HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-05 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2005
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Bill Rea Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Michael Pentecost Allyson Bristor, Historic Preservation Planner
Dawn Smith Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Elissa Zavora
Visitors Present
None
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2005
Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of November 9, 2005.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Chairperson Smith seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 2005
Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of November 23, 2005.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Chairperson Smith seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 4. DISCUSSION ITEM
A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB – Jami Morris.
Chairperson Smith informed the DRB members present of the duties conducted by the liaison.
ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW
A. Discussion of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Design Guidelines. (Saunders)
Assistant Planning Director Saunders presented the Staff memo and a power point presentation noting the project was being reviewed by the DRB for a formal recommendation to the City
Commission. He stated their intent was to make some of the planning programs less subjective and more easily understood by non-architects. He stated this segment was specific to the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and the purpose was to clarify the Secretary of Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation and make the review criteria more specific to Bozeman.
He stated Winter & Company had been working on the draft and there was a second part that the DRB would not be reviewing as it would be an amendment to the U.D.O Section 18.28.050 directing
attention to the Design Guidelines. He stated there were some members of the community that did not understand the correlation between the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District,
the Secretary of Interiors Standards, and the Unified Development Ordinance. He listed each portion of the document and how they would be applied. He explained the purpose of the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District and its location within the city of Bozeman and added that the Design Guidelines and the Design Objectives Plan would never overlap. He cited locations
of specific Historic Districts within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and examples of which section in the Design Guidelines would apply given precise locations. He described
the compliance language and that it could be understood by the general public. He clarified the descriptions of each chapter, and its purpose, and stated the appendices would be used
as reference sections for the Design Guidelines and the Secretary of Interiors Standards. He stated commercial development and residential development would each require separate chapters
within the document but there would be crossover’s with regard to the historical value of property, whether it was contributing or non-contributing, etc.
Mr. Pentecost asked who gauged the property as contributing or non-contributing. Assistant Director Saunders responded that Planner Bristor had a Historical Inventory resource. Planner
Bristor added that if there was no record in the Historical Inventory she would cooperate with the State Historic Preservation Office to create one. Mr. Pentecost asked how the Historic
Preservation Planner was authorized to deem a property historic or contributing. Planner Bristor responded that she used national guidelines and had an education specific to historic
preservation planning. Assistant Director Saunders added that the age of the structure (50 years or more) and other national standards had bearing on whether or not the structure was
historical. Mr. Pentecost asked if the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District could increase in size as the years go by. Planner Bristor responded the district would increase in
size and there would be structures added to the historical inventory as they aged to fifty years. Assistant Director Saunders responded that rehabilitation would be encouraged outside
the Overlay District, but the regulations specific to the Overlay District could not be enforced until the district was expanded through a Zone Map Amendment.
Chairperson Smith asked if the text amendment to the U.D.O. would be phrased similar to the language referencing the Design Objectives Plan. Assistant Director Saunders responded it
would, but the Design Guidelines would be more educational and informational as opposed to regulatory.
Mr. Rea asked how exceptions to the zoning ordinance would be handled. Assistant Director Saunders responded that special exceptions could be asked for and the Design Guidelines would
assist by being a specific set of guidelines that elected officials had formally directed to be used in reviewing proposals. Planner Bristor added that it would be evidence of specific
requirements instead of one Planner’s opinion and the public could be directed to review the document with the intent of maintaining the historical character of existing neighborhoods.
Mr. Rea asked what kind of teeth the document had as it seemed there were only suggestions and not specific requirements. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Planning Office
could insist on certain aspects of the document through the existing regulatory standards of Section 18.28.050, B.M.C.
Mr. Pentecost asked how the fine line between Building Codes and Historic Preservation was
walked by Planner Bristor. She responded that she had not taken issue with any of the Building Code requirements as of yet and there was new language addressing historical properties.
Mr. Pentecost asked how egress windows in historical structures would be addressed. Planner Bristor responded she would discuss options with the Building Department to remedy any issues.
Assistant Director Saunders added that the Planning Office and Building Department were two separate entities and the ideal method was to meet the requirements of each. Mr. Pentecost
asked if the historical value of a structure was “skin deep” from the Historic Preservation Planner’s position. Planner Bristor responded the City only had the authority to review the
external features of most structures and added that the internal features on the first floor of structures frequented by the general public would be reviewed as well.
Mr. Rea suggested Winter & Company make the map more legible (user-friendly, sized to a full page) and added that the chart on page 13 should have a footnote for clarification instead
of the footnote referencing the chart four pages after the chart was shown. Chairperson Smith asked if there should be a hierarchy chart instituted to explain the methodology of the
document. Assistant Director Saunders responded it could easily be provided. Mr. Rea stated he thought it was really cool and great that the Story Mill/Northern Pacific area had gotten
into the document.
Mr. Pentecost stated he saw no mention of the challenge process within the document. Assistant Director Saunders stated the appeal process was addressed within the U.D.O. as it was
the legal portion of the review process and any decision could be appealed whether it was to the City Commission or the District Court. Chairperson Smith stated the Design Guidelines
would be an addendum to the U.D.O. and not a stand alone document.
Mr. Pentecost asked if the Planning Office had come across any situation where the watercourse setbacks caused the demolition and reconstruction of a property to seem impossible. Planner
Bristor responded that deviations from the ordinance could be requested. Planner Saunders added that an applicant could petition for a hardship, but the City may or may not support
the request due to public safety issues.
Mr. Rea asked if the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay would be extending toward 11th Avenue. Assistant Director Saunders responded that he and Planner Bristor had been discussing the
cost of adding to the approximately 4,000 properties of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Mr. Rea asked if the public was in support of their properties being included
in the Conservation Overlay District. Planner Bristor responded there had been discussions with surrounding properties and the ones involved had been in support of being included.
Assistant Director Saunders added that it would be possible, but expensive, to include surrounding properties. Mr. Rea asked if the Historical Inventory was public record and who kept
the Sanborn maps. Planner Bristor responded that the Inventory was public record; some Sanborn Maps were available in the City Engineering Plat Room and some were online. Mr. Rea suggested
using some sort of graphic chart to reference how the Design Guidelines would relate to the 2020, U.D.O., D.O.P., etc. Planner Saunders responded the 2020 Plan was the blanket document
to which all other documents would be supportive in attaining the overall intent of the city of Bozeman.
MOTION: Mr. Pentecost moved, Chairperson Smith seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Design Guidelines
with Staff recommendations and editorial comments discussed during this meeting.
The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 6. 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 7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
________________________________
Dawn Smith, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board