Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-22-15 DRB MinutesThis meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD). Page 1 of 8 AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 121 NORTH ROUSE AVENUE WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2015 5:30 P.M. ITEM 1. 05:34:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Board Member - Bill Rea: Absent Board Member - Scott Bechtle: Absent Board Member - Melvin Howe: Present Board Chair - Mike Pentecost: Absent Board Member – Lessa Racow: Present Board Member - Walter Banziger: Present Board Member - Mark Hufstetler: Present Board Member - Sharla Rae Stuber: Absent Board Member - Justin Aliport: Absent ITEM 2. 05:34:20 PM PUBLIC COMMENT – No Public Comment ITEM 3. 05:34:54 PM PROJECT REVIEW 1. 05:34:58 PM The Northside Lofts Master Site Plan & Site Plan Phase 1 (Davis) 203 West Lamme Street A Master Site Plan application to allow the demolition of existing residential dwellings and the construction of a first phase mixed use building and an adjacent interim park, with the planned future construction of a second phase building with associated parking and related site improvements. In addition to, a Site Plan application to allow the construction of a five story mixed use building with ground floor commercial and 41 residential dwelling units on the upper floors with associated parking and related site improvements. Heather Davis does presentation on the project. 05:44:37 PM Mrs. Davis hands it over for applicant presentation. 05:52:01 PM Questions for the Staff and Applicant begin. 05:52:12 PM Mr. Hufstetler questions the historic site forms included in the packet. Mrs. Davis responds. Mr. Hufstetler questions if the staff is aware that those forms are supposed to be filled out by a certified historic architect and that the forms as completed were not done adequately, so he submitted them to the Montana State Historic Preservation Office. He said that he and the HPO agreed that the buildings on the site are contributing to potential historic districts. 05:54:25 PM Mr. Hufstetler questions how the applicant feels the design shows respect for the neighborhood and the conservation overlay. The applicant responds that it hit the design guidelines for B3. He said they focused on the goals and objectives of the downtown improvements plan. Then they used the individuals who would be living there for the rest – access to light, etc. The applicant states that he feels the building is headed in the direction that the City’s plans want to go. 05:57:27 PM Lessa Racow questions the office area and how long he feels it will last – the applicant had stated that they designed the office to have various uses in the future. Applicant responds with detail about the materials used on the project. 05:59:52 PM Mr. Howe questions the affordable units included in the project and where the applicant has applied for subsidies at this time. Applicant responds in detail. Discussion continued regarding the affordable units. This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD). Page 2 of 8 06:03:37 PM Chris Mehl responds with some information regarding the affordable homes provided in the project. He also questions what the plan is if the applicant cannot acquire affordable housing funds. Applicant responds with some hypothetical’s as to how they would proceed if the funding was not available. 06:05:39 PM Mr. Mehl states that he has no additional questions for the applicant, but there would be a discussion regarding the historical points Mr. Hufstetler brought up if the applicant would hang around for that. 06:06:17 PM Mr. Mehl questions the state of the buildings that are currently there. Applicant responds that the property owner acquired the property with the intent to redevelop it. That in his professional opinion, he feels the buildings have served their purpose. That portions of the building freeze, many outlets are not functioning, etc. He feels that because of the condition of the building, that they would like to move forward with this project by fall of this year. 06:07:55 PM Mr. Mehl questions the schedule of this project from this point forward. Mrs. Davis advises the board that the project is currently being noticed, that it has been through the DRC, she stated that public comment closes next week and she will begin building her staff report and a response is generally given within 10 business days of public comment closing. This project meets all of the zoning requirements and therefore does not go to the commission. Mr. Mehl then questions the engineer deviation mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Davis responds that the engineer deviation is different from a planning deviation and therefore, it is still an administrative decision. 06:09:41 PM Mr. Mehl questions the content of the staff report. Mrs. Davis responds. 06:10:25 PM Mr. Mehl questions parkland and open space as outlined in the staff report and how they can both meet and not meet it as mentioned in the report. Heather points out that they have met the parkland requirement, but not the open space requirement. Mrs. Davis explains further the difference and how they are going to attempt to achieve the open space requirement. Mr. Mehl requests that in the future staff include information on how short they are on the open space. 