possible. He stated the more the garage is encroached into the yard, the less yard he will have. Mr. Wilson stated the main reason for the length was to protect the yard. Mr. Hanson asked about the exterior plaza, noting a great deal of architectural effort has been put in to create an open connection to the patio directly to the west of the colonnade. He stated with the functions in which Mr. Wilson stated,there is no logical connection. Mr. Hanson stated the five double doors opening onto the plaza is becoming an indoor/outdoor space that is a continuation of an interior space for functional purpose. Mr. Wilson stated in the original design the colonnade opened up into the courtyard and was meant for entertainment and be able to drive thru the garage to the kitchen. Mr. Hanson suggested with the uses Mr. Wilson has offered for the colonnade space, it will be broken up. Mr. Bitnar stated the applicant wants open space for easy accessibility. He stated the uses of the colonnade are still to be determined. Mr. Hanson stated from a design standpoint, obviously decisions have been made to push the garage 42' away. Mr. Wilson stated different garages are against the alley to protect the yard. Mr. Engler stated the garage was pushed further away to protect the overall composition of the craftsman. He stated to preserve the character of the Cleveland Avenue elevation,the garage was pushed away to keep the indicative shape of the gable. Mr. Engler stated they have worked to comply with the comments of the neighbors and other who have written letters. Mr. Wilson stated the colonnade is a necessity from their standpoint. Mr. Hanson asked what type of mechanical system will be used. Mr. Ryder replied there will be a mixture of hot water and radiant heat and also forced air. Mr. Hanson asked if the boilers were going to be in the basement of the colonnade and how the flu's were going to be routed out. Mr. Ryder explained where the flu's would be located and stated they have a few ideas in mind. Mr. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 11 Hanson stated explained there cannot be a window adjacent to the flu's. He suggests more study needs to be done on the mechanical system to include the location of the flu's. Mr. Ryder stated they have gone through a lot of design to get the colonnade completely transparent and would like to see the colonnade be included in the project. Mr. Hanson asked if the patio to the west of the colonnade is strictly used to drive across and asked if it could be adjusted any. Mr. Wilson stated the patio is for entertainment and to him it seemed like a logical place to have the patio. Mr. Hanson asked Mr. Bitnar if any design studies were done to look at moving the garage and the connection slightly to the south. Mr. Bitnar stated it is possible to move it technically,but the yard will suffer. He stated they are trying to avoid the noise. Mr. Hanson stated a few inches, or even a foot could make all the difference in the proportions. Mr. Bitnar stated his client doesn't want to loose the yard space. Mr. Hanson asked what dictated the width of the proposed colonnade,the proposed covered porch. Mr. Wilson stated the width was determined so the space could be used and not disrupted when walking through the colonnade. Ms. Smith asked Planner Strahn why the patio/parking lot is satisfying the parking requirements. Planner Strahn stated originally there was a deviation requested for the relaxation of on site parking from 4 needed spaces to 2 spaces. He stated they have since come back with changes on the site plan,which shows space enough for two cars. Ms. Smith asked if the parking space is practical. She stated she is noticing confliction where Mr. Wilson states the patio is for entertainment, yet it is satisfying the parking requirements. Mr. Bitnar stated you can park 2 cars in the garage. Ms. Smith stated the patio is really a parking area, and asked what the difference was of it being a garage. She asked if it is usable space or is it garage space. Mr. Engler stated with the legal restrictions on the parking,the only people who will live here will be the direct members of the family. Mr. Wilson stated there has been a restrictive covenant stating they will not rent. Ms. Smith stated the issue at hand is the length of the breezeway and stated if you need the 2 parking spots you could tantum them on the other side of the garage. Mr. Bitnar state the U shape is meant for the optional space of the family. Planner Strahn emphasized staff is not suggesting moving the garage closer to the house. He stated he thought it would be very inappropriate and make a large structure much more massive in size. Planner Strahn noted when he had written a memo to the applicant/representative in December 2000,he identified the colonnade as the key problem in the project. Mr. Raznoff asked how the guidelines in the Secretary of the Interiors applied to the recommended conditions of the project. Mr. Bitnar stated he is concerned with every structure built or remodeled in the Historic areas of Bozeman. He stated he tries to follow all recommendations and to meet a compromise with all of the requests from the written comments. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 12 Mr. Raznoff asked Planner Strahn if the Secretary of The Interior is a legal document. Planner Strahn reviewed section 18:42.060, of the Bozeman Zoning Code, standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness—A, "All work performed and completion of approved Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in general conformance with the Secretary of The Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. B —"Architectural appearance design guidelines used in consideration of the appropriateness and compatibility shall include the following: Height preportions of doors and windows,relation to buildings in masses, etc.." He stated the standards are critical in how the historic district is maintained., noting it is the design guidelines for the historic district. Mr. Ryder stated the project falls within the criteria of the above noted guidelines. He asked where do you draw the line. He noted the colonnade is consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors guidelines, that new additions be different from the historic fabric. Planner Strahn noted the standards not only have a chapter on additions, but a chapter on neighborhood compatibility as well. He stated there are several comments in the Staff Report relating to whether or not to connect accessory structures to principal residences is compatible with the neighborhood. Planner Strahn noted that size and scale for additions must be compatible, according to The Standards. Mr. Pohl stated he felt the colonnade had very conflicting functions. He noted the proposed uses, some of which would not leave the colonnade transparent. He asked to have the function clarified. Mr.Engler stated some of the transition they have accommodated in the garage,and noted they could put the laundry in the basement. Mr. Pohl asked what reality will be and how transparent the colonnade will be. Mr. Wilson stated the colonnade will be as transparent as the DRB wants it. He suggested he would like closets,but would gladly keep the colonnade transparent so he could keep it in the plan because of the functionality of it. Mr. Wilson noted the space could be utilized with many different uses and doesn't want to see glass throughout,but if they are creating an isolationist effect,then they would make it all glass. Mr. Sorenson asked if they intended to have an opaque fence along the outer wall of the colonnade. Planner Strahn stated he has already placed a condition of approval on the plan which limits fence height to 6 feet,and that it be softened. Mr.Bitnar showed a drawing of the landscaping which would be placed in front of the colonnade facade, noting there is no fence in front of the colonnade. Mr. Ryder stated they will remove an existing hedge,but will replace it after construction is complete. Mr. Hanson asked if the stairway adjacent to the kitchen is existing. Mr. Engler stated there is an existing stairway but it will be replaced by a new stairway. Comments: Mr. Hanson stated he is torn between the functionality of the colonnade and is concerned about the reality of the colonnade. He noted when he first reviewed the project,he was concerned with the exit door out of the kitchen. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 13 Mr. Hanson stated the patio could be a positive exterior space,but the proportions of the colonnade concern him, noting the 42' facade, the width and the location. He noted he would like to see the colonnade pulled to the south a few feet,to give more definition to the new accessory structure and the main building. He stated if the colonnade were moved there would be opportunity for more relief to the element. Mr.Hanson noted the impact of the patio by moving the colonnade, stating the drive thru door is not aligned with the parking stall in the garage. He suggested if the element were to shift proportionately so the door would line up with the drive-thru, the patio would have to be modified somehow. Mr.Hanson stated if the shift were to take place,it would give the connection point better detail. Mr.Hanson asked Mr.Pohl what the impact would be by getting close to the roots of the tree. Mr. Pohl stated on certain trees you could reduce 1/4 of the root mass without jeopardizing the tree. Mr. Ryder stated they have successfully relocated maple trees before. Mr. Hanson stated he feels the applicant needs to really think about the mechanical system. He suggested there will be problems with the venting,flu's and routing. He stated the plan shows open space with windows on the north side. Mr.Hanson stated if the applicant plans to