Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-1997 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1997 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Cliff Chisholm called the meeting to order at 3:15 p.m. He noted that a request had been made by Board member Kim Walker to move the Discussion Item to the end of the agenda as she was unable to attend the first part of the meeting. The re-arrangement of the agenda was approved by the Board. Chairperson Chisholm directed the Secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Ab sent Staff Present Roger Cruwys Mari-Gai Katz Andrew Epple Rich Noonan Dean Patterson Cliff Chisholm Jody Olsen Walt Willett Carol Schott Paul Gleye Ed McCrone Kim Walker Visitors Present Joan Rudberg Bruce Mechlenburg Rob Pertzborn Lowell Springer Brock Albin ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 1997 MEETING Chairperson Chisholm asked for corrections or additions to the January 28 minutes. MOTION: Since they were not included in the packets, he moved to continue the approval of these minutes until the next meeting. Mr. Gleye seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 - 0. ITEM 4. CONTINUED PROJECT REVIEW A. Jaramus COA/Dev#Z-9693 - (Patterson/Epple) 419 West Dickerson - A Certificate of Appropriateness Application with Deviations to permit several construction projects currently near completion, as follows: conversion of a previously permitted storage area over the existing garage into a guest house; additions to the existing garage for a carport on the north side and a shop area on the east side; a second floor addition at the rear of the house; the construction of a hot tub and deck area Design Review Board Minutes-February 11,1997 1 beneath the new second story addition; and the demolition of the front steps and their replacement with a new porch area. Lowell Springer joined the DRB and distributed letters from the Jaramus's neighbors in support of the project and a packet of information that he claims proves that the guesthouse was previously approved. Planner Dean Patterson presented the background of the project and distributed a letter from a neighbor in opposition to the application. Chairperson Chisholm asked for the legal background on the project. Board member Ed McCrone arrived. Planner Patterson noted that work was begun on the project in 1994 without permits. Stop Work orders were issued, however,the construction continued. The case was turned over to the City Attorney, who made an agreement with the Jaramus's to have the proper permits within 6 months. The Jaramus's began the process with the DRB, which determined that more adequate drawings were needed. Just recently, they have hired Mr. Springer to help clean up the application and the drawings. A deferred settlement was reached with the City Attorney in 1995. Planning Director Andrew Epple noted that if no representation had occurred today, the City Attorney was prepared to proceed with the legal action. Chairperson Chisholm clarified that the action today would fulfill the City Attorney's directive. Planning Director Epple concurred. Discussion followed on the violations. Mr. Springer noted that the carport was built during the building season of 1995. Planner Patterson, while describing the application,noted that there were 4 projects that have been constructed: (1)the second floor addition to the rear of the house containing a family room and a deck on the second floor and a deck area, hot tub, and mud room on the ground level, (2) a porch across the whole front of the house, (3) an addition on the east side of the garage built to the property line, which houses a shop, and(4)the carport which overlaps the alley. He noted that the deviations include: (1)the front porch is more than 1/3 of the front of the house and encroaches into the front yard setback,(2) expansion of a non-conforming structure-the house encroaches into the 8'required side yard setback,(3)the addition to the house encroaches into the side yard setback, (4)the garage addition encroaches into the required 8' side yard setback, (5) there is more than 40% lot coverage, (6)the carport encroaches into the rear yard setback. Planner Patterson noted that the DRC earlier in the day is recommending denial of the encroachment permit to the City Commission. The reason for the recommendation is that there is a sewer main in the alley and the carport would probably fall into the trench if the sewer main were to be serviced. Discussion followed to clarify the deviations. Mr. Springer reviewed his suggested remedies to bring the structures into compliance. He noted that the demolition of the part of the carport that encroaches into the alley would be the best remedy for that encroachment. He noted that the Jaramus's had obtained permission to build Design Review Board Minutes-February 11,1997 2 part of the additions. He felt that the other deviations can be dealt with by requiring the drawings, permits, and