HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-14-07 Design Review Board Minutes.doc
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2007
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Walter Banziger Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Michael Pentecost Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Christopher Livingston Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Bill Rea Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Joe Batcheller
Visitors Present
Chris Ferko
Kim Sanford
Sue Doss
Thail Davis
Ed Galliway
Rom Milleson
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2007.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of January 24, 2007 as presented. The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. Rialto Building SP/COA/Change in Use #Z-07019 (Bristor)
10 West Main Street
* A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Change in Use Application to allow renovation with an addition and re-use of the existing structure for retail use and ten condominium
units with related site improvements. (Staff has offered some informal design review comments for the DRB’s consideration.)
Sue Doss and Thail Davis joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting that the DRB had been given a memo describing the proposal as a bump-up
on Main Street. She stated Staff did not think the proposal was subordinate to the existing structure and there was a drastic difference in building materials causing the proportions
of the building to be lost in the design.
Ms. Doss stated she thought the upper levels were set back roughly 15 feet. Planner Bristor responded the setback was measuring at roughly 2 feet.
Mr. Rea asked what the material would be on the parapet where the signage was located as it was indicated as a brick material on the site plan, but was indicated as something else on
the elevation. Ms. Doss responded that the second story of the Rialto was cream-yellow brick and it would be difficult to find something that matched the existing, but they would like
the material to be brick. Mr. Rea asked if everything from the front façade to the south would have to be demolished. Ms. Doss responded that it would have to be demolished and added
that some original materials might be kept, but they would need to be supported.
Mr. Banziger stated that he had based most of his judgments on the photo renderings that were provided and the design was too full of metal and glass (too modern). He stated the original
portion being maintained would be made to look awkward as proposed. He suggested looking at the Place Architecture building as they had done a good job of preserving the architectural
elements. He stated the proposal was too out of scale and suggested checking for materials that would be better suited to the remaining portions of the existing structure.
Mr. Rea stated that he agreed with Mr. Banziger’s comments and his concern was the historic texture, fabric, and scale of the street. He suggested reviewing the historic guidelines
to provide for a better design. He stated he was also concerned with the pedestrian scale of the building, but did not have a problem with the proposed height of 55 feet. He suggested
moving the existing 2nd story band up to the 55 foot mark, adding the new construction underneath, and looking at the street level façade to make it more pedestrian sensitive. He stated
that other radical options were available but that he could not support the present proposal as it was contradictory to what the DRB was seeking in a historic district. He stated the
design elements of Main Street were crucial to Bozeman and thanked the applicant for presenting the proposal to the DRB for informal comments. He stated he would like to see the historic
vertical reader sign returned to its location. He added that it looked like there would be serious building code issues that would need to be addressed and advised the applicant to
have the Building Department review the plans.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost agreed with Mr. Rea and Mr. Banziger. He stated he had seen radical departures in New York City that had turned out nicely, but he thought the proposal was
missing the mark. He stated that the bold statement being proposed (steel and glass) would not work with the surrounding historic district. He stated the language and vernacular could
work with the existing materials and a good design could integrate them. He suggested the architect could maintain the history of the structure while working with the addition to the
structure. He suggested massaging the material pallet so that the uppermost portion worked well with the middle and lower portions of the structure. He suggested retaining some of
the memory of what the structure had been historically and added that he thought it could be a successful project, but was not supportive as it had been proposed.
Mr. Batcheller stated the proposal seemed awkward and he did not think the second story would be appropriate for this location. He suggested using a brick color that was complimentary
to the existing materials. He stated he did not think the proposal was in keeping with the historical nature of downtown.
Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments. He stated the guidelines for historic preservation attempted to create a distinction between historic and new fabric
and tried to maintain the sense of scale of what was existing. He stated it seemed there would be a
new two-story building stacked on top of an existing two-story building. He stated the issue had arisen in the past and he had always been on the side of retaining the historic fabric
of the area as once it was gone it would never come back. He stated that the historic context of the street had not been addressed and the façade needed to be respected. He stated
the zero lot lines on the side of the structure would need to be addressed; noting the proposed windows on the side. He stated the imposition of the front façade toward the face of
Bozeman was his primary concern and he did not want to see a second layer of new facades doubling the faces of existing facades. He stated that one of the reasons that Bozeman was desirable
was Main Street. He suggested that he would not support a proposal that did not adhere to the historic guidelines.
