Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-1996 DRB Minutes MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1996 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairperson Kim Walker at 3:35 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Ed McCrone Cliff Chisholm Roger Cruwys Mari-Gai Katz Staff Present Walt Willett Andrew Epple, Planning Director Kim Walker Derek Strahn, Historic Preservation Planner Paul Gleye Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Rich Noonan Visitors Present: Mark Geissler David Wallin Gerald Gaston ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 1996 Vice-Chairperson Walker asked for corrections or additions to the November 13, 1996 minutes. Mr. Willett moved, Ms. Katz seconded, that the minutes be approved as submitted. ITEM 3. REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION REVIEW A. Bozeman Ford Storage Building#Z-95136 - (Patterson) 1804 West Babcock Street A request to change the siding from horizontal color-lock siding (as approved)to vertical metal sheet siding. Mr. Gerald Gaston and Mr. David Wallin joined the DRB. Planning Director Andrew Epple reviewed the project. He noted that vertical standing seam siding has been installed on the two ends of the building. He continued that vertical siding would have helped to diminish the height of the building. He noted that the vertical expression of the siding is the issue. Mr. Willett inquired if there was an issue of site improvements not yet completed. Planning Director Epple noted that there are site improvements that have yet to be done and that occupancy will be given only with a letter of credit to cover the site improvements not yet completed. Mr. Gaston indicated that he has pictures to show what has been done on the Design Review Board-November 26, 1996 ] building. Mr. Willett commented that he's been to the site and has seen what has been done. He noted that the approved siding was color-lock and metal siding doesn't fit with the rest of the neighborhood. Discussion ensued on the roofing that has been installed. Mr. Willett noted that he couldn't tell what type it was as it is covered with snow and inquired if it is standing seam or corrugated roofing. Mr. Gaston said it was standing seam. Discussion ensued on the fire walls that had to be installed as per Building Code. Planning Director Epple noted that the fire walls were Building Code issues and not part of the DRB original approval. Mr. Cruwys noted that he reacts against changing approved features of projects. He discussed having the applicant go back and change the roofing to the approved shingle roof to better match the buildings in the neighborhood. In response to Mr. Cruwys' question regarding site improvements yet to be done,Mr. Wallin explained the fencing and hedge plantings which are planned. Discussion ensued on the trees to be planted. Mr. Cruwys noted that since this is a storage shed,he doesn't think there is a problem with the siding, other than it wasn't the approved siding. Ms. Katz noted that since the siding wasn't addressed in the original conditions, she feels that it was approved as presented. The approved plans state that the siding will be a gray or brown color-lock horizontal siding. However, she continued, even though this is a storage building,the siding does matter. Mr. Gleye inquired of Planning Director Epple if the landscaping was a problem. Planning Director Epple noted that there would be a financial guarantee required at occupancy to cover any landscaping yet to be completed. Mr. Gleye inquired if his site plan was current. Planning Director Epple shared the approved site plan from the file. Mr. Gleye noted that he feels there is no problem with the metal roof on this type of building. He continued that the architectural compatibility is important and the horizontal siding is a necessity. He asked Mr. Wallin if he had a reason for changing the siding. Mr.Wallin responded that the builder had suggested changing it to reduce cost and he thought it was a good idea. Vice-Chairperson Walker noted that she is troubled with the change even though it wasn't one of the conditions. She noted that she feels that she is wasting her time if the approved plans are going to be changed on a whim. For her it doesn't matter what the project is or who the applicant is, it's the principle that the approved site plan was changed without approval. The issue is how to handle the non-approved modifications. She continued that metal buildings, when involved with automobiles,become banged up. She is in favor of the color-lock siding. Since the roof is completed, she would suggest a compromise-the roof stay as it is,but the color-lock siding be installed. Mr. Gleye commented that it is a mater of principle that projects be built as the approved site plans specify. Design Review Board-November 26, 1996 2 Mr. Gaston noted that the purpose of his being at this meeting is to say that his firm was negligent in following up on this project. He asked for input on how to proceed from here. He noted that he had failed to