Whitefish review board targets 'snout' houses

By LYNNETTE HINTZE

Tighter regs coming for protruding garages

The Daily Inter Lake

The wheels are turning to one day prohibit the construction of "snout" houses in Whitefish.

A snout house is a term applied to homes, townhouses and duplexes in which the garage protrudes forward of the foundation wall, resembling the snout of an animal.

For the most part, snout houses are just plain ugly, members of the Whitefish Architectural Review Committee agreed, but currently there are no regulations to prohibit such construction.

"It doesn't promote a sense of neighborhood," committee chairman Chad Grover told the City Council Monday during a workshop. "The first thing you see is a garage and that's really our issue."

Protruding garages are often the result of construction on tight lots where space is at a premium, Grover said, explaining that homes constructed as snout houses are visually less pleasing and there's a lesser sense of connectivity between the houses and the street.

Committee member George Gardner, showing a photo of a home with a protruding garage, said it's difficult to find the front door at some houses.

"Why would people go for a house like this unless they were in the witness protection program?" Gardner asked.

Many cities are enacting design standards to require that garages be placed even with or behind the front foundation wall, the committee pointed out. There are several neighborhoods that have avoided the snout-house look, such as Creekwood Park, where the convenants stipulated that garages couldn't be in front of the foundation. Woodside and Cougar Ridge are other subdivisions where alternative construction created better front yards, Grover said.

The council agreed to have the city planning staff begin drafting tighter regulations. Planning director Bob Horne said zoning setbacks need to be simultaneously addressed.

"If we don't do something with setbacks in zoning, then we won't have the hammer to get better site design," Horne said.

IN OTHER workshop discussion, the Architectural Review Committee posed the idea of setting maximum square-footage limits for box stores.

"The likelihood of a big-box store attempting to establish a foothold in the 16-block area surrounding Central Avenue is slim to none," Gardner said in strategies he drafted. "However, certain design standards may be formulated to cope with a proposed structure in this area that might be a single-use megastore."

The committee proposed a maximum size of 15,000 square feet in the downtown area, and 36,000 square feet in the U.S. 93 highway corridor. A planned-unit development process could be used to manage projects bigger than that, the committee suggested.

Tighter regulations also would govern building design, landscaping, parking and lighting.

"The committee wants to set thresholds," Gardner said, noting that many resort communities have established size limits for big-box stores.

Aspen, Colo. has a 9,000-square-foot limit; Steamboat Springs, Colo. has 12,000 square feet and Jackson Hole, Wyo. allows box stores up to 12,500 square feet.

The committee will continue to work on design standards for box stores and return to the council with a formal proposal.

"The sooner the better," council member Cris Coughlin said.

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com