HomeMy WebLinkAbout007 Autumn Grove Arch Narrative Departure Request Letter 11-21-21PROOF Architecture
37 E. Main St., Suite 10 Bozeman, MT 59715
(406) 570-3235
Page 1 of 4
Dean Burgess, AIA, NCARB
PROOF Architecture LLC
37 E. Main St., Suite 10
Bozeman, MT 59715
dburgess@proofarch.com
(406) 570-3235
November 18th, 2021
City of Bozeman
Department of Community Development
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive St.
Bozeman, MT 59771
RE: Autumn Grove Condominiums – Site Plan Submittal – Architectural Narrative & Departure Request
Dear Department of Community Development,
This narrative is regarding the Autumn Grove Condominiums Site Plan submittal, Application No. 21273. We
have reviewed the Concept Review memo issued by Lynn Hyde on August 8th, 2021.
1. Original PUD Documents
We have reviewed the original West Winds PUD Conditional Use Permit with subsequent modifications,
recorded document #2298713 dated 05/01/2008. Regarding the Conditions of Approval titled “May 24,
2004 Conditions”:
Condition 9: “The Covenants and Design Guidelines must state the means in which building
orientation will be mitigated along the arterial and collector streets. The lots shall provide a front
porch or false façade, a sidewalk connection to each building, and the covenants shall prohibit
the construction of fences unless constructed less than 4 feet tall with a coordinated design for
all of the lots backing up to Oak Street, Baxter Lane, 27th Avenue, and Davis Lane.”
The two buildings facing Davis Lane, Buildings #12 & 13, have been designed so the façades
facing the arterial street both appear and function as front facades, including:
Front porches w/ stoops which provide opportunity for public/private interaction and
“eyes on the street”;
Covered entries for weather protection;
Additional form and massing articulation;
Additional glazing and transparency articulation;
Sidewalk connections to each front porch.
Regarding the front yard fences fronting on Davis Lane, we believe the proposed fence design
contributes to the goal of presenting a front yard face to the street. The conditions of approval
appear to be intended to prevent tall rear-yard privacy fencing along the arterial street in order
to minimize any potential negative aspects of placing back yards along the street. The
proposed design actively works to present a front yard to the street, with the low 3’ tall black
aluminum fence serving as delineation of public vs. private space in line with traditional “white
Page 2 of 4
picket fence” design, as opposed to being a visual privacy measure. The proposed fence
design creates a visually inviting and formal street presentation.
2. Site Plan Comments
a. BMC 38.360.250. Townhouse and rowhouse dwellings. Subsection C: For rowhouses
where the primary pedestrian access to the dwelling is from an alley or private internal vehicular
access, buildings must emphasize individual pedestrian entrances over individual garages by
using both of the following measures: (refer to code)
Pedestrian entrances adjacent to the garage doors on the private internal vehicular access side
of the buildings have been emphasized through the following architectural design features:
3’ deep covered weather protection is provided through the eave extension of the roof
form above. The roof form is incorporated into the fundamental design of the building
and acts as a transitional element between outside and inside the dwelling.
An accent wall of shiplap cedar has been provided adjacent to each pedestrian
entrance. This provides implied privacy and delineation between adjacent units, assists
wayfinding, adds visual interest to the entrance, and acts as a transitional element
between the outside and inside of the dwelling.
Secondary building address signage will be placed on the cedar shiplap accent walls
adjacent to each pedestrian entrance. This will assist with wayfinding and emphasizes
the pedestrian entrance.
Curb and gutter planters are proposed with a dogleg design to jog in front of the
pedestrian entrances. In addition to providing separation between units, the dogleg
planters allow for plantings directly in front of the pedestrian entrances, creating an
area of implied protection for the pedestrian entrance and allowing for plantings to
screen the entrance. Planter areas exceed the 20 s.f. minimum requirement, with no
dimension less than 4’. Plantings by landscape designer.
b. BMC 38.360.250. Townhouse and rowhouse dwellings. Subsection E: Usable open space.
Townhouse and rowhouse dwellings must provide open space at least equal to ten percent of
the building living space, not counting automobile storage. The required open space may be
provided by one or more of the following ways: (1) Usable private open space directly adjacent
and accessible to dwelling units. Such space must have minimum dimensions of at least 12’ on
all sides and be configured to accommodate human activity such as outdoor eating, gardening,
toddler play, etc. Front setbacks may be used to meet this standard, provided they are defined
with a fence meeting the standards of Section 38.350.060. (2) Balconies, roof decks, and/or
front porches.
