HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-14-10 Design Review Board Minutes
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:37 p.m. in
the upstairs conference room of the Alfred Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street,
Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Christopher Livingston David Skelton, Senior Planner
Walter Banziger Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Michael Pentecost
Mark Hufstetler
Elissa Zavora
Bill Rea
Visitors Present
Chris Kukulski
Ted Mitchell
Jim Ullman
Jeff Krauss
Keith Scott
Scott Berkes
Chris Finch
Joe Cobb
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2010
MOTION:
Mr. Rea moved, Ms. Zavora seconded, to approve the minutes of March 24, 2010 as
The motion carried 6-0.
presented.
ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. Kohl’s/Bozeman Gateway PUD INFORMAL #I-10007
(Skelton)
th
945 South 29 Avenue
* An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a
new Kohl’s store with related site improvements within the Bozeman
Gateway Planned Unit Development.
Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff comments via a power point presentation. He
stated the applicant had requested relaxations with the original approval of the Bozeman
Gateway PUD and handed out a list of the approved relaxations. He stated he had distributed the
development manual to the DRB members to give them the opportunity to use the document as
the design guidelines for the PUD when reviewing any proposal for the development whether it
was informal or formal review. He stated the Mayor and City Manager had directed the
applicant to take comments from the DRB and ADR staff, and submit a formal application for
review by the City Commission as opposed to the Commission reviewing the document as an
1
Design Review Board Minutes – April 14, 2010
Informal Application. He stated he had e-mailed the Board the lifestyle design and had provided
them with examples of existing Kohl’s stores. He stated the development manual was a good
model as an example to show other developers of large, multiple phase projects the type of
manual to guarantee high quality development in our community and credit should be given to
the applicant for putting the material together.
Planner Skelton stated the property had a mix of B-2 and B-P zoning designations and was
scheduled in five phases of development. He noted the location of the property within the West
Main Street Entryway Corridor. He stated 22 relaxations were granted with the PUD and noted
some were for reduced water course setbacks, maximize lot coverage, encroachments into yard
setbacks, etc., as well as egress/ingress points that were granted by the Engineering Department
instead of the City Commission. He stated Staff had anticipated that with a large scale, multi-
phased of this scale there would always be modifications to the PUD whether major or minor.
He stated Staff encouraged infill development within the PUD as long as it did not compromise
the integrity of the lifestyle center design of the development. He stated the success of the
lifestyle center would hinge on the development’s ability to maintain the user-friendly pedestrian
main street concept of the lifestyle center site. He directed the DRB to a view of the lifestyle
center facing south and noted the visual interest to the streetscape by the use of the craftsman
style. He stated there were three principal land use types; convenience center out parcels,
professional offices, and the lifestyle center. He stated franchise architecture was prohibited and
the DRB would need to determine if that the proposal for Kohl’s would achieve this guideline of
the Design Objectives Plan with the submittal. He stated the heart of the project, the lifestyle
center, achieved a Main Street feel by orienting the primary building facades to an interior street.
He stated the whole key to the development was the obvious carryover from downtown Main
Street that was intended to be a civic space of walk ability and window shop instead of just a
place that was a matter of convenience from the automobile directly into a retail store.
Planner Skelton stated the Bozeman Gateway Development manual had been used as part of the
review criteria for the proposal and added the key was discussing the standards for specific uses;
he noted the size of the proposed Kohl’s was 64,000 sq. ft. and the threshold for large scale retail
was 40,000 sq. ft. He stated there was no anticipation of single tenants over 40,000 sq. ft. in the
PUD. He stated Staff had evaluated the proposal against the Design Objectives Plan and the
proposal would need to follow the intent and spirit of the document as well as the Bozeman
Gateway Development Manual. He stated the applicant had made a conscious effort to provide a
high scale of design and noted the spirit was to provide high standards and thresholds for the
craftsman style architecture. He stated there had been discussions regarding extending two
access driveways further west and the installation of a sidewalk for a portion of the development.
He stated Staff was concerned with connectivity along the west side of the proposed Kohl’s and
the lifestyle center. He stated the concept of the public plazas and open space areas would be
integral to the spirit and intent of a lifestyle center. He stated there had been discussion as to
what extent open space #7 would need to be developed and added that Staff did not anticipate the
need for the applicant to develop the whole space, but it would need to be established as to what
level of improvements would occur while the confirming finish grade and finished slopes for the
open space area.