Ms. Davis stated she had gotten the impression that the upper two stories should look completely different from the existing structure. Chairperson Livingston responded the guidelines
clearly defined preserving the perception of the existing historic building and the proposal did not maintain the historic perception. He added that he thought there were bigger issues
that would need to be addressed. Vice Chairperson Pentecost added that if a proposal was well done, but there was still a distinction between the old and the new, there could be support
for such a project. Ms. Doss stated she appreciated DRB comments and had gotten the impression that the new portion of the structure had to be obviously different from the existing.
Planner Bristor apologized for the confusion and stated that the Secretary of Interior Standards require all new construction to be distinguishable from the historic, but should also
be compatible; adding that an example would be that even if brick was used for the proposed addition, it would be unlikely that it could match the existing, so it would be distinguishable.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with Planner Bristor and suggested using new materials, but remaining complementary to what was existing (he cited the existing Missoula Art Museum in Missoula,
MT).
Chairperson Livingston stated that 15 inches could not be considered a substantial setback for the popup addition.
Mr. Rea stated he agreed that there should not be a modern addition to the structure and any addition would need to respect its neighbors in terms of scale and aperture.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. City Hotel & Residence Club SP/COA/DEV #Z-06287 (Bristor)
120 West Main Street (Continued from 1/24/07.)
* A request by Staff to open and continue the proposal until the applicant submits the materials originally requested by the DRB. If the applicant would like to keep the City Commission
date scheduled for February 26, 2007, Staff would recommend denial.
Chairperson Livingston stated that what the DRB had received in packets was not consistent with what the DRB had asked the applicant to do at its last meeting. He stated the DRC had
seen a six story proposal and the DRB had received materials inconsistent with that proposal. He stated that his position would be that either the project would need to be continued
to the next meeting of the DRB so that the correct information could be provided, or the project would be denied. He stated there was a particular submittal process in place that needed
to be observed to provide for the review process to work. Mr. Mosser responded that he thought the DRB should entertain a third option and suggested the primary issue was the height
issue. He stated that Staff had
given recommendations that sounded like the total redesign of the structure and that the collateral material had been provided in response to the general open-mindedness of the DRB.
He stated he felt that the new design would give the DRB what they required as proposed (ten-story structure). He remarked that if the DRB had embraced Staff’s recommendations, the
DRB would have required him to start the process over to accommodate the redesign of the proposal. He stated his new proposal was an effort to be responsive to the comments of the DRB
and that the context of the structures had not changed; only the height would change. He stated he would appreciate the opportunity to show the DRB his presentation.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if anything other than what they had requested at the last meeting should be reviewed by the DRB. Planner Bristor responded that Staff had not reviewed
any of the other proposals put forth by the applicant and would recommend continuance of the project.
Chairperson Livingston stated that the DRB was available to give feedback to applicants and the method by which the DRB perceives the process as working had not been abided by. He stated
that the last information the applicant had provided was not consistent with what had been proposed and previously reviewed by the DRB. He stated that an informal review gave the DRB
the opportunity to provide recommendations on different proposals (4-story, 6-story, etc.) that would be supported by the DRB during the formal review of the project. He stated the
issue at hand was that the DRB could not make a decision on what had been most recently submitted and could not choose one of three options to forward to the City Commission. He reiterated
that the proposal could either be continued to the next DRB meeting or denied as proposed. He suggested the DRB had been eager to see the proposal, but what had been submitted had not
been what was requested.
Mr. Mosser stated Staff recommended changes that would make the proposal entirely different and asked if the DRB would ignore comments made by Staff if meant a drastic change in the
proposal. Chairperson Livingston responded that he was not saying it was his or the DRB’s charge to ignore Staff recommendations, but rather to consider them and then make their recommendations.