Open space has been provided in accordance with the above section. Open space is provided
via a fenced front yard space combined with covered front porches configured for human
activity. Please see Open Space Calculations on a building-by-building basis in the attached
architectural set. See Sheets A0X.1 – replace the “X” with each building number.
In addition to the minimum open space requirements provided on a unit-by-unit basis, please
note that the site has additional large, landscaped spaces open to all residents that will provide
additional opportunity for recreational activity. These spaces are above and beyond the
required minimums and are not included in the attached calculations.
Also please note that each private fenced front yard includes more usable space beyond the
minimums depicted in the open space calculations in the form of an L-shape that extends in
front of the covered front porch. This L-space is not included in the open space calculations
Page 3 of 4
due to having usable dimensions of less than 12’, however it will create more functional private
outdoor space than is indicated in the calculations.
c. BMC 38.510.020.F.(1&2): When a building or buildings is located such that it faces and is
adjacent to multiple street block frontages, the orientation of the front of the building must be
sited and placed on the property in the following order of precedence: (refer to code)
The proposed building designs address this code requirement by presenting facades that both
appear and function as front facades to both Davis Lane and the public park to the south and
satisfy all block frontage requirements, with the exception of transparency requirements in
limited locations (please see Departure Request section below). See the response to Item #1
– Original PUD Documents above.
d. BMC 38.510.030.C: Landscaped block frontage standards. (Refer to code)
Façade transparency calculations have been provided for all buildings facades facing streets,
private internal drive aisles, or large landscaped areas. Please refer to Sheets A0X.3 – replace
the “X” with each building number. Transparency calculations meet the required standards in
the majority of locations with the exception of limited locations (please see Departure Request
section below).
e. BMC 38.540.020: Dimensions of parking spaces and modules.
Parking spaces have been dimensioned on plans. Please refer to Sheets A0X.4 – replace the
“X” with each building number. All buildings have the same parking stall configuration, a two-
car stall with clear dimensions of 20’ wide x 22’ deep.
Departure Request
We believe the building designs as proposed meet the landscaped block frontage requirements of BMC
38.510.030.C with the exception of falling short of the required residential façade transparency of 15% in limited
locations. The locations where departures for façade transparency are requested are as follows:
Bldg Façade Location Transparency Provided Sheet Ref.
Bldg 4 “Project Left” (actual East façade) 13.9% transparency provided 2/A04.3
Bldg 5 “Project Left” (actual South façade) 13.9% transparency provided 2/A05.3
Bldg 6 “Project Left” (actual West façade) 13.9% transparency provided 2/A06.3
Bldg 7 “Project Left” (actual West façade) 13.9% transparency provided 2/A07.3
Bldg 10 “Project Left” (actual West façade) 13.9% transparency provided 2/A10.3
Bldg 12 “Project Left” (actual West façade) 12.4% transparency provided 2/A12.3
Bldg 13 “Project Left” (actual East façade) 13.9% transparency provided 2/A13.3
Bldg 13 “Project Right” (actual West façade) 13.9% transparency provided 3/A13.3
Reasoning for Departure Request:
The buildings as designed have significantly larger façade areas than is typical for two-story residential
construction. This is due to the design intent to create verticality through the use of taller forms to break
up longer facades, vary massing, create visual interest, and create pleasing proportions. The side effect
of these taller forms is that it drives up the overall area, and therefore increases the required transparency
area.
The glazing area has been essentially maxed out as much as the floor plans will reasonably
accommodate. This has led to “floor-to-ceiling” and “wall-to-wall” glass in the master bedroom suites
and upstairs living rooms. (Note it’s not true floor-to-ceiling and wall-to-wall glazing, but as close as we
Page 4 of 4
can achieve using standard residential window systems and construction methods). These large glass
areas will create pleasing and relatively unique living experiences for the residents of these units.
The glazing area provided is in excess of what would be typically found on two-story residential designs
and all glazing is held below the second floor top of plate height. The designs will present more
transparency from a human scale pedestrian experience than is typical for two-story residential
construction, even where falling short of the 15% threshold.
The majority of facades meet, and well exceed, the transparency requirements, including all the large
primary facades. Please consider the additional glazing provided on those facades.
Even with the larger façade proportions as described above, the designs still come close to meeting the
threshold (13.9% vs. 15%).
Everything is in proportion and the facades are well composed. We studied enlarging the glazing areas
on these facades where possible, but it breaks the consistent design language and creates awkward
proportions. We believe the proposed designs both look great and meet the intent of the transparency
requirements.
Thank you for your review. Please let us know of any additional required information.
Sincerely,
Dean Burgess, AIA
PROOF Architecture