Planner Skelton stated one of the key elements would be building orientation and maintaining the
lifestyle concept; i.e. facing the structure to Technology Boulevard West. He stated the proposal
had depicted the orientation as facing West Main Street and Staff believed the orientation was a
2
Design Review Board Minutes – April 14, 2010
significant counter to the Development Manual and overall lifestyle center design. He stated if
the double frontage concept was accepted to address the lifestyle center’s main street, the
submittal would not present a design that would complement the lifestyle center in the future; in
the interim, the question is what would happen to the open space in that location along the main
street. He stated that open space #7 would need to be addressed in the interim time with
construction of Kohl’s, as well as with the next tenant south of Technology Boulevard West. He
stated Staff had suggested the use of scored concrete be included on the site and the need for
additional architectural features that emphasize street level interest and a stronger sense of
human scale. He stated the intent of the applicant was to improve open space #7 and connect it
to the Kohl’s structure. He stated Staff suggested a stronger look providing adequate pedestrian
connections to the open space #7 and along the west side of the structure to connect with the
lifestyle center and continue the angled parking as shown in the master plan, instead of removing
the connections.
Planner Skelton stated the applicant had called out a class I or II trail that would require hard-
scape and landscape improvements with the development of the property along West Main
Street, south through the parking lot, to the open space #7. He stated the minimization of
negative visual impacts of parking on the site would be important and additional screening would
thth
be required along West Main Street and South 29 Avenue. He stated South 29 Avenue was a
principal entry to the site and there had been discussions regarding requesting a variance to the
required yard setbacks, which staff is not favorable of. He stated the main entrance to the
building had not been celebrated with minimal improvements. He stated the applicant had made
an effort to maintain the natural features and had included an open space corridor along West
Main Street that would need to be completed with the initial tenant for this phase of the
subdivision. He stated open space #7 and along Main Street would need to be implemented. He
directed the Board to a conceptual plan for the Entryway Corridor landscape plan and noted Staff
would need to ensure during Site Plan review that adequate screening of the parking lot areas
would be included.
Planner Skelton stated he was not going to spend too much time on design comments and noted
Staff had determined the proposal included franchise architecture which was discouraged in the
Design Objectives Plan for Entryway Corridors. He stated Staff had discussed the proposed
orientation of Kohl’s countering the idea of a lifestyle center main street. He stated there were
three facades included in the proposal going down the path of suggesting the presentation of the
back of buildings as opposed to a multi-frontage structure. He stated the proposed building
materials were more synthetic than natural and Staff recommended the institution of more
natural materials that remained in keeping with the character of the PUD. He stated the pattern
or rhythm along the facades modules would be important to provide articulation of the facades
and present a design that would better compliment the Development Manual and the Design
Objectives Plan design guidelines. He stated the south side of the site was a concern as the intent
of the applicant was obvious with the retail stores along Technology Boulevard West, but Staff
was concerned with what would happen in the interim to this area.
Planner Skelton stated the applicant had been directed to listen to advice and recommendations
for the DRB and ADR staff prior to bringing the proposal to the City Commission for review.
He stated issues could not be identified completely until a formal application was submitted and
further comment is anticipated with a revised proposal.
3
Design Review Board Minutes – April 14, 2010
Ted Mitchell, Jim Ullman, Keith Scott, Scott Burgess – Kohl’s, Chris Finch-Mulvanny G2, and
Mr. Cobb joined the DRB.
Mr. Mitchell stated he appreciated Planner Skelton’s comments. He stated when the concept for
the site had originally been conceived; large scale anchor establishments had been anticipated
and noted which area the anchor occupant had been conceptually planned at 45,000 sq. ft. He
stated as a developer, it was always wisest to have an anchor in the middle and one on each end.