transfer the complete information to his client. Mr. Wallin noted that he didn't think there would be a problem with changing aspects of the approved the site plan. Vice-Chairperson Walker noted that she is in support of the decisions made by the prior DRB members. She'd like to compromise by leaving the roof as it has been done and require the building to be sided as approved. Ms. Katz commented that the building is in the entryway corridor and that places greater responsibility on the property owner to be sure that the building fits into the neighborhood. Vice-Chairperson Walker noted that approving the modifications requested would in effect negate the effectiveness of the DRB. Mr. Willett concurred that the metal roofing would be acceptable and that the metal siding is unacceptable. He continued the horizontal color-lock siding would look much better as there is no other metal siding in the neighborhood. The color-lock would be more neighbor and community friendly. Vice-Chairperson Walker asked if there have been any other modifications made. Mr. Wallin stated that there have been no other modifications made. Mr. Cruwys inquired what is located east of the storage building. Mr. Wallin stated it is a log home that has been purchased by the Langhor people. Discussion ensued on the merits of color-lock siding. Mr. Cruwys suggested screening more heavily with two or more large conifers and leave the vertical siding. Vice-Chairperson Walker noted that would be allowing unapproved modifications and she isn't willing to compromise that much. MOTION: She moved, Mr. Willett seconded,to approve the modification of the roof to be covered with metal as installed,but the siding of the structure is to be installed as originally proposed and approved-horizontal color-lock masonite siding. Mr. Gleye inquired if the masonite was important or the horizontal placement of the siding. Consensus was that horizontal color-lock, which is a masonite-type siding, was approved. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Wallin asked for a specific definition of color-lock,masonite siding, with details of what was approved. DRB members indicated the location on the approved site plan where the siding and roofing are specified, as submitted. Design Review Board-November 26,1996 3 ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEWS A. Hermann COA/DEV#Z-9694 - (Strahn) 503 North Rouse A Certificate of Appropriateness Application with Deviations to allow the replacement and expansion of a bedroom and bathroom. Planner Derek Strahn introduced Mark Geissler and reviewed the application. He noted the Hermanns are requesting 2 deviations- 1) from Section 18.50.160 "Non-Conforming Uses and Structures" to allow for the expansion of a house which does not meet required setbacks and 2) from 18.18.050 "Yards" to allow an encroachment of an expanded addition into the required 8' side yard setback (complete Staff report on file in the Planning Office). He continued that the property is non-conforming and the setbacks are less than allowed by the Zone Code. Mr. Gleye inquired if the addition will maintain the characteristics of the house. Planner Strahn noted the addition will not only maintain the characteristics of the house,but also the addition is not visible from North Rouse. Mr. Geissler noted that the floor joists are sitting on the ground and there is about 4'of clearance between the floor and ceiling in the present addition. Mr. Noonan inquired if the shed in the back will be changed to which Mr. Geissler responded that he would not make changes to the shed. Mr. Cruwys inquired about the plumbing. Mr. Geissler explained that the room was originally an addition to house a bathroom and tiny bedroom. The bathroom has the original iron plumbing and the bedroom has barely enough room for a single wide bed. Planner Strahn noted that in visiting with the owners, they indicated they are not interested in moving the plumbing so that the kitchen and bathroom water lines are in closer proximity. Mr. Willett noted that this addition will clean up the property. Mr. Cruwys moved, Mr. McCrone seconded,to recommend conditional approval of this project, including the deviations, to the City Commission. Motion carried 7 - 0. Design Review Board-November 26, 1996 4 ITEM 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Modifications of site plans Discussion ensued on how to prevent applicants from making changes to site plans without approval from the Planning Office. Mr. Gleye suggested a stamp stating "no modifications without prior written approval". Planning Director Epple noted he will have a stamp ordered and that it will be used on all site plan approvals. B. Resolution#DRB-9601 Submittal requirements and completeness After a short discussion, Mr. Gleye moved, Ms. Katz seconded,that Resolution #DRB-9601 be approved and authorize the Chairperson to sign it. Motion tamed 7 - 0. C. Deviation Criteria Tabled until further notice. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Clif ' hisholm,Chairperson Design Review Board-November 26.1996 5