Mr. Mosser argued that Chairperson Livingston had misstated his charge. Vice Chairperson Pentecost added that the DRC always made recommendations to Staff, who made recommendations
to the advisory boards to help them make their decision, and that the city had reviewed the initial proposal. He stated that the legal review process provided that the DRB could only
review the proposal that had been seen by the other review boards and Staff.
Mr. Mosser asked why Staff could redesign a proposal and no new submittal was required, but as soon as he redesigned his proposal, it was required that he submit a new proposal. Planner
Bristor cited the Staff report and added that it did not contain any redesign suggestions that included a height increase.
Chairperson Livingston stated that engagement into the process of submitting drawings for review entered the applicant into a commitment that they would be building the proposal, as
submitted, with Staff and advisory board conditions of approval.
Planning Director Epple apologized for the proposal being delayed due to procedural dictates and added that the threshold for requiring a new submittal was when a modification to the
structure increased the mass or height. He stated that the DRB had requested the applicant provide materials in reference to the six-story building and that Mr. Mosser had misunderstood
that directive. He added that the overlay work on Main Street would not hold up the development of the proposal even if it were delayed due to the continuance of the DRB meeting.
Mr. Mosser asked if, having gone through this process and liking the stair stepping design he had most recently submitted, could he have the opportunity to get input from the City Commission;
he wanted to present three scenarios for them to choose from (4 story, 6 story, and 10 story). Planning Director Epple responded that the City Commission would consider three reviews
a waste of time, and suggested an Informal Application be submitted for the review of the ten-story structure if that was what the applicant would like to build.
After one last clarification from Chairperson Livingston on whether or not the applicant would like to continue the proposal, Mr. Mosser expressed his interest in keeping his previously
scheduled City Commission hearing date of February 26, 2007.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Commission for the City Hotel & Residence Club SP/COA/DEV #Z-06287.
The motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Rea stated he thought the project review was valid and solid given that it was one of the five or six biggest buildings in the city and would support the motion, but sadly.
Mr. Banziger stated he concurred with Mr. Rea but was in support of the current motion.
2. Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA #Z-06209 (Krueger)
1783 North 19th Avenue
* A Conditional Use Permit Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 6,759 square foot restaurant including the sale of alcohol and related site
improvements.
Associate Planner Brian Krueger reiterated points from the Staff Report and walked the DRB through some of the modifications that had been done since the last meeting. He stated the
applicant had pulled their formal application so that it was not under constraints for its scheduled City Commission meeting. He stated the applicant had resubmitted the project, it
had been noticed as a new project, and the applicant had made modifications based on Staff and DRB comments. He stated the conditions were standard with the exception of revised condition
#1 regarding an asphalt overlaid trail connection to the Home Depot site. He stated some of the conditions had been satisfied, but he had left those conditions to provide for Final
Site Plan approval.
Mr. Milleson stated he would like to review the list of changes that were made to the proposal. He stated the sidewalk had been extended to provide for the patio being connected to
the path. He stated they had added screening to the mechanical equipment on the roof and it had been depicted on the elevations. He stated the awning had been changed to reflect a
more edgy, contemporary design. He stated the footprint of the patio had been increased and the edge pattern had been redesigned. He stated the back of the building (west façade) included
more articulation and the lighting would match the rest of the structure; adding that the signage had been removed from that façade. He stated that the display windows had been increased
to a two foot depth and the DRB had received details in their packet information. He stated that stone had been instituted at the base of the columns and a cut-sheet had been added
to the submittal that depicted the proposed light fixtures. He added that the current submittal was very different from
the original submittal. He assured the DRB that there was no other Buffalo Wild Wings establishment that would look anything like this proposal.
Mr. Banziger asked if the original elevations had garage doors opening to the inside. Mr. Milleson responded that he was unsure. Mr. Batcheller responded that the north elevation had
been depicted as having some type of rolling doors that opened to the interior, but the previous plans did not depict that type of entrance. Mr. Banziger asked if the applicant intended
those doors be open. Mr. Milleson responded that he did not think they were intended to be opened. Mr. Banziger asked the appearance of the newest franchise design for Buffalo Wild
Wings. Mr. Milleson responded it would be a yellow and black checkered box.