He stated there had been a number of larger square footage users that were larger than the
proposed Kohl’s would be. He directed the Board to the presumed orientation of the buildings
within the Bozeman Gateway PUD. He stated he intended to construct the smaller retail tenants
and in the interim the landscaping would be installed to provide for a public plaza. He stated he
would agree to complete the west open space area and incorporate a plaza but two issues had
been identified; the elevation of the area would need increased by ~4 feet, which would create a
difference in elevation from the stream bed, and the relocation of the farmers canal had
eliminated the water on the site that would be used for the pedestrian amenities – a well had been
being used. He stated he did not know if ponds could be installed as the water would be stagnant
unless the water was pumped out or chemically treated. He stated the trail would be continued
through the site, but the applicant would rather do sections of concrete as opposed to a Type II
trail due to the amount of maintenance required for the Type II trail. He stated he had always
intended the incorporation of large scale retail into the development. He added he felt honored
that Kohl’s had selected the site and the location within the City of Bozeman. Mr. Mitchell
asked Mr. Ullman the distance of the grade change. Mr. Ullman responded the grade change
would be roughly six feet and the natural watercourse intent would be maintained. Mr. Mitchell
stated that in his mind, the only modification would be to allow a portion of the Kohl’s building
to be seen with an entrance in a place other than Technology Boulevard.
Mr. Burgess stated he was responsible for the architecture of the building and interpretation of
design guidelines from various municipalities. He directed the DRB to the proposed elevations
for the building. He noted the location of an eyebrow feature and noted the building would be
single-story with a canvas and the signature gateway element. He stated landscaping would be
fifteen feet deep from the base of the building to the planter boxes to help soften the edge of the
building. He stated the proposal was to orient the building to the parking field on the north side
of the site, facing Main Street. He stated that in order to address some of the concerns of Staff,
towers of synthetic stone material had been included on each corner as well as EIFS inserts or
th
possibly split faced masonry. He stated the 29 Avenue side would be articulated with
modulation of horizontal elements and pilasters; he added typical stores would be straight across
th
or possibly step. He stated they would include boulevard trees along the sidewalk along 29
Avenue to provide articulation in the horizontal dimension. He stated the rear elevation,
proposed facing Technology Boulevard, would accommodate the exit doors and egress between
that building and adjacent tenants. He stated there would be a slight grade elevation of ~1 foot to
provide for egress to the pedestrian connection. He noted the locations of compactors that would
be used on the site that would be screened by fencing/landscaping. He stated height had been
added to provide a buffer for the rooftop mechanical equipment. He stated he knew the proposal
would need to be tweaked a little and the façade would need a more/less/different rhythm. He
stated that from a functional standpoint, Kohl’s had a process in place to provide a LEED
certifiable building. He stated of the 48 stores, 11 of them were Silver LEED Certified; 100% of
the energy in the national headquarters was green energy and some of the stores had solar panels.
He stated part of the issue with adding elements to the exterior was that the material be
4
Design Review Board Minutes – April 14, 2010
manufactured in Bozeman or within 500 miles of Bozeman; the concrete would also need to be
manufactured in Bozeman. He stated the LEED process was long and was currently in the
process of modifying their scoring system. He stated LEED and being “green” was an integral
part of the Kohl’s company. Mr. Burgess stated a lot municipalities were concerned with
maintenance of the structure and noted Kohl’s was in the midst of implementing a remodel
program and the old prototypes built prior to 1996 were being changed to an elevation more like
that being proposed.
The Board called a five minute recess.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he applauded the LEED commitment of Kohl’s and asked if
the stores had skylights. Mr. Burgess responded they did not include skylights; the office of
store administration stated it caused too much change in the color rendering of the clothing and
materials they were selling. He added the mezzanine design also did not allow for inclusion of
skylights though they were cutting down on the lighting requirements.
th
Mr. Hufstetler asked if any alterations to the intersection of 29 and College Street were planned
as part of the application. Mr. Ullman responded no alterations to the intersection were planned
and MDOT had been involved in the design of the intersection. Mr. Hufstetler stated things
wouldn’t be built out to the west and there would only be one entrance to the establishment. Mr.