fees. The deviations should then be recommended for approval. He suggested that the Jaramus's be required to remove the siding and install 1 hour fire wall siding. The lot coverage would not be an issue if they had not constructed the additions. They didn't know they were in violation of the Code until the Building Inspector discussed it with them. From that point on,they knew that they needed building permits to complete their projects. He noted that neighbors have written letters in support of the project. He suggested that doubling the building permit fees would be appropriate. Chairperson Chisholm thanked Mr. Springer for the work he has done on the project and for the thorough analysis of the project. Mr. Cruwys asked if the Jaramus's continued building after they were told to bring in more drawings. Planning Director Epple noted that in 1993, a limited amount of work was approved. Sometime in 1994, it was observed that they were doing more than permitted. At that time they were told to stop and bring in plans. DRB tabled their review due to the no-show of either the applicants or their materials. The City then issued a Stop Work order and started legal proceedings to bring them into court. An agreement was struck to defer the court date to allow the Jaramus's to work out the problem with the City. The Jaramus's ignored the Cease and Desist order and continued construction. Mr. Cruwys noted that the project isn't a bad project. It does send out a negative message to the neighbors and the other residents of the City if nothing is done. He suggested the removal of the shed on the rear and side of the garage. He continued that the 44%lot coverage is something which the DRB would have approved, if presented before the work was done. He expressed concern about the encroachment into the alley. Chairperson Chisholm suggested that this project be looked at as if it were being proposed. He also noted that DRB shouldn't be pressured into approving the project. Mr. McCrone noted that two things occurred to him as he looked at the project. (1)It takes up a lot of the lot space,however, several homes in that area do the same. (2)The climbing wall detracts from appearance of the property. He complimented the integration of the front porch into the rest of the structure. He noted that something has to be done with the addition to the garage. He suggested discussing each deviation individually. Mr. Noonan commented that there were aspects of this project that fit well design-wise. He noted that most of the deviations would probably be allowable. Chairperson Chisholm asked him to identify which aspects would be objectionable. Mr. Noonan noted that the encroachment into the back yard setback and the garage addition in the side yard. He noted that as it has been built, it is difficult to tell what was added and what were the original structures. Mr. Willett noted that this is an example of how what you do with your property affects Design Review Board Minutes-February 11, 1997 3 your neighbors. He noted that the porch would have looked better if it had covered only 1/3 of the front of the house, however, it is something the DRB would probably have approved. As for the garage, the carport has to go. If the entire carport were removed, they would be closer to the allowable lot coverage. Planner Patterson concurred. Mr. Willett also suggested that a few feet be shaved off the side of the shop. It was noted that the original garage was conforming. Mr. Willett noted that there are garages that have been constructed to the property line in other locations in Bozeman. Discussion continued on the garage. Mr. Willett noted that if the carport were removed,the whole building would be scaled down. He suggested leaving the shop addition in tact. Mr. Gleye asked how far the original garage was from the east property line. Mr. Springer noted it was 11' 6". Mr. Gleye noted that the front porch is not a major issue for him. He noted that two of the letter writers say that the second story of the main house is obtrusive and a large expanse of dark wall. He noted that in a similar situation a few months ago,the DRB denied this type of addition. He continued that the garage is also a problem because of the narrow dimension of the lot, and because the addition was constructed on the edge of the property. The garage and carport being located right on the alley isn't a problem as many garages in town are constructed that way. He summarized by stating that the second floor of the house and the addition to the east of the garage are the major problems. Mr. Willett asked for copies of the letters that Lowell has. Mr. Springer distributed his letters and noted that all the letters given to him were supportive, however, it is possible that he wasn't given the negative ones. Planning Director Epple suggested that DRB continue the proceedings to allow the members to digest the information presented today and then make a decision in two weeks. Chairperson