HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-24-10 Design Review Board Minutes
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 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 Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Walter Banziger Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Michael Pentecost
Randy Wall
Mark Hufstetler
Elissa Zavora
Bill Rea
Visitors Present
Carson Taylor, Commissioner
Jeff Parker
Shelly Engler
Casey McKenna
Turner Askew
Matt Ekstrom
Douglas Livingston
Darren Schroeder
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 2010
MOTION:
Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Hufstetler seconded, to approve the
The motion carried 6-0.
minutes of March 10, 2010 as presented.
Mr. Banziger joined the DRB.
ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. Safeway INFORMAL #I-10003
(Krueger)
1735 West Main Street
* An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a
Safeway Grocery store and to permit a Deviation to increase the allowable
amount of parking by 20%.
Jeff Parker, Matt Ekstrom, Shelly Engler, Douglas Livingston, and Darren Schroeder joined the
th
DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Memo noting the west side of 19
Avenue had been reviewed and approved by the DRB (CVS site). He stated he always provided
a memo for the DRB with regard to inconsistencies between the proposal and the Design
Objectives Plan. He stated the applicant was requesting a Deviation for an increase in parking
1
Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010
and noted it was typical that Deviations may be granted when the proposal went above and
beyond what was required such as high level design, conservation efforts, etc. He stated it would
be a high level review due to the large scale retail use and the location of the site within the
Entryway Corridor. He stated he would be answering all of the same questions in a formal Staff
Report to the City Commission with a formal application.
Planner Krueger stated the first issue was pedestrian connectivity; one of the biggest
requirements. He stated there was already a sidewalk installed around the perimeter for the
State of Montana right of way and that section would not be altered; his comments for pedestrian
connection would be directed to the site itself. He stated there was a well developed housing
complex to the north of the site and he thought there would be an opportunity to connect to the
adjacent uses. He stated the pedestrian connection through the main parking lot could be wider
and a little more urban; there were opportunities to connect to the Hastings property. He stated
there was a grade change at the West Main Street frontage and a stronger connection could be
included in that location. He stated the Casino property was not part of the proposal, but a
pedestrian connection could be made to provide for future redevelopment of the site. He stated
the mature vegetation would need to be worked around but a better pedestrian connection could
be instituted.
Planner Krueger stated coordinated site furnishings should be of the same character and the
applicant would be required to submit that information at the Final Site Plan stage of review. He
stated Staff anticipated a high level of landscaping would be included on the Main Street side of
the site. He stated swales were located on the property and retention/detention facilities would
need to be included in the formal submittal. He stated the parking area should be designed to
minimize storm water runoff; Staff would support an additional parking area, but Staff would be
looking to the applicant to mitigate the additional impervious area. He stated the policy for
building placement had been addressed; the building should be close to the street with the
parking alongside to provide a sense of street enclosure and pedestrian interest. He stated two
drive accesses had been proposed very close together; the applicant had some access issues on
West Main Street where one would be full access and the other would be right in, right out; he
suggested the applicant could investigate a shared access agreement with Hastings.
Planner Krueger stated parking on site required a minimum of four foot screening, but Staff was
suggesting some architectural treatment, vegetation, or other method of buffering. He stated if
the building were moved closer to the sidewalk, there would be great south facing views and
pedestrian amenities could be included. He stated the Design Guidelines indicated buildings
should be brought to the sidewalk where possible and there were opportunities to provide
amenities on the site without them being located directly against the building. He stated some of
the larger entrances into the site should be highlighted with landscaping or higher levels of
paving. He stated there was a fairly standard circulation layout on the site and suggested there
was nothing pointing to the fact that there are main entrances; he suggested something to convey
that the routes were primary. He stated the minimization of pervious surfaces could be attained
by reducing the width of some of the drive isles proposed for the site.
Planner Krueger stated the requirement triggering the Deviation request was from the maximum
allowable amount of parking as stated in the Design Objectives Plan. He stated he had addressed
areas of the site that would need buffering and landscaping and that would be reviewed with the
formal proposal. He stated standard franchise architecture was strongly discouraged; the
2
Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010
proposed was a version of the Safeway vernacular and he had provided the DRB with other
versions of designs that Safeway had used. He suggested the compatibility with surrounding
developments would factor into the approval of the project; it would be an opportunity to set a
precedent in the Entryway Corridor and he was looking to the DRB for comments. He stated one
of the designs was from the Missoula Safeway that he would characterize as Italianate. He stated
the proposed north elevation would abut a residential zone and would need a higher level of
architectural treatment as well would the east side of the retail space along West Main Street. He
stated Staff suggested traditional building materials and the exploration of more masonry urban
th
forms as opposed to rustic architecture that was more characteristic of North 19 Avenue north
of Oak Street. He stated a Comprehensive Signage Plan would be required for the site; two free
standing signs were proposed and might require a Deviation as only one was allowed. He stated
the setback would essentially be fifty feet and Staff would like to see the mature Aspen trees
maintained.