06:13:01 PM Mr. Mehl questions parking and asks Mrs. Davis to discuss parking further since it was the primary concern in public comment. Mrs. Davis gives a brief explanation of parking. Discussion with Mr. Mehl regarding parking requirements. Staff assumes with all reductions, that the applicant will need 45 total spots and they are roughly meeting that requirement at this time. 06:18:48 PM Mr. Mehl questions Phase two and what the plan is there. Mrs. Davis states that the applicant may be best to answer that, as parking will be a big constraint for that part of the project. Issue raised by Mr. Mehl regarding what will be done about parkland and whether it will be cash-in-lieu. Mrs. Davis states that the park was required to provide a principle use for phase two. That way, if the applicant chooses not to move forward with Phase 2, that the City at least has a park. 06:19:47 PM Applicant follows up that the park is more of a placeholder for the redevelopment of the second part of the property. He explains that they broke it up into different phases was because there is a desire in rezoning the property and so they wanted to go through that process and because there are provisions in the code for offsite parking, so they wanted to explore those options. 06:21:07 PM Mr. Banzinger questions what the park will be like. Applicant responds that it was an interim solution. It is intended to be a private park with a public access easement. It is not intended to be permanent. During construction it will be a staging area. Mr. Banzinger questions if it will remain a dirt field, or if it will be restored to something when it was done. Applicant responds that in the event that Phase 2 is ready to move forward, it will just be developed. If there is a delay in phase 2, then they will grade the property and put down fresh grass seed instead of just fencing it off. 06:23:38 PM Mr. Banzinger questions what type of feedback Heather is looking to get from the meeting regarding the site plan and whether the building will come back for review or if it stays with the director. Mrs. Davis responds with what information they’re looking for and that this is the only meeting at the DRB. 06:24:55 PM Lessa Racow questions whether they will be using the roof of the building for open space. Applicant responds that they have considered it, and discusses the open spaces they have provided and that the roof will house their mechanical equipment, so may not be an ideal location. 06:28:24 PM Opens public comment 06:28:35 PM Public Comment - Daniel Cardy – Questions snow plow and snow removal around the site. This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD). Page 3 of 8 06:29:27 PM Public Comment - Mike Harring – North Grand – asking for clarification for where parking will be for phase 2. Mrs. Davis responds that Phase 2 will require its own site plan and that will determine parking for that Phase. 06:30:48 PM Public Comment - Susan Christopher – North Grand – Questions the businesses that will be going in the ground floor. Mrs. Davis responds that the proposed space will only be office, as that is all that the parking will accommodate. 06:31:54 PM Board Discussion begins. 06:32:21 PM Melvin Howe states that he has no additional comments or question on the project. 06:32:45 PM Lessa Racow stated that she feels downtown needs some rentals, so she appreciates that. She likes the height, low income rentals mixed in, likes the mixed use. She feels that adding the open space on the rood would be nice, especially given the height of the building. Ms. Racow states that even though the park is temporary she thinks that a fenced in dog park would be nice if the tenants would be permitted to have pets. She doesn’t feel that the overall design of the building gives it a sense of permanence. She states that it feels temporary and doesn’t necessarily fit in with the overall look downtown. 06:36:57 PM Mark Hufstetler states that he has concerns regarding the historic documentation – that it wasn’t done by someone qualified and that it was done without respect for the process. He doesn’t feel he can approve the project going forward without that paperwork being completed professionally. While he’s not saying that the buildings cannot come down, he feels that they deserve a fair trial and could contribute to an historic district in that area. He states that in terms of design, he says he likes the design with the different depths and materials used. He recognizes the benefit of additional housing in the downtown Bozeman area. He thinks that it would be better if it wasn’t tiny studio apartments being offered as low income, but low income housing regardless is desirable. He agrees with the statement about the architectural quality. He doesn’t feel it contributes to the look of downtown – that it was designed to be a standalone building. While he recognizes there are other projects in the area that do not contribute, he feels we should focus on providing quality architecture. He feels this property will tie this area to the historic downtown core and if we don’t preserve that, then it will set the town for subsequent buildings. He states a concern about the parking. That inevitably, there will be another building and the project is not sure just a couple spots, it’s short by more – so how will that work with the future project. It will require off-street parking in different areas, in the future and parking is an elephant in the room that needs to be addressed. 