Mr. Batcheller asked if the patio would be enclosed. Mr. Milleson responded that it would not.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA #Z-06209 with Staff conditions. The motion carried
4-1 with Chairperson Livingston in opposition.
Mr. Rea stated that this proposal was the best they had seen for this particular building and he appreciated the effort that had gone into it. He stated that he encouraged the applicant
to use something other than EFIS at the parting bead and suggested the use of stone. He stated he supported Staff recommendations.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with Mr. Rea’s comments and that he liked the current proposal better than what he had seen thus far. He stated he had one concession and
struggled with how the 500 square feet of material on the overhead worked. He suggested the material be modified. Mr. Rea suggested the new material not be EFIS.
Mr. Batcheller stated that he agreed with previous DRB comments and the current design was one he could live with, though he would like to see something specifically designed for the
site, the applicant had done a good job of addressing the DRB’s concerns.
Chairperson Livingston stated he thought the design had come a long way, but the basic “cake decoration” of the proposal had been a lengthy process. He stated the DRB had suggested
modifications that would change the floor plan to a certain degree and he had come to the realization that a franchise was a box and there would need to be a way to decorate the box
to fit into Bozeman. He stated he wished the franchise had been more willing to be design oriented.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and he felt it was still franchise architecture dressed up. He stated that the applicant had made efforts to address previous
comments from DRB and suggested the opportunity would have been great to open the structure to the patio.
3. Costco Gasoline CUP/COA #Z-07012 (Krueger)
2505 Catron Street
* A Conditional Use Permit with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a members-only fueling facility within the existing parking lot.
Chris Ferko, Kim Sanford, and Ed Galliway joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger
presented the Staff Report noting the location of the project and that everyone was probably familiar with it. He noted that Costco had come in before the Gallatin Center site but still
resembled the Gallatin Center development. He stated the applicant had requested two deviations: 1) the service canopy lighting exceed the allowable 10 foot candle average, and 2) the
applicant be allowed to exceed the height limitations of the canopy. He stated Staff did not support the requested deviation for the lighting as the location did not lend itself to
a brighter canopy due to the adjacent residential uses and Staff supported the request for a deviation for height provided the applicant modify the canopy design. He stated Staff would
like to see the Design Objectives Plan addressed by the institution of a seating area and site landscaping. He stated Staff recommended closing a drive isle that was close to the entrance
to direct traffic through the site and provide a safe environment and help to resolve difficulties at a congested intersection. He stated Staff recommended pushing the storage tanks
more toward the interior of the site while maintaining the mature existing landscaping. He stated Staff would like to see additional scored or pigmented sidewalks incorporated on the
site and suggested the institution of a plaza area or other additional pedestrian amenities. He stated the building mounted lighting on Costco was nonconforming and the applicant had
been asked to shield their lighting to bring it into conformance. He stated any lighting on signage must be a warm toned light if it would be located in the Entryway Corridor and some
existing signage would be removed to accommodate the new signage on the gasoline facility. He stated the red painted steel supports proposed for the canopy should be masonry instead
to remain in keeping with the existing Costco structure. He stated that the existing trail along Catron Creek had been relocated and had not been used or maintained and added that the
Gallatin Valley Land Trust had suggested the relocation of the trail to the other side of Catron Creek to provide for its connection to the newly completed Gallatin Center trail. He
stated Staff’s suggestion was to pave the existing trail and provide a connection to the trail across Catron Creek to the north.