circulate through this space,arrangement of mechanical equipment will not be easy. Mr.Ryder stated they have looked at the mechanical issue several times and feels there will be no problems with the mechanical system. Mr. Hanson stated he is concerned on what the impact the mechanical system will have on the architecture of the colonnade. He suggested there was an opportunity for two separate mechanical rooms,in the garage and in the existing building where the stairway will be in the kitchen. Mr.Ryder explained how the mechanical equipment will be set up and why it would work, noting the mechanical system needs ample space. Mr. Hanson suggested the mechanical equipment shown on the plans will not work. Mr. Ryder stated the windows will be on one side and the mechanical equipment on the other side. Mr.Hanson asked where the air conditioner will be located. Mr.Ryder stated they are still working on this. Mr. Engler explained the air intake and the exhaust. Mr. Hanson suggested the connection between the two buildings is out of proportion. He stated he supports the functionality of the element but not the location. He suggested a different configuration of the west wall of the garage. Mr.Hanson would like to see the element moved to the south to allow the corner of the new garage structure and the corner of the building to read stronger and let the element stand separately. He stated he applauds the rest of the architecture,noting the building could be a positive addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Hanson stated the landscaping solve the problems of the view of the colonnade. Mr.Howe asked Planner Strahn what the minimum parking requirement for the site. Planner Strahn stated it is four spaces, on site. He stated the parking spaces are located specifically so the yard can be maximized. Mr. Howe stated he does not like on street parking, and he feels off street parking should be provided on all new developments. He stated he feels the proposed parking is not adequate. Ms.Smith concurred with comments on the proposed parking and feels the two additional drive-thru spaces intrude more on the green outdoor living space than having the parking along the alleyway. She stated the proj ect would be a nice addition to the neighborhood and likes the idea of an accessory unit and urges the applicant to rent it out. Ms. Smith expressed concern that the length of the house is notably 20%more than any other examples,which were presented. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 14 Mr. Raznoff stated he liked the architecture and if the project was not in a historic district, there would be very little controversy. He recognized the owner has compromised a lot to achieve conformance with staff recommendations. He stated the scale of the garage in the rear seems large for an accessory unit, and suggests scaling it back. Mr.Pohl stated he likes the accessory unit, the proportions of the garage and the location. He does not like the colonnade, and suggested it does not fit in with the neighborhood and would support staffs recommendation. He suggests the home sits above the street slightly and from the sidewalk there is a slope. Chairperson Sorenson stated the job has been done well. He suggested the trellis does not tie into the building. He stated there are a lot of porches in Bozeman which show a wall of glass and suggested he does not feel it is inappropriate,but recognized the continuation of a long 128' elevation is. He would like the whole colonnade transparent and would support it if it were kept transparent. Chairperson Sorenson stated putting solid elements in contrast with the transparency of the colonnade would be unacceptable. He would like to see it fully glazed. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to approve the plan as presented with the recommendations to include the two existing deviations and add a condition to include two additional on site parking spaces not on the patio area be created and all conditions. Discussion: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded,to amend the motion to strike condition 6,which would delete the colonnade, effectively leaving it in,with conditions 1)the colonnade is glazed,both sides, be transparent, 2) the location of the colonnade be moved to the south to create more definition between the colonnade element and the two connecting structures. Discussion on the Amendment: Ms.Smith asked if there is a minimum/maximum distance when moving the colonnade. Mr.Hanson stated a minimum of two feet to the south. Mr. Hanson moved,to amend the amended motion to include moving the colonnade a minimum of two feet to the south. The amendment moved 3-3. Discussion on the motion: Chairperson Sorenson asked for discussion on the motion as proposed by Mr. Howe which is to include, at this point, all of the stipulations proposed by staff, except the deviation for parking and also recognizing the colonnade to be included, transparent and moved two feet further back. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 15 Mr. Raznoff stated he is uncertain what the motion was as far as moving the parking from one location to the other. Mr. Howe explained the motion was not to have the parking on the patio and fulfill the off street parking code. Mr.Pohl stated he could accept the idea of the colonnade being transparent and moved back slightly, but has a problem on how long it would stay this way, and suggested if there is another owner, the city does not review interior modifications. Ms.Smith stated she does not want to undermind the historical guidelines and stated if Planner Strahn feels strongly that the project is not in compliance,then by the board saying it is,is the board setting precedence in the historic district. Chairperson Sorenson stated he likes the back yard,and to carve out a space for parking would take away from the yard. He stated he has mixed feelings on requiring the parking. He stated the owners would not be parking on the patio unless they were gone, and would rather see on street parking. Chairperson Sorenson amended, Mr. Hanson seconded, to amend the motion, to reinstate the deviation for the two parking stalls. For- 3. Apposed -3 Planner Strahn summarized the motion for the DRB. He reiterated,saying Mr.Howe moved that the DRB recommend to the City Commission, approval of the project with the two deviations required, with the addition of two on site parking spaces. Planner Strahn stated Mr. Howe had stated all condition,but Mr. Hanson had come back with an amendment which said to eliminate condition 6 and add that the colonnade be glazed on both sides fully and it be moved to the south at least two feet. Mr. Howe stated his motion stated to provide two off street parking spaces,not on the patio. All in favor of motion-3, all opposed—3 Ms. Smith moved, Mr.Raznoff seconded, to amend the motion to forward with the two deviations, to add two additional parking spaces not on the patio, and to include the requirement that the colonnade be eliminated. All in favor 3, opposed- 3 Ms. Smith moved,Mr.Howe seconded to forward the project to the City Commission with the vote of 3-3. Motion passed unanimously to forward a split decision. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 16 4. Lehrkind Storage Expansion MaSP/COA -#Z-01021 - (Monroe) 1715 North Rouse Avenue �Ik A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to develop a 18,000 s.f, storage addition on the rear of the existing facility, and related site improvements. Planner Jeff Monroe presented the plan and reviewed the staff report. He stated there were minimal comments from Planning Staff and Engineering Staff, except for additional parking, additional landscaping, and a handicap space. Planner Monroe indicated where the interstate, railroads, and storage is located, noting the building is unseen from the road. He stated setback's have been met. Questions: Mr. Pohl asked about the storm water retention area and if it accounted for roof run off. Plamier Monroe replied it did take in to account the roof. Chairperson Sorenson stated he could not delineate on the plan where the pavement started and stopped. Planner Monroe explained the pavement layout on the plan. He stated there is no public drive and the access would need to be curbed and guttered,noting parking requirements have been met. Planner Monroe directed the DRB to the site plan where he showed where the existing building and the project buildings location. He then explained the series of lines on the plan indicated the progression of building over the coming years. Chairperson Sorenson stated it was difficult to see on the plan where things were located. MOTION: Ms.Smith moved,Mr.Raznoff seconded,to recommend conditional approval as reported in the staff report. Motion carried unanimously ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW Mahar Office Complex-#I-0115 - (Monroe) 251 Edelweiss Drive �k An Informal Review Application for advice and comment regarding the development of 2.41 acres into a 4 single story and 1-two story office buildings, and related site improvements. Lowell Springer,Mr. Mahar and Steve Parks joined the DRB Planner Monroe presented the plan and reviewed the staff report, noting Planning Staff comments were minimal. He noted a requirement, stating landscaping needed to be provided to screen the project from the residents to the north. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 17 Mr. Parks indicated on the plan where the streets were located noting they are private streets. Mr. Springer indicated the parking accesses on he plan and setbacks,stating the site is long and linear and would appreciate comments from the DRB. Mr. Pohl remarked the site is difficult, and he would like to see the other driving isles connect. He stated the cluster of buildings would give good pedestrian access. Mr. Parks noted the site would contain two buildings side by side, and four - 3,000 sf rows of buildings. He stated flow-thru traffic will make parking tight. Mr. Parks suggested he had thought about clustering but was concerned with a dead end cluster. Mr. Pohl suggested placing the buildings back to back with a pedestrian space in the center. Mr. Mahar stated the circulation is very limited. Mr. Pohl stated there is a need for pedestrian space. Mr.Raznoff stated he noticed the orientation of the buildings run north to south and not east to west. He suggested possible solar advantages by orienting the building east to west. Mr.Raznoff remarked the plan is appropriate for the location,but suggests re-orienting the buildings to include a pedestrian space. Ms.Smith concurred with Mr.Pohl,noting she does not like the buildings having such defined backs. She asked how the masses related to Oak Wood Square. Mr. Springer suggested the buildings are the approximate size of the other buildings and presented pictures of proposed buildings to the board. He stated the view is limited and there is an existing mobile home park adjacent to the site and this property could not be purchased. Mr. Parks stated there is proposed fencing with landscaping. He stated the proposed buildings will have three entrances and the Oakwood properties only have two. Mr. Parks agreed there is a need for more landscaping and proposed tables for pedestrian use. Mr.Howe asked if varied facades had been discussed. Mr.Parks explained how they have placed the two-story building in the center to off set the facade. Chairperson Sorenson asked if the parking is mandated by code. Mr. Springer replied they have the exact number of spaces required by code. Planner Monroe stated they have a buffer of 10 spaces to work with either way. Mr. Sorenson stated the width of the plot drives the design and makes the site hard. He suggests less parking and to allow the buildings to flow together. Mr. Springer stated there is a possibility of taking out a couple of parking spaces to try and create a different elevation look. Mr. Springer stated they have chosen materials that suggest a longer lasting life. Chairperson Sorenson stated he liked the idea of varying materials,and suggested changing the orientation of the buildings. Mr.Hanson stated he did not see rear elevations and suggested dressing up the facades. He suggested possibly changing the building sizes and orientation,placing the parking on the sides of and creating a court in the middle. Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 18 Mr. Springer stated the site plan is hard to make look good but in context the site plan is better than what is there now. Mr.Hanson noted the buildings in Oakwood Square are nice in the front and then seem to become less in quality as the buildings were developed. He noted he liked the proposed materials. Mr. Parks stated he liked the idea of having signage above each individual office building. Mr. Springer stated the parking orientation could be rearranged to create center courts. Mr. Howe stated parking in front of each individual office should not be a concern, noting,people park where they want to. Mr. Parks stated each building will have assigned parking. Mr. Pohl mentioned the possibility of snow storage concerns. Mr. Parks referred to the site plan, showing where proposed snow storage will be located. Mr.Raznoff asked if there was a possibility ofbuilding more two-story buildings. Mr.Springer stated he would look into the idea,noting prime selling space is usually located on the lower levels. Mr. Springer suggested possibly arranging the office buildings according to their use.Members of DRB concurred on the suggestion of possibly building two, two-story buildings to free up space. Ms. Smith asked Mr. Springer bring another proposal back to DRB showing how the buildings will connect with adjacent sites. Mr.Hanson asked if the applicant was going to use color lock. Mr. Parks stated color lock is being phased out with the idea of painted sheets. Mr. Springer suggested they take another look at the orientation of the buildings and comments from the DRB and present another informal review. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT Mr.Hanson moved,Mr.Howe seconded,to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the Board,the meeting was adjourned. Henry krenson, Chairperson Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-March 27,2001 19 ATTENDANCE ROSTER MARCH 27, 2001 Those persons attending the Bozeman Design Review Board meeting are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly. NAME ADDRESS 1. .5A1,jo1+0L-M `��'� F iZ1 ,,ti S t-t(rr 2. flL 3. S 4. 1ID7 � - 5 5. 6. 6-(6 1 9. � I�u -yam t�z� w ��n v��,� si— 370 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15, 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.