06:42:55 PM Mr. Banzinger states that he supports plannings position on windows, trees and parking concerns. He also supports the comments by Ms. Racow and Mr. Hufstetler on site development and buildings. He feels that in terms of a stand-alone building, it’s very nice. He’s concerned about not seeing the material pallet in advance. He supports Mr. Hufstetler and Ms. Racow’s feelings about it fitting into the neighborhood. He supports Mr. Hufstetler’s feelings regarding documenting the buildings appropriately. He doesn’t feel that they need to necessarily keep the building nor build as though it was built in the 1920-1940’s, but keeping the neighborhood context is important and incorporating that into the modern design. He expresses concerns with the parking and using up all the space available in Phase 1. With regards to the railings, he likes the transparency of the current railings and thinks metal may start to close it up too much. Mr. Banzinger agrees that he would like to see the historical paperwork addressed before moving forward. 06:47:48 PM Mr. Hufstetler states he would not like to present a motion or vote until the project has an adequate historical evaluation. 06:48:08 PM Mr. Howe states that a motion could be made to address the historical evaluation. Commissioner Mehl states that they could do two motions – one regarding the historical evaluation and another regarding the project as a whole. Board considered tabling it for later discussion. Mr. Mehl states that he’s not sure if that will be effective since they have already gathered the feedback from the board and there may be nothing that can stop administration from moving forward. Discussion continues further regarding tabling versus voting. 06:51:34 PM Ms. Davis states that the director has to make a decision by August 10th and the next meeting for the DRB will be August 12th. 06:52:14 PM Lessa Racow Moves: “On Z15107 and Z15108 to deny approval based on lack of appropriate historical documentation and material pallet not blending with the historic downtown buildings. Second by: Mr. Hufstetler This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD). Page 4 of 8 06:52:51 PM Discussion on the motion. 06:53:19 PM Mr. Hufstetler stated that he felt the concerns were addressed already, so he had nothing else to add to the discussion. 06:53:48 PM Mr. Mehl stated that any additional clarification would be encouraged now before the board discussion closed. 06:54:25 PM Mr. Hufstetler clarified that the application needs a set of historical review forms that are up to professional standards. He also feels he does not have sufficient application materials to evaluate the building. He does not feel the building respects the neighborhood it will be placed in. 06:55:11 PM Vote: Mark Hufstetler – Approve Lessa Racow - Approve Melvin Howe - Approve Walter Banzinger: Disapprove Motion Passes 2. 06:55:54 PM Northpark Master Site Plan (Krueger) 1107-1425 Redwing Drive; 817 Mandeville Lane A Master Site Plan application for the approval of the primary layout and infrastructure for approximately 175 acres of industrial property. 06:56:25 PM Brian Kreuger begins presentation on Northpark Master Site Plan. 07:11:02 PM Eric Nelson with Think Tank begins applicant presentation. 07:13:38 PM Begin questions for staff and applicant 07:13:53 PM Mr. Hufstetler questions the management of the wetland area given the split ownership of the property. Mr. Kreuger responds in detail. Discussion between Mr. Hufstetler and Mr. Kreuger regarding land management. 07:17:53 PM Mr. Hufstetler questions traffic levels in this area as a result of the project. Mr. Kreuger states that traffic studies will be required as development moves forward. Mr. Kreuger states that the applicant was provided with information about what improvements may be required in the future. Discussion continues regarding the traffic expectations and improvements required. 07:20:04 PM Lessa Racow requested confirmation that they are requesting a standard street. Mr. Kreuger responds. 07:21:29 PM Melvin Howe said he had questions regarding the traffic and water quality, but those items have been addressed adequately. 07:21:47 PM Public Comment – No Public comment 07:22:02 PM Open for board discussion. 07:22:16 PM Melvin Howe begins discussion, but does not turn on microphone. Unclear what he said. 07:23:12 PM Lessa Racow states that she supports the project and that it makes sense in that location. Her concerns were the wetlands and that has been addressed. She also expressed concerns regarding the biosoil intersection. 