Ullman responded that sections would be installed to provide vehicular access from the west and
apologized that he had not included that information. Mr. Hufstetler asked precisely how one
area would work with the grading of the site. Mr. Ullman responded there would be a
downgrade and a three foot difference had been anticipated; when the necessity for delivery
trucks arose, the intent to install another bridge feature would help transition over the grade
difference, but no retaining walls were needed at this time. He stated the truck dock would be
four feet below the finished floor which was part of the challenge of getting enough slope but
still allow people to get out of the access in the winter. Mr. Hufstetler if the applicant would
need to keep the ground depression as part of the drainage system. Mr. Ullman responded they
would need to keep the depression and grade so water would pass through the site. Mr.
Hufstetler stated he really hadn’t seen any pedestrian amenities and asked someone to address
those features. Mr. Ullman responded there was an overall implementation of amenities for
continuity through the site with the use of chairs, tables, benches, concrete path, etc. and noted
the location of a seating area near Kohl’s and other locations amenities might be included
depending on the design of the lifestyle center; the intent was to have those amenities throughout
the development. Mr. Mitchell added that the plan had been completed today, but Kohl’s would
need to be contacted prior to the approval of the preliminary landscape plan. Mr. Hufstetler
asked Mr. Burgess if there were properties in the chain that had more than a single primary
entrance. Mr. Burgess responded they did not have more than one entrance in stores of the size
proposed, but the larger buildings had two entrances; an additional entrance would eat up a lot of
area. Mr. Hufstetler asked if Kohl’s had properties of that approximate footprint that
incorporated other tenants as well; something other than a single occupant large, rectangular
structure. Mr. Burgess responded they did not have stores with another tenant, just adjacent
tenants.
Ms. Zavora asked Mr. Mitchell what variance request he was referring to earlier in the
discussion. Mr. Mitchell responded the variance request was to allow the building orientation to
provide for the entrance on Technology Boulevard. Ms. Zavora asked if the exposed section of
5
Design Review Board Minutes – April 14, 2010
building would be 60-80 feet long. Mr. Mitchell responded it would be exposed for a length
closer to 60 feet. Mr. Ullman responded the exposed length would be 60feet. Mr. Burgess stated
the plaza concept could be instituted in that location to lessen the exposure. Ms. Zavora asked if
the 25 foot setback applied to the structure. Mr. Ullman responded the 25 foot setback
requirement applied only to parking area setbacks. Ms. Zavora asked if green space had been
planned from the parking lot. Mr. Burgess responded it would make sense to install landscaping
between the trees and the building. Mr. Mitchell added greenery, rock, and various plantings
would be installed along the building.
Mr. Banziger asked Mr. Burgess what conservation efforts had been made aside from what had
already been mentioned. Mr. Burgess responded they had compactor units to provide for easier
recycling and recycled all of their boxes, computer guided energy systems, low flow toilets, the
elimination of irrigation if possible to reduce potable water consumption, reductions in lighting,
reductions in cooling requirements, and installation of bike racks. Mr. Banziger asked how
water runoff from the building would be handled. Mr. Burgess responded a system would be in
place to provide runoff directly to the ground and reduced water usage was being investigated;
no smoking in the building during construction had also been instituted. A green education
program had also been included for employees and customers alike. He added much of the
construction waste was also recycled.
Mr. Rea asked the design of the street entrance on College Street. Planner Skelton responded he
thought it would remain a pork chop design in that location. Mr. Banziger added that MSU saw
th
Garfield Street and South 19 Avenue as a major entrance to the campus and were considering a
th
bridge over 19 Avenue. Mr. Rea asked if the water had been removed from the site with the
installation of the culvert. Mr. Ullman responded the culvert was partly responsible, but the
water users and the intersection of the aquifer had also contributed. Mr. Mitchell added they had
thought of other possibilities to provide flowing water on the site such as incorporating
underground parking in one building that could contain a pump to provide water to use for the
site. Mr. Rea asked why the storm water retention would not be an option. Mr. Mitchell
responded there would not be enough water seasonally to sustain the feature. Mr. Rea asked if
there was a threshold that could trigger re-submittal of the Bozeman Gateway Development
Manual. Planner Skelton responded as part of the formal application, a major modification to the
PUD and modifications to the Development Manual would also need to be approved.
Chairperson Livingston asked from where to where the eight foot grade change would occur.
Mr. Ullman responded the grade change began at the cul-de-sac and went to the ditch.