Chisholm noted that if the DRB were looking at drawings for a proposed project,there would be suggestions made by the Board members to enhance or modify the proposal. However, he has no strong feelings about the house. He noted that the garage is a problem and suggested the removal of the entire carport. He concurred with Mr. Willett in that the DRB probably wouldn't have approved the carport to completely fill the back space. He also noted a problem with the shop addition being built to the property line. Mr. Willett asked what was located in the shop. Mr. Springer noted that it is for creating stamps for stationery and perhaps a mail order business. He noted that without the shop addition, the garage would appear very boxy with the existing second story. He also suggested splitting the ridge of the front porch to define the front entrance, and removing the carport from the garage. Discussion ensued on what point to begin the roof. Chairperson Chisholm noted that DRB had to be careful that a precedent was not set. He'd like to make a recommendation of what they see to the City Commission. Design Review Board Minutes-February 11,1997 4 Mr. Willett asked if the Jaramus's have completed too much of the front porch to allow any changes. Mr. Springer noted that they could alter it. Chairperson Chisholm noted that Mr. Springer is correct in noting that if the garage shop addition would be eliminated,there would be a huge blank wall. Mr. Me Crone noted that there are other houses built right up to the property lines. Mr. Springer noted that he had pictures of some of them and distributed them. Mr. Cruwys noted that he would have no problem with this application if it were a proposal and not already built. Discussion followed on the history of the house. MOTION: Chairperson Chisholm moved that the DRB recommend acceptance of the application with the deviations that go with it with the following conditions: (1)the front porch be redesigned and rebuilt with approvals to cover no more than%'s of the house front, and (2) that the carport structure be removed and brought back to the typical roof overhang on the north wall of the addition, and that the roof continue the full width of the garage with a typical roof overhang. Mr. McCrone seconded the motion. Planning Director Epple noted that this is a recommendation to be made to the City Commission. In the discussion that followed, Mr. Noonan noted that the addition to the cast breaks up the massiveness of the garage wall. He noted that if this were a regular application, the DRB would have reduced the length of the shop. Mr. Springer noted that he would have made a case for approval of the project if the fire wall were approved. Discussion followed on a similar situation in another project. Mr. Cruwys noted that cutting the shop down to a 6' wide space would make it unworkable. Chairperson Chisholm noted that if anyone finds the climbing wall objectionable, an amendment could be made. Planning Director Epple noted that the climbing wall is within DRB's decision area. Mr. Springer noted that if it were taken down, it would mar the siding only slightly. Mr. Noonan noted that the applicants must comply with all codes for the structures and building permits must be obtained. Mr. Cruwys noted that an admonition should be added for doing the project without permits. Mr. Gleye noted that for the record, he would vote against the motion because the physical significance is too great. The motion carried 4 -2, with Mr. McCrone, Mr.Willett, Mr. Cruwys, and Mr. Chisholm voting aye. Mr. Gleye and Mr. Noonan voted nay. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEWS A. Albin Deck COA/Dev#Z-9704- (Olsen) 407 South 10th Avenue - A Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations to allow an Design Review Board Minutes-February 11,1997 5 already constructed deck to encroach four feet into the required front yard setback and for already installed siding and fence. Brock Albin joined DRB. Planner Jody Olsen presented the project, reviewed the deviations being requested, and the criteria required for approving or granting deviations. Ms. Walker arrived. Planner Olsen gave suggestions for dealing with the siding on the house and the lattice work on the deck. She reviewed the recommended conditions in the staff report. She concluded by stating that the DRB recommendation will be forwarded to City Commission on March 3, 1997. Mr. Gleye noted he has difficulty applying the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buiddines when this house in an intrusive, non-historic structure. He asked for and received a description of the current landscaping. He noted that lattice adds a third dimension to the deck and the siding adds another color to the house. He felt they should be modified. Mr. Willett noted that the problem with the lattice is it creates a wall effect and detracts from the overall effect of the deck. He noted that when a deck is installed on the front of