07:24:38 PM Mr. Hufstetler stated that this area is in line for development. He recognizes there are a lot of uncertainties at this moment on how the site will be developed, but this is a good foundation. He suggests provisions should be made This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD). Page 5 of 8 for pedestrian access. He feels that we should give this project some more design attention than was previously being applied to this area. 07:26:00 PM Chris Mehl states that he is in agreement with the comments thus far, that the development is appropriate for the area and is interested in water conservation methods, pedestrian connections, etc. 07:27:00 PM Lessa Racow moves: With regards to project 15273 I move for approval of the project with the recommended conditions. Second by Mark Hufstetler 07:27:36 PM Discussion on the motion – no discussion Vote: Lessa Racow: Approve Melvin Howe: Approve Mark Hufstetler: Approve Walter Banzinger: Approve Motion Passes. 3. 07:27:54 PM The 5 West Building (Mendenhall Mixed Use) MODS to Approved Plan Application 15248 (Kreuger) 5 West Mendenhall Street A modification to an approved preliminary site plan for the construction of a 5 story mixed use building with two floors of commercial uses, three floors of residential uses (48 units), associated underground parking and related site improvements. 07:28:16 PM Brian Kreuger begins presentation on the project. Commented that they are only looking for comments at this time and not a formal motion. 07:42:30 PM Presentation by the applicant – Jimmy Tellerico begin presentation. 07:47:31 PM Begin questions for the staff and applicant. The board had no questions for the staff or the applicant 07:48:03 PM Chris Mehl states that this is the boards chance to offer feedback to the Director. 07:48:18 PM Public Comment – No public comment. 07:48:29 PM Board discussion begins. 07:48:34 PM Mr. Hufstetler states that he doesn’t have much to add, but in general the changes made from the original application are mixed. He appreciates them coming before the board and explaining the changes. He likes the architectural elements on Mendenhall. He thinks the other changes are reasonably subtle, and nothing too concerning. His primary concern would be with regards to the efface – he said removing some of the previous window elements took away from the elegancy of the building. He also feels that removing some of the curtain walls was a loss as they had potential to look really nice. 07:50:41 PM Lessa Racow states that she thinks most of the changes are understandable. She likes the addition of the operable windows. She appreciates the rooftop addition. She doesn’t mind being able to see the elevator on the rooftop – she feels he balanced that by raising the corner of the building. She likes the addition of the blue archway over the entry. Overall, she is in support of the changes. 07:52:47 PM Melvin Howe states that he appreciates the changes made. He feels the changes have resulted in a tighter building. He thinks the corner of the building allows for movement of pedestrians. He is impressed they can use only a handful of colors to create such a nice building. 07:53:43 PM Mr. Mehl stated that he appreciated the applicant coming back to the board – he feels informing the citizens is This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD). Page 6 of 8 important, so coming to the board even though they didn’t have to was great. 07:54:48 PM Walter Banzinger states that he appreciates how the building is moving forward as others have said. He thinks it is architecturally a nice building. He does not have any issues with the depth changes made. He doesn’t see a huge problem with some of the molding being lost. He too was sad to see the curtain wall go and hopes that in the final design part of that comes back to break up the commercial and residential Applicant interrupts to say that the entrance is actually the curtain wall – and that the owner was adamant about including it. Mr Banzinger agrees that the rooftop element was a nice touch. 07:58:45 PM Open for Public Comment on the Dsicussion – No public comment. 07:59:10 PM Recess before last item. 08:04:42 PM Meeting brought back to order. 4. 08:04:50 PM Evaluation of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Pat Jacobs and John How Mr. Jacobs and Mr. How will lead a discussion on the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. 08:04:55 PM Pat Jacobs begins presentation on the NCOD Evaluation. 08:13:13 PM Board begins discussion on the presentation. 08:13:28 PM Melvin Howe questions the success of the NCOD over the life of its existence. Ms. Jacobs comments that it has been successful. She feels that they have preserved the character – that the neighborhoods are strong. Main Sreet has a vitality that many other towns don’t have. She feels the scrutiny that the district allows has protected those types of things. However, we are seeing change and growth has been slow and steady, but now growth is happening quickly. She feels Bozeman is entering a new period of growth and the development being proposed is on a new level. She feels we need to address how to allow for growth, but not impact negatively what was already set in place. 