Chairperson Livingston asked the grade change perpendicular to the site. Mr. Ullman responded
that, not including the road, there was a three foot grade change to the site. Chairperson
Livingston stated there were 196 parking stalls depicted and asked Mr. Burgess their typical
parking allotment. Mr. Burgess responded the intent was to provide what the establishment
needed and no more than that. Scott responded the ratio was two spaces for every 4,000 sq. ft.
Chairperson Livingston asked if this would be a tilt panel building. Mr. Burgess responded it
would be a tilt panel building; because they only open stores twice a year, the pad delivery date
for the store would be March 15, 2011 and masonry would increase the construction time.
Chairperson Livingston asked Planner Skelton what the ramifications of his last statement
regarding modifications to the Development Manual as Mr. Rea had indicated. Planner Skelton
responded Chairperson Livingston was correct. Chairperson Livingston asked Mr. Mitchell how
he felt about the interest in the lifestyle center and how it was marketed in the Development
6
Design Review Board Minutes – April 14, 2010
Manual. Mr. Mitchell responded the lifestyle market was not so pronounced but he still thought
he could achieve it in Bozeman. Planner Skelton added he knew Mr. Mitchell’s passion for the
proposal, but the merits of the proposal significantly included the lifestyle center design.
Chairperson Livingston stated he had done some math to figure out the depth of the retail
structure and asked if a structure with a depth of 15 to 40 feet would be rentable. Mr. Mitchell
responded the space would work for some tenant though it would not be a huge money maker.
th
Chairperson Livingston asked if it would be possible to turn a truck to park off of South 29
Avenue. Mr. Ullman responded it would be difficult to turn a truck in that allotted distance; the
curb had been backed up to allow for more room. Chairperson Livingston asked if a curb cut in
that location would provide for maneuvering space. Mr. Ullman responded he couldn’t say that
th
it was impossible, but with traffic along 29 Avenue it would not be feasible.
Chairperson Livingston opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the
public comment portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr. Rea asked Ms. Zavora to address the landscaping in the shadow of the building during
comments.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he was involved in many of the meetings when the PUD was
developed and he believed what came from that was a thoughtful document (Development
Manual) with excellent guidelines and graphics. He stated he applauded Kohl’s for the LEED
direction they were going in. He stated he could not imagine going to work in the morning to a
building with not windows considering lighting could be manipulated to reduce the lighting
requirements; he added the building would function better. He suggested a pump and dump
ground source heat system might work for the site if there was enough groundwater. He stated
on page 4 of the Development Manual it said the idea of the whole development was to emulate
the idea of small town shopping; he suggested the applicant should focus on the Development
Manual with regard to the design of the structure. He stated the Rosauer’s provided a great
combination of things that made the building feel smaller and at human scale. He stated the
th
entrance into the development at 29 Avenue and Technology Boulevard left a good opportunity
for a gateway type entry on the corners so that there would be a conversation between the
buildings on the site. He stated the mass and scale seemed to be the first brush stroke on an
empty canvas.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he agreed with Vice Chairperson Pentecost and he was impressed with the
Development Manual. He stated he saw a design for the overall PUD that relied heavily on the
water and green space areas and he was concerned that some of the water features and
landscaping would not be included; particularly on the east side of the site. He suggested
something needed to be installed to draw people to those locations. He stated he was also
concerned with regard to the landscaping potential along Main Street and suggested
modifications to the site plan to provide focal points inside the lifestyle center and visual appeal
outside of that area. He stated he felt that it would be appropriate to have two or three anchor
stores in the development and he thought the proposed location was one potential spot. He
stated, even if it were heavily detailed, the current proposal would not be appropriate for the site.
He stated the proposal isolated the piece of land from the rest of the PUD and removed it from
the lifestyle center aspect of the development. He stated he shared Chairperson Livingston’s
concerns regarding the wedge shaped buildings proposed at the rear of Kohl’s; he was concerned
with access to those buildings and the view from those buildings. He stated the only way the
7
Design Review Board Minutes – April 14, 2010
th
proposal would work was if there was an entrance to Kohl’s on South 29 Avenue. He stated
elsewhere in the PUD might work for the building, but it would keep people away from the rest
of the development as opposed to encouraging people. He stated he was not opposed to having a
franchise tenant, but the building design would need to show a high level of materials and
th
design; he suggested the building would be most appropriate on 19 Avenue.