Mr. Parker thanked the City, specifically the DRB, for taking the time to review the proposal and
stated they were here with an open mind and open ears; he thanked Planner Krueger for the time
he had spent in compiling Staff comments. He stated Safeway had been in the current store for
40 plus years and the building had been added onto several times; they could no longer increase
the size. He stated they had been looking for an opportunity to find a location for the next forty
years. He stated there were a few things of great importance to them including access on and off
the property as people would go elsewhere if it was too inconvenient for them. He stated
visibility was also very important to them, but there wasn’t a whole lot they could do about the
existing building; he suggested a landscape plan would be proposed that the City and Safeway
could agree on. He stated they were at the meeting to exchange ideas; they had put a lot of
thought into the proposal and would refine things for the formal submittal.
Mr. Parker suggested an open conversation between themselves and the Board. Chairperson
Livingston suggested Mr. Parker explain the reasoning for the site design as proposed. Mr.
Parker responded there had been some internal constraints with regard to the site and they had
felt the proposed footprint would allow larger departments and help them to compete with the
other stores in town. He stated the Casino property not being available at a reasonable price had
also been a constraint for the site and needed to be worked around. He stated locating the
building more closely to the property line had been investigated; the grading of the site with the
location of the building further south would require a heightened grade for the whole site or
placing the structure partially into the ground on the south side. He stated the convenience
parking proposed for the retail element on the site would be critical as he did not feel that the
retail component would work without that convenience. He stated the wider drive isles proposed
would provide a higher level of safety for the patrons of the establishment. He stated the
importance of the full turn movement onto Main Street had driven them to propose the accesses
as depicted.
Mr. Schroeder stated the proposed retail had been intended to provide interest to the site. He
stated he appreciated Planner Krueger’s comments on pedestrian connectivity and
retention/detention strategies that identify focal points. He stated for the Deviation to be viable,
the site design/materials would need to be above and beyond the code. He stated the site was
pretty tight in terms of width, the primary pedestrian access should be wider, and they would
think of pedestrian connectivity. He stated a tower element had been included to frame the
corner and provide scale and balance; it would visually terminate the long line of the front
3
Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010
façade. He stated the façade tended to fall under traditional lines of symmetry and balance and
there would be a distinct style of heavy timber and mountain architecture. He stated the
applicant felt it was important to have a cohesiveness of architectural styles and it was always
tricky to accurately depict those features on architectural renderings. He stated the use of
transparent glass had also been included to provide pedestrian interest. He stated they did not
foresee much activity along the landscaped ditch and did not want to draw a whole lot of
attention to that area. Mr. Parker stated they had thought of connections to the adjacent
properties, but he did not know how far the expectation of the City or DRB would go for pursuit
of those connections; there was no landing on the adjacent property – would Safeway be
expected to install a path or place for people to get to the path. He stated the adjacent properties
might not want a pedestrian connection to their sites. He stated it seemed most logical to connect
to the medical office building as there was an existing sidewalk end with a grassy area but he did
not know if any of the adjacent sites would be amenable to installing a pedestrian connection.
He stated the proposed landscape plan had been a starting point and he did not think the point
calculations would stay as proposed; they had not wanted to jump to conclusions with regard to
what the Community and the City would like to see for landscaping.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he lived near the site. He asked if an analysis of increased traffic flow at
the intersections had been done. Mr. Parker responded they were currently doing the traffic
impact study and it would be used to analyze all accesses and the intersections to make sure they
would function. Mr. Ekstrom added that CVS site had also done a traffic analysis and those
results would be taken into consideration. Mr. Hufstetler stated there was a possibility of
emphasizing one entrance over the other on each of the street fronts to help direct the traffic
flow. Mr. Parker responded the full turn counts would likely be higher while the right in, right
out would generally be less utilized but more convenient. Mr. Hufstetler stated there didn’t seem
to be a visual indication to the motorist which entrance to use and suggested those visual cues be
included. Mr. Schroeder added the multiple accesses proposed were intended to provide
breathing room on the site. Mr. Parker added that highlighting the access points had been
suggested by Staff and those types of comments would be addressed with the landscaping plan.
Mr. Hufstetler asked if the applicant had considered a non-rectangular, overall massing for the
building due to the odd orientation and configuration of the property. Mr. Schroeder responded
they had briefly considered a different form, but the loss of the Casino property on the corner
made more site constraints; he added that the treatment of the corner of the structure was the key
piece and would be very prominent – their effort had been focused on the front facade. Mr.
Hufstetler stated he was not a big fan of the tower feature on the corner; he suggested some of
the other Safeway designs included a better corner design – he cited the Audi dealership across
the street. Mr. Livingston responded the materials would be more rustic in nature with the use of
timber, but he did not think the tower feature should look like the Audi dealership across the
street.