08:15:39 PM Lessa Racow questions the process and how long it takes to go through. She pointed out that the previous items discussed showed how if you follow the process, the system works in your favor, but if you try to fast track it, it may work against you. She is in favor of maintaining the downtown as it is and keeping a long process to ensure the quality is maintained. She feels any out of state developer will not be here in 20 years, but the citizens will be and that’s what matters. She feels the process is important to achieve better design – and the applicants short change themselves by trying to fast track it. 08:17:54 PM Pat Jacobs provides some feedback regarding comments received in relation to the process. Ms. Jacobs states that the cost is increased with each time someone provides feedback on how to change a project. It is thought that getting more people involved in design is desirable to avoid multiple changes down the road. She has been told that our process is not as cumbersome as some other municipalities. Ms. Racow states that she agrees that in her experience, our process is not that cumbersome. Lessa Racow states that she feels the informal reviews should be required, because the projects that went through that process, the design is better and everything runs more smoothly. Projects that don’t go through the process are more difficult to get through. 08:22:04 PM Pat Jacobs states that the process is usually 9 months to a year for an architectural project, she feels if you get in early and make it part of the process, that could be best. 08:22:43 PM Mr. Hufstetler states that he feels we’re talking about two things. Primarily, the city’s ability to preserve the historic overlay districts and second, the process overall. He says that he hears that the conservation overlay district has achieved its goal and therefore we don’t need it anymore. He feels however that is misguided – that because it has achieved its goal, that we need to keep it as an integral part of the process long term. He states that he does feel that perhaps we could adjust the lines of the districts as they are. He feels that the rules apply the same for some very different neighborhoods and to be most effective, we need to recognize the need for historic and new uses. He feels at a minimum there need to be 3 sub units for the district – and perhaps break them up further using different levels of control. He feels it may be tricky in how This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD). Page 7 of 8 they interface with one another. He feels along Mendenhall is being abused right now because it is where the CBD and the north side intersect. He feels it’s an important area and we need a respectful transition. Instead we are building a wall of poorly planned buildings. He feels that some of those buildings are receiving less direction than some home owners making simple additions and that’s unfair. He feels there should be an understanding that where the interfaces are is the most important to tie the community together. He feels there should be different guidelines for different neighborhoods and a set of guidelines for blending. 08:26:47 PM Mr. Hufstetler states that the development process is not that difficult compared to other communities, but it’s the job of developers to portray that we do. He doesn’t feel coming to the boards early on is bad for the developer – they would otherwise be going through the mark ups and changes on their own – but this way they get a better product. He feels we need to make use of the boards and process and interact early and respect the overlay districts. 08:29:35 PM Brian Kreuger comments that the staff is looking at the process and analyzing other planning programs around the country. Through his review he will be presenting a code amendment to the commission that will require projects of a certain scale to go through a concept level review. He feels when you get to the table with a completed project, you’re invested in the project and it makes it difficult to make changes to the project at that time. It is already required for subdivisions and usually don’t in the planned unit development, and those projects typically go through smoothly because they get feedback before they get too far into the process. 08:34:40 PM Commission Mehl states that he appreciates everything that was said. He questions the size of the overlay districts – many neighborhoods will be hitting a certain age that may qualify them. Should the districts shrink? Stay the same? Get larger? He discusses deviations and variances – and how the overlay districts will affect them. In addition, how will the size of the districts affect infill while still preserving character? With individuals living him homes dipping below an average of 2, as opposed to families of 4, what affect does that have on infill? 