a house, it does away with the privacy issue. He doesn't mind the siding except that it has a tacked-on look because it is only installed on one side of the house. He continued that the vertical siding is not out of character with the neighborhood. Mr.Noonan commented that he assumes that are installing lattice and vegetation to create privacy. He noted that the deck is the only detail on that facade that has movement. He suggested re-looking at the entire railing system and making it flow. He continued that the siding and the porch looked tacked on. However,the applicant has an opportunity to bring the deck and the house into compatibility. Mr.McCrone asked Planner Olsen to describe the newly attached siding, which she deferred to Mr. Willett, who noted that it is about 8" wide vertical, channel siding. Mr. McCrone noted that the lattice caught his attention first, it shouldn't be that eyecatching. He continued that the siding needs to be applied to the other sides of the house. He concurred with Mr. Gleye that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards shouldn't be applied. Mr. Cruwys noted that since this deck is already built,he'd like to remove the lattice and add vegetation. He'd like to see an enhanced rail system. He discussed doing the deck without a railing structure. He concurred with Staff that the siding needs to be more compatible with what is already on the house and in the neighborhood. Ms. Walker noted that she concurs with the lattice removal and the addition of a better rail system. She also is in favor of more landscaping being required. She has no problem with the vertical siding,however the whole house needs to be done. Design Review Board Minutes-February 11. 1997 6 Chairperson Chisholm asked Mr. Albin to respond to the Board members' and Staff s comments. Mr. Albin apologized for not getting the proper permits. The reason that he continued to build was because Mr. Beall and Mr. Price didn't give him a Stop Work order. He noted that they had told him to finish as he was nearly done. He concurred with Historic Preservation Officer Derek Strahn's comments. He described the interior of the house,the window locations, and the type of siding. He continued that they planned to train ivy on the lattice and hope that the trees will eventually replace the lattice. He stated that the trees were about 2'-3' in height. Mr. Cruwys noted that the lattice would still be there while the trees were growing and detracting from the overall appearance of the deck. Mr. Albin noted that he feels that it would be a mistake to add color to the siding. He has a sealer on it. Chairperson Chisholm asked if he intended to continue the siding around the house. Mr. Albin stated that they didn't and told why. He noted that the two letters of opposition came from people who can't see the house from their house. He also noted that he would rather not install the siding around the house as it would be cost prohibitive. Chairperson Chisholm asked the DRB to focus on the front deck. He noted that Mr. Willett had a good comment in that the tradition is to limit the height of fences to prevent them from enclosing the house as a compound. He agreed that the lattice is too restrictive. Mr. Noonan further commented that the lattice doesn't give privacy as one can see through it into the room behind the window in the house. He is in favor of adding more vegetation to attract the eyes of passers-by. Mr. Gleye noted that the siding is not a subjective thing. One doesn't see much of that type of siding on the outside of houses in Bozeman. The lattice violates the Zone Code in that it extends more that Y above the ground floor. He suggested adding curtains in the windows for privacy. He noted that the lattice should be removed. He suggested not addressing the siding, but to address the landscaping and lattice. Ms. Walker concurred. Chairperson Chisholm asked for specific information on the landscaping. Mr. Cruwys suggested a grove of aspens. He suggested adding stringers to the deck for privacy. He also noted that adding greenery doesn't change the fact that the lattice is there. He noted the coniferous trees don't do as well on the east side of the house. Scotch pine would spread out more. Chairperson Chisholm clarified that Mr. Cruwys is recommending a cluster of small trees. Planning Director Epple further clarified that Staff recommended a variety of shrubs and trees to provide screening. Further discussion followed on the landscaping recommendations. Planner Olsen noted that the landscaping was to draw attention away from the encroachment of the deck into the front yard setback. Design Review Board Minutes-February 11.1997 7 MOTION: Chairperson Chisholm moved to recommend that this application be approved with the following conditions: (1) -from the Staff Report-the applicant shall install substantial base plantings and further that at least one grouping of trees will be planted in the front yard, the trees will