Mr. Wall asked the review process for the formal submittal. Planner Krueger responded the
applicant would need to submit a Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviation
Application that would be reviewed by the DRB and the City Commission for final approval.
Mr. Wall stated that on the first page of the Staff memo additional architectural detailing,
landscape design, etc. had been indicated as methods of going above and beyond what the code
required; he asked the applicant to explain how each of those items had been addressed. Mr.
Parker directed Mr. Wall to the last page of the Informal submittal where they had preliminarily
addressed those items; they would have enhanced site furnishings, pedestrian connections,
4
Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010
outdoor amenities, enhanced entrance surfaces, conservation efforts would be investigated,
existing energy codes would be exceeded, and outdoor plaza spaces with heaters under the
canopy would be installed. He added the landscape plan as proposed was at 26 points, which
was more than required, but it was only the beginning of those discussions. He stated parking
stalls would be called out on the formal submittal for car pools and hybrid cars, though it was not
currently specifically called out on the site plan. Mr. Schroeder added that the intent of the list
was to show how those items were met with the formal submittal and the list had been included
to begin conversations. Mr. Wall asked where other improved public spaces would be on the
site. Mr. Schroeder responded it was not on the plan, but there would be a promenade to the
center entrance of the store with bollards, accent pieces, landscaping, seating areas, etc. – they
looked on the area as another plaza. Mr. Wall asked the intent for requesting a 20% increase in
parking. Mr. Parker responded a grocery store was very much a convenience business and the
request to provide that level of convenience and allow the store to be competitive; he stated he
had analyzed other parking fields in Bozeman and they were in the 3.6 or 3.7 parking spaces per
1,000 sq. ft. range. He stated the parking request would put Safeway equal to the same number
of spaces as Albertson’s, Smith’s, or Roseauer’s.
th
Mr. Banziger stated Planner Krueger had alluded to the development along Main Street from 7
th
Avenue to 19 Avenue and asked the City’s opinion of what type of development they would
like to see. Planner Krueger responded that a pattern had not been established and the
Commission was supportive of both more traditional masonry buildings and more modern
buildings. He stated the only context available would be the buildings around the site. Mr.
Banziger asked if the vision was to see that strip more urban than suburban. Planner Krueger
responded the most recent version of the Growth Policy contained strong language with regard to
urban development. Mr. Banziger asked Mr. Parker if there was any intent to pursue LEED
certification. Mr. Parker responded the corporate standards were continually evolving and a
store built in Bozeman would probably be considered LEED compliant, but would not likely be
LEED certified. Mr. Livingston responded they were darn close with the proposed conservation
efforts and if there were a bronze or tin LEED rating, Safeway would have it. Mr. Banziger
asked if Safeway and the design team had extended a hand to the surrounding property owners
regarding pedestrian connectivity. Mr. Parker responded he had not approached the surrounding
property owners and he was not opposed to that outreach, but he was concerned with Staff’s
expectation of Safeway having to do things offsite. Mr. Banziger suggested at least making
contact and talking it through. Planner Krueger responded the installation could be made up to
the property line and when adjacent properties redeveloped, the connection would be available.
Mr. Rea asked if the 50 foot setback distance on Main Street was in contradiction with the
Design Objectives Plan. Planner Krueger responded it fell back on whether it was an urban or
suburban model; he added room might be needed for a dedicated bicycle system not necessarily
another drive lane. Mr. Rea asked if the ditch running between the two sites had any special
designation. Planner Krueger responded a formal classification had not yet been determined by
the Gallatin Conservation District. Mr. Rea asked what the plans were for the existing Safeway
structure. Mr. Parker responded there were no particular plans for the existing site and until the
entitlement process had been secured, they would make no official statement; standard procedure
was the disposition of the property either by re-tenanting or selling the property to make it
available for complete redevelopment. He added Safeway did not have the reputation of leaving
a blank space as blight along Main Street.
5
Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010
Ms. Zavora asked if the eight points called out for trees on the landscape plan were all that were
being asked for. Ms. Engler responded a few Ash trees would qualify, but some of the trees
were too small to be counted and it would be difficult to tell how many could be salvaged due to
the grade of the site. Ms. Zavora asked when the existing trees had been installed and if they had
been inspected for disease. Ms. Engler responded the trees were installed by Cashman’s ~15
years ago, but she had not yet checked the trees for disease; she added there was some existing
vegetation on the north side of the site as well.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked Planner Krueger to clarify items I-K in the Staff memo, where
direct statements were contained that the applicant had not built to the setback lines and had not
presented the structure as close to the street as Staff would like to see. Planner Krueger stated
Staff’s default position was something that would need to aspired to and brought to the
Commission; the starting point was to discuss options where the site would still function and the
Design Objectives Plan guidelines could be addressed. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked
Planner Krueger for the CVS site plan to refresh his memory on the orientation/location of the
structure. Planner Krueger presented the DRB with the CVS site plan.
Chairperson Livingston asked the distance of the drop in grade from the sidewalk to the existing