08:37:05 PM Mr. Hufstetler states that the districts were designed for buildings 50 years or older. He feels it would be helpful for the city to design a way for the overlay districts to be a little more organic, instead of trying to redesign every few years as buildings age. Have ways for the district to expand or contract with time. He does not feel that the same constraints should be placed on buildings on South Willson that are being placed on buildings that are just now hitting that 50 year threshold. He feels that people attach more importance to the buildings in the “beginning” of a town than to subsequent buildings. That being said, there’s still value to some of the newer buildings and they should be preserved on a certain level as well. He is concerned with large projects being pushed through the process, without the proper review. He’s not sure how to resolve the problems, but he feels you can’t sacrifice quality for the sake of infill – which he feels is happening now, and we will pay the price for this in the future. 08:41:31 PM Lessa Racow states that perhaps a requirement should be made to utilize more historic materials that compliment the surrounding features. Mr. Mehl questions whether she felt that would apply to the historic overlay in general or just in the smaller subdistricts. Ms. Racow states that she’s unsure which, it was just a thought. 08:43:10 PM Mr Hufstetler states that he’s not sure if he agrees with that. He thinks there is more to it than just worrying about materials – and should just show respect to the neighborhood – but he’s not sure how you quantify that. 08:44:12 PM Pat Jacobs states that you can’t quantify it like you do with the code – she said you know it when you see it and you can see what is wrong, but how do you put that into words. She says if we looked a main street and try to determine what works, it’s hard to put that into words. The variety and difference contribute to the character, so it’s hard to decide what characteristics we will require. 08:46:01 PM Lessa Racow states that she feels visual aids would be helpful 08:46:41 PMMr. Benzinger states that architecture is very subjective, which makes it difficult. What goes through the board one year may not go through in a subsequent year based on board members. He agrees that there should be blurring of the districts to help things blend. He feels we need to preserve some of the key buildings, but we need to let it evolve with time. We wouldn’t have the architecture we have if we didn’t let the times influence the growth. He feels that the process has mixed results. He feels we should identify the ways the process should be improved and we need to focus on enforcement. He states that many times builders go and do something and then come ask for permission after the fact, when it’s too late to change. He feels it will be difficult to enforce certain types of architecture in certain areas. He states that the boards are pivotal in the process and have a strong voice and the commission and other groups respect the opinions of the board. He agrees that informal reviews are very helpful because they don’t lose time at the end of their projects pointing out problems This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD). Page 8 of 8 with the final design. He feels that we have a thriving downtown – whatever parts of the code keep that going should be maintained to keep that thriving downtown district day and night. 08:52:31 PM Mr. Hufstetler states that he’s seen membership on the board evolve over time, but that generally, they receive a consensus on recommendations. He thinks it speaks to the benefit of the boards – and that there is a direction for the city that groups are able to identify. 08:53:21 PM Mr. Benzinger states we need a process that is adaptable as the city grows. There are times when the growth is fast and other times that it slows down and you learn from those highs and lows – how you can adapt during the slow times to quickly recover for the next big growth. To speak to Mr. Hufstetler’s idea that they all seem to typically agree on projects, he states that generally the commission and the planning staff also seem to be in line with their opinions and that creates cohesion and a encourages a good end product. 08:54:54 PM Pat Jacobs states that she feels they get a lot of good input from boards, she’s wondering if there is another opportunity for her to come back for more insight from the boards. Should the board take formal action on the final recommendations? Would they like to be involved in the process from this point forward. 08:55:57 PM Mr. Benzinger states that he feels other members of the board would appreciate an opportunity later in the process to be involved with the recommendations. 08:56:24 PM Pat Jacobs also stated that they are establishing some of the neighborhood meetings and there is value in them hearing what is coming out of those meetings and attending to hear what’s going on. 08:57:56 PM Next item on the agenda was to discuss the development review process – Brian Kreuger states that he would like to defer that to a later meeting as the Director is not in attendance and the board chair wanted to be involved and was not present. ITEM 4. 08:59:06 PM ADJOURNMENT This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-3203 (TDD).