be 8'-10'when planted, (2)the lattice screening shall be removed from the deck and the railing will continue as it now exists in the space where the lattice was removed. Mr. Noonan seconded the motion, which carried 7 - 0. B. Smith/Barney Office MiSP/COA#Z-9707 - (Olsen) 200 South 23rd Avenue - A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 5,412 gross sq. ft. single story office building and related site improvements. Chairperson Chisholm removed himself from the Board for this discussion. Vice- Chairperson Kim Walker continued the meeting. Rob Pertzborn joined DRB. Planner Jody Olsen described the project. She noted that no deviations are being requested. She also noted that Guideline B.1 and B.6 are from the "Objectives Applicable to all Corridors" should be considered and possibly incorporated. Planner Olsen reviewed the requirements to be shown on the Final Site Plan. She reviewed the West Main Guidelines that apply to the project. She reviewed the recommended conditions and noted that DRB and DRC will make the final decision on this project. Mr. Cruwys noted that the likes the entryway of the building. He would make two changes to the landscape plan. He would plant lindens instead of sugar maples and the crabapples should also be replaced with Austrian Pines. Mr. McCrone concurred with Mr. Cruwys on the landscaping changes. He noted that the mechanical screening on the roof has to be tastefully done. Mr.Noonan noted that the front of the building is towards the mall, the back is towards Main Street. The Applicant has to be careful of what happens on the roof. He suggested raising the entryway to define it more to help break up the flatness of the roof. Mr. Willett noted that this is a sedate building which gives the image for which the client is striving. He suggested that the garbage enclosure reflect the masonry of the building. Mr. Gleye noted that the roof screening is to be integrated into the architectural integrity of the building and agreed with Mr.Willett on the look of the building and the garbage enclosure construction and finish. He disagreed with the discussion suggestion that the building be rotated 45° to align with JB's and coordinate with the other buildings in the complex. Design Review Board Minutes-February 11,1997 8 Planning Director Epple discussed the alternatives for approving the garbage enclosures and the mechanical screening structure either by having them come back before DRB or have designated Staff approve them. Ms. Walker noted that the garbage enclosure should be made up of the same materials as the rest of the building. Mr. Pertzborn noted that there is no back to this building as it faces the public on all sides. The parapet is about 4' higher than the roof already, and raising it would add cost. The garbage enclosure and screening will be detailed similarly to the rest of the building. Discussion ensued on the rotation of the building. Mr. Pertzborn noted that the rotation is next to impossible as the site is tight. Planner Olscn concurred. Mr. Pertzborn asked that the landscaping changes be recommendations. Mr. Cruwys noted that he would make the changes a condition of approval. Discussion ensued on the trees. Mr. McCrone asked if the screening will be above the parapet. Mr. Pertzborn noted that it would be about 3'-4'taller than the parapet. MOTION: Ms. Walker moved, Paul seconded,to approve this project with the recommended Staff conditions with these additions: to#1 add "the garbage enclosure is to be the same as building in materials, to#4 add"The screening shall be incorporated into the architectural design of the building." and to#5 add "The sugar maples shall be changed to lindens and the three crabapple trees to Austrian Pine not specifically sited. All changes are to be approved by Planning Staff." Motion carried 7- 0. DISCUSSION ITEM A. Deviation Criteria See specifically Sections 18.42.080 and 18.43.080 Bozeman Municipal Code for information pertaining to deviation criteria in conservation and entryway overlay districts; see Sections 18.42.060 and 18.43.060 for general standards and design criteria in overlay districts; and see Sections 18.42.010 and 18.43.020 for general discussion of intent and purpose of overlay districts. (Held over from the November 13, 1996, meeting and to be discussed at this meeting_-) Mr. Gleye noted that he had another commitment and recommended that the item be continued on the agenda until DRB has time to discuss it. The Board decided to discuss it in two weeks at another 3:00 meeting. Chairperson Chisholm moved that the Deviation Criteria Discussion Item be continued until the next DRB meeting and that the meeting begin at 3:00 to Design Review Board Minutes-February 11,1997 9 allow discussion time. Mr. Noonan seconded the motion, which carried 7 - 0. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. r 6k,�J�� CIif hisholm, Chairperson De gn Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-February 11, 1997 10