Mr. Ferko stated that the applicant had gotten a Zone Code Amendment to allow the gasoline facility to be located on this site. He stated this would not be typical gas station with
a convenience store and loud signage as it was for members only and would not need to be located on the front of the lot. He stated the hours of operation for the facility would be
roughly the same as the warehouse hours. He stated there was a screen that could be put in the existing fixtures to reduce the glare of the lighting. He stated that stamped or colored
asphalt would be instituted on the site to delineate those pedestrian crossings (per Staff conditions). He stated that he had met with the Gallatin Valley Land Trust and they had discussed
trail construction options that included a bridge and the applicant would be willing to provide that. He stated that the applicant would be willing to reconfigure the parking stalls,
but would prefer not to have pedestrians between the gas station and the loading docks as people were likely to smoke in those areas; adding that the landscaping could be located in
a better area. He stated he would like flexibility in the design of the hardscaped area with multiple seating areas and they would be willing to work with Staff.
Mr. Galliway stated they had dealt with these situations on many occasions and he had been involved in the other Costco projects. He presented a rendering that addressed the pitched
roof design of the canopy bay. He stated the metal facia panel proposed would wrap around all four sides of the structure. He stated the steel structural truss system proposed (rust
colored) would tie the proposed structure with the existing warehouse. He stated the design was fairly standard for Costco and would contain 12 bays. He stated there would be a slight
overhang that could contain a fixture with indirect light.
Mr. Ferko stated that the city’s code was based on the 1998 IEC requirements and the 2001 IEC had been changed to allow for higher than 10 foot candles with better opportunities to focus
lighting and reduce glare and light pollution. He stated that Costco had been proactive to find solutions with regard to lighting issues. He stated the area lights underneath the canopy
had specially designed lenses that would focus the light directly under the canopy. He stated that the applicant did not want to compromise safety to provide for less light pollution.
He stated the deviation request was for an 11.9 foot candles instead of 10 foot candles. He presented the DRB with a lighting study depicting the differences in distances and strengths
between a 10 foot candle and an 11 foot candle adding that lighting technology had been improved since the institution of the lighting ordinance. He noted the location of an industrial
piece of property next to the site that would buffer the residential area once it was developed.
Mr. Batcheller asked the hours of operation. Mr. Ferko responded it would be roughly 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mr. Batcheller asked the plans for the trail linkage to the north. Planner
Krueger responded that a site plan review of the property, once it was annexed to the city, would accommodate a link to the existing trail system. Mr. Galliway added that there appeared
to be a 20 foot utility easement that the trail was within and asphalting the trail would need to be approved. Planner Krueger responded that it was common to pave the trail over existing
easements.
Mr. Banziger asked what access would be closed off. Planner Krueger directed the DRB to the location of that entrance. Mr. Banziger asked what the controller enclosure would look like.
Mr. Ferko responded it would be a 6 X 6 prefabricated enclosure that would house only mechanical equipment (unmanned) and would be located within landscaping and remain in keeping with
the existing warehouse and proposed gasoline facility.
Mr. Rea asked the reason the tanks met the landscaping on the south side of the site. Mr. Ferko responded that the landscaping had been placed there for the protection of the service
truck, but could be moved. Mr. Rea asked if rubber had been considered for use on the trail system. Planner Krueger responded that it had been used in other cities, but none had been
proposed for Bozeman; he added that two standards were used to provide for trail construction. Mr. Banziger added that the entrance to the physical plant had instituted previous concrete
and people could see how it was holding up to the elements. Mr. Rea asked if the applicant would be amenable to the institution of a bridge. Mr. Ferko responded the applicant would
be amenable.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if landscaping would be in lieu of parking or if it would need to be replaced somewhere else. Mr. Krueger responded that Staff would like to see the
replacement of the net area of parking stalls with the same net area of landscaping to provide for additional open space areas. Mr. Galliway stated roughly 96 stalls would be eliminated
with the institution of the gasoline facility on the site and the applicant would prefer not to remove the extra 28 spaces due to the loss of parking that erecting the facility would
cause. Mr. Ferko added that the parking calculations did not seem to be meant for existing structures, but for new structures. Mr. Krueger added that a CUP gave authority to Staff
and the Commission to institute conditions of approval. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the applicant’s design crew had worked in Bozeman. Mr. Galliway responded they had done
the Bozeman Costco design. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the design of the fascia could be modified. Mr. Galliway responded that it would be more expensive due to the internal
design of the structure. Ms. Sanford added that the sign would also need to be hung there. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the canopy was sprinkled. Mr. Galliway responded it
would not be sprinkled. Vice
Chairperson Pentecost asked if the ceiling of the canopy would be casting light. Mr. Galliway responded the fixtures would be recessed and only ambient light would be evident. Vice
Chairperson Pentecost asked why they were requesting additional foot candles if the difference was imperceptible. Mr. Ferko responded it was for safety reasons. Vice Chairperson Pentecost
asked if the control booth would ever be manned. Ms. Sanford responded that it was not manned, but would have regular maintenance done by an employee.