Ms. Zavora stated she agreed with Mr. Hufstetler regarding the overall building design. She
stated she thought the Development Manual should be the template for the design of the
structure. She stated the landscaping in the PUD was strong and unique and the proposal should
th
attempt to mimic those guidelines. She stated the entrance from 19 Avenue to Technology
Boulevard would provide a view of a sixty foot long building and suggested landscaping should
be included in a plaza area at that location. She stated the landscaping in the shadow of the
structure would not likely get any sun and was not a good location. She stated the connectivity
from the park areas and the lifestyle center should be inviting to the public. She suggested
diversity in plant species be shown on the landscape plans.
Mr. Banziger stated he concurred with previous DRB comments. He stated the work and effort
put into the PUD Development Manual was an exceptional design well above the cookie cutter
standards. He applauded Kohl’s for their conservation efforts. He stated he did not believe the
building fit into all the efforts to design the PUD. He stated he wondered how the inclusion of
the proposal would help the sale of the other sites within the PUD; he thought the adjacent
building might not ever get built. He stated he saw the franchising of the small and medium
sized towns by large corporations; the lifestyle center provided the opportunity for the applicant
to redesign their ideas to fit the lifestyle center design values. He suggested fitting the
community and not the model. He stated he appreciated the applicant’s willingness to work with
the DRB.
Mr. Rea stated he thought the Informal Review process was brilliant and he would base his
comments as such. He stated he thought, without developers, the community would not move
ahead. He stated he agreed with previous DRB comments with regard to following the design
guidelines within the Development Manual. He stated he did not see Kohl’s stepping up and he
was surprised to see the design submitted for this location. He stated that personally, if he had to
put the project on a relative ranking of projects the DRB had seen, it was hands down the worst
one; overall design, franchise architecture. He stated the only thing going for it was the LEED
rating; it had no windows and was not an anchor, it was an island that would prevent people from
going into the rest of the development. He stated he was not supportive of the design as
proposed and was not supportive of the proposed tilt panels. He stated the franchise nature of the
proposal was undeniable and the DRB was resistant to that. He stated he would love to see
Kohl’s, but the bar was set high with the high quality design of Roseaur’s. He suggested moving
the whole building to the north to accommodate better use of the adjacent structures.
Chairperson Livingston stated he concurred with previous DRB comments. He stated he
appreciated Planner Skelton’s efforts in putting together a nice Staff Report. He stated if there
was no water on the site, magnificent landscaping should be included instead of water features;
landscapes change and we should accept them. He stated he thought the southeast corner of the
building was a significant corner and it should be better utilized. He stated he thought the site
was too tight and when landscaping was not instituted because a truck was going to hit it, the site
should be modified to accommodate the truck. He stated the pedestrian connections on the site
8
Design Review Board Minutes – April 14, 2010
to provide for public safety would be very important. He stated the infill buildings scared him
because he did not know if they would work due to their minimal depth. He stated he thought
the set of buildings might appear to be glued onto the side of Kohl’s lacking their own presence.
He stated there was a good example of a store with two entries in the Campus Town & Country
who had created their typical register zone with two small registers at the other entry. He stated
appealing to the lifestyle side of the development might be accomplished by another, smaller
entry. He stated he had been on the DRB when the Kohl’s submittal had been reviewed for
th
North 19 Avenue and there hadn’t been an effort by Kohl’s to avoid franchise architecture other
than a practically glued on timber on the façade. He stated it would be unfortunate if the DRB
saw that design again. He suggested Town & Country might be a good model.
Planner Skelton reminded the applicant that design standards for a large scale retail department
store would have a high threshold regardless of where the department store was constructed in
the community. The Design Objectives Plan call for large scale retail exceeding the minimum
standards of the guidelines for development within the entryway overlay district.
ITEM 4.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.}
Mr. Taylor stated the idea of the DRB and City Commission meeting together had been received
well and he would get back to the DRB regarding the meeting date, place, and time.
ITEM 5.ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board
9
Design Review Board Minutes – April 14, 2010