Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-25-1997 DRB Minutes (2) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,MARCH 25, 1997 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Cliff Chisholm called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. in the City Commission Meeting Room at City Hall. He instructed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Rich Noonan Mara-Gai Katz Derek Strahn Ed McCrone Jody Olsen Kim Walker Andrew C. Epple Paul Gleye Visitors Present Carol Schott Cliff Chisholm Joan Rudberg Roger Cruwys John Schlegelmilch Walt Willett Todd Smith ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 1997,MEETING The minutes were unavailable. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Schlegelmilch COA/Dev#Z-9719 - (Strahn) 818 S. 6th Avenue - A Certificate of Appropriateness Application with deviations to replace and relocate windows on the east exterior wall of the house and add a vestibule to a non-conforming structure which encroaches into both the front and side yards by inches, and remove the existing garage and replace it with a garage which will encroach 5 feet into the required 8 foot side yard setback Chairperson Chisholm introduced the application. John Schlegelmilch joined DRB. Planner Derek Strahn reviewed the application noting that parking is an issue as the garage is only 16'6" from the alley. Code requires a minimum of 18'to allow for parking between the garage and the alley. Staff is recommending that the garage be moved 1%2' towards the house. He noted that there are two deviations requested-the first is for the expansion of a residence which is nonconforming- it encroaches into the front and side yard setbacks by inches; the second is for the replacement of the garage which is nonconforming as it encroaches 5'into the side yard setback. He continued that Staff recommends 3 conditions (see Staff Report on file in the Planning Office), Mr. McCrone inquired if the existing garage encroached into the side yard setback. Planner Strahn noted that it did. Mr. Schlegelmilch inquired what the right-of-way width is for an alley. Design Review Board Minutes-March 25,1997 1 Planner Strahn noted that it is 20'. Mr. Schlegelmilch noted that the space behind the garage is adequate for compact cars. He was unaware of the 20' requirement. Planner Strahn clarified that the parking space behind the garage is not required as the twp garage spaces meet the parking requirements. Chairperson Chisholm asked Planner Strahn to explain the reason for the garage to be at least 18' in from the alley. Planner Strahn noted that today's cars are larger than those 50 or so years ago when the garage was built. Also, in days of old, garages were built right up to the alley property line. Mr. Willett asked Mr. Schlegelmilch if he would be interested in moving the garage towards the alley. Planning Director Andrew Epple noted that the two full size pickups in the pictures enclosed with the application would overhang the alley if the parking space were left at 16%2". Mr. Cruwys suggested that Mr. Schlegelmilch park beside the garage. Mr. Schlegelmilch noted that there is a power pole located there, which allows no room for parking. Chairperson Chisholm noted that DRB could recommend that the garage either be at least18' or more or 12' or less from the alley. Planner Strahn noted that Staff would be in favor of moving the garage towards the alley to allow more conformity with the neighborhood and to provide more back yard space. MOTION: Chairperson Chisholm moved that DRB recommend approval as per Staff conditions, changing condition#3 to give an option to provide at least an 18'or no more than a 12' setback from the alley. Mr.Noonan seconded the motion. In the discussion that followed, Chairperson Chisholm stated that the rationale is supporting Staff s reason that the change supports the character of the neighborhood. Motion carried 7 - 0. B. Hound City Cafe MiSP/COA/Dev#Z-9723 - (Olsen) 719 West Mendenhall Street - A Minor Site Plan Application and Certificate of Appropriateness with deviations to allow the conversion of an existing residential use to a restaurant and residential use, including roof changes, new windows and skylights, a new porch,new door, and related site improvements. Chairperson Chisholm introduced the application. Todd Smith joined DRB. Planner Jody Olsen presented the application. She noted that the applicant is requesting 4 deviations - 1)backing into the public right-of-way, 2)parking in the required front of side yards, 3) stacking of off-street parking spaces, and 4) allowing the porch to occupy more than 1/3 of the front of the building. Staff recommended that the application meet several sections of the Entryway Corridor Guidelines and the Bozeman Municipal Ordinance (see Staff Report on file in the Planning Office). She noted that Staff is recommending 11 conditions plus 3 possible conditions. Chairperson Chisholm noted that two letters of support have been received. He asked if there were any questions brought up by DRC. Planner Olsen noted that the City is negotiating for an Design Review Board Minutes-March 25,1997 2 easement for sewer across this property and the applicant is required to pave the alley. Mr.Noonan asked for and received clarification of the required parking spaces. Mr. McCrone asked if(condition#7)the landscaping irrigation system is a requirement. Chairperson Chisholm noted that it is required for commercial developments. Mr. McCrone then asked Planner Olsen to explain the landscaping requirement. She noted that 5 points were allowed for the front yard with the addition of one canopy tree, 5 points for the side yard with the addition of 2 canopy trees, and 5 points for the excess width of the side yard. Mr. McCrone inquired as to the height of the fence. Mr. Smith noted that it is about 3'high. Mr. Smith asked about condition#4 concerning the mechanical equipment on the roof. He asked for suggestions for screening to be used on a gable roof. Chairperson Chisholm noted that in a commercial building, screening is required and usually easier to accomplish. Planning Director Epple asked Mr. Smith to describe the nature of the equipment. Mr. Smith noted that the it will be one large,round vent. He noted that it will be screened from the front and the alley by the pitch of the roof, the garage , and the grade. Mr. Gleye asked how far it will protrude from the roof. Mr. Smith noted it will protrude 18"-20". He demonstrated the angle with a piece of paper and the microphone. Mr. Willett suggested running a little gable roof over it to mirror the gable on the front of the building. Mr. Gleye suggested leaving it the stainless steel color as it isn't a large protrusion. Mr. Noonan suggested planting a tree in the rear yard in the sight line of the equipment and the neighbor's window. Mr. Cruwys inquired why the tree in front was being removed. Mr. Smith noted that the porch will extend over the area where the tree is located. Mr. Cruwys recommended planting something substantial to replace it in the rear yard, such as a conifer. He noted that he has no problem with the parking as shown,but suggested a space might be gained if parking were angled. Mr. Smith noted that people would try to loop into the parking spaces from the wrong way. Chairperson Chisholm cautioned the Board about dismissing the screening without reason. Mr. Willett noted that the lack of screening is due to the small size and mass. Mr. Smith noted that he likes the idea of the larger front gable,however, the framing supports would start to become strange. Mr. Willett noted that the gable should be enlarged to the north. In the discussion of the renumbered conditions for consideration by the DRB (now 12, 13, and 14), Chairperson Chisholm asked about the architectural features being described. Ms.Walker noted that she understands Staff s condition,however, if there is a problem positioning the doorway, then it is inappropriate. It takes the doorway out of the center of the gable. She disagrees with the three conditions for consideration. Chairperson Chisholm suggested a more substantial cross member on the gable. Mr. Cruwys noted that the overhead lattice work on the ramp looks flimsy. Mr. Smith noted that Design Review Board Minutes-March 25,1997 3 it will be 2" X 6" construction. He plans for the general public to use the ramp to move from the parking lot to the restaurant. Mr. Gleye noted that the canopy is rather small for the proportions of the house. He suggested a method for making it larger and suggested that the sign become a rectangle and be placed over the doorway. He suggested maintaining the 12:10 roof pitch on the gable. Mr.Noonan suggested the ridge of the gable to be above the sky lights. He noted that the stairs and door do not have to be centered in the gable. Mr. Smith noted that the doorway is centered under the gable now and gave reasons for not setting it off-center. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the key question for the Board is that the entrance is too small. Mr. Willett noted that the gable is in scale with the building and he doesn't think it should protrude any farther. Scale-wise, it could be larger. He continued that the door is not the reference point unless one is standing right in front of the doorway. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the doorway could be enhanced with side lights,trim, etc. Mr. Gleye summarized-the entrance is rather simple and by making it more pronounced and welcoming, it would give a greater sense of presence. Discussion ensued on the invitation ability of a building. Mr. Cruwys noted that the public will short cut across the lawn onto the sidewalk. Mr. Gleye asked Planning Director Epple if parking is allowed along Mendenhall Street. Planning Director Epple noted that parking is allowed there. Mr. Gleye noted that Mr. Smith should realize that people will park on the street before utilizing the off-street parking and,therefore,will walk across the lawn to reach the front door. Planning Director Epple clarified that in condition#5,the fence height that requires a building permit is any fence over 6'. Chairperson Chisholm requested clarification of condition#10. Discussion of that condition followed. MOTION: Ms.Walker moved to recommend approval with Staff conditions#1411, with the amendment to#4"The screening shall be the planting of a coniferous tree with a minimum height of S' along the north boundary between the neighbor's house and the mechanical equipment", and an amendment to condition#5 changing the building permit requirement for fences to 6'. She added that conditions 12-14 are recommendations to the applicant. Mr. McCrone seconded the motion. In the ensuing discussion, it was noted that the screening tree will not count towards the landscape points. Mr. Gleye noted that the coniferous tree should be a group of trees. MOTION: He moved to amend the motion to add to condition#4 "to require the planting of three additional trees north of the garage to serve as screening to offset the request for deviations". Mr. Cruwys seconded the motion. Mr.Noonan asked which deviation is being replaced. Ms. Walker noted that none of them is being replaces, it is a justification for allowing Design Review Board Minutes-March 25,1997 4 the four deviations. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the requirement for three additional trees is excessive. Discussion ensued on the amendment. Chairperson Chisholm called for a vote on the amendment. Those voting in favor of the amendment were Mr. Cruwys, Mr. Gleye, Mr.Noonan, Mr. Chisholm, and Ms. Walker. Those voting against the amendment were Mr. Willett and Mr. McCrone. Motion carried 5 - 2. Discussion followed on the motion that there would be at least one conifer tree and two other varieties. MOTION: Mr. Gleye moved to amend the motion to remove the recommended condition#12 and that the canopy be increased in size and the entrance enhanced. The motion failed due to a lack of a second. Chairperson Chisholm called for a vote on the main motion. The motion carried 6- 1, with Mr. Chisholm,Ms. Walker, Mr.Noonan, Mr. McCrone, Mr. Willett, and Mr. Cruwys voting for the motion and W. Gleye voting against it. ITEM 4. 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.. No further comments. Chairperson Chisholm asked that the item be removed from future agendas. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Chisholm moved, Ms. Walker seconded,that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried 7 - 0. Meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. I d'W' Cli hisholm, Chairperson of Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-March 25,1997 5