Chairperson Livingston asked what landscaping would typically be installed on a Costco site. Ms. Sanford listed types of landscaping that are generally instituted on their sites and
added that the tanks would be relocated 15 feet to the north and twenty feet of additional landscaping would be placed in that location. Chairperson Livingston asked what the standard
light level for Costco was. Ms. Sanford stated the light level would be 30-40 foot candles where typical lighting would be 60-80 foot candles. Chairperson Livingston asked what a particular
design feature would be made of. Mr. Galliway responded it would be tube metal. Chairperson Livingston asked if there would be a gutter. Mr. Galliway responded there would be gutters
and downspouts. Chairperson Livingston asked how consumers of the gasoline station proceeded from there to the warehouse facility for shopping and suggested some sort of connectivity
to the store to provide for drop off of customers while the other spouse was shopping.
Mr. Banziger asked why it would be alright for vehicles to interfere with the loading and service area and not pedestrians. Mr. Galliway responded that the hours of operation would
prevent interference and his concern was with the landscaping being damaged by the service vehicles.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Costco Gasoline CUP/COA #Z-07012 with the modification of Staff condition
of approval #6 to add the language “and controller enclosure” and change the requirement from “2” to “3” types of masonry, and the addition of condition #9 to include language that the
canopy structure be “open post and beam steel construct with accent lighting”. The motion carried 4-1 with Chairperson Livingston in opposition.
Mr. Banziger suggested an amendment to the motion to include that the applicant provide screening to the air conditioning unit. He suggested that there would not be a need for the fascia
all the way around the structure as the sign could be displayed in a different location. He stated reduced parking spaces and more green spaces with less impervious surfaces would be
preferable as development was headed in that direction. He stated he was concerned with the wearability with the stamped pavement as it did not last long and was difficult to maintain;
he suggested a more durable material. He stated he agreed with Staff regarding the reduction of lighting levels and non-support of the requested deviation.
Mr. Rea stated Staff was being generous with regard to the number of parking stalls they were requiring be removed from the proposal. He stated it would be a gas station and not a “members-only
gas spa” with ambient lighting and added that parking would be an issue. He stated he agreed with Staff regarding the lighting request as Bozeman was a dark sky city. He stated the
control enclosure seemed to be the thumb sticking out in front of a beautiful architectural gas spa. He stated he was fine with the proposed trail and added that he appreciated what
Costco brought to the community and how it was its own internal community.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with Mr. Rea’s comments and he would have made
the same motion if he hadn’t. He stated he thought Bozeman’s Costco should be better because it should not resemble any other Costco. He stated he did not support the request for additional
foot candles as he would just be gassing up the car which did not require an exceptional amount of lighting.
Mr. Batcheller stated he agreed with previous DRB comments.
Chairperson Livingston stated he was concerned that there would be a landscaped island left too small to accommodate vegetation if the pumps were relocated; he added there seemed to
be too much interaction between vehicles and landscape. He stated his other concern was the canopy as it was a standard Costco canopy with a truss on top of it and Bozeman deserved
something better than that. He suggested people in Bozeman liked to know that the design of their Costco was different than every other Costco. He stated the applicants real logic
was that no matter how full the establishment, there would still be open stalls. He added that he thought a pathway from the gas station to the warehouse would be valuable.
ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes)
{Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
There was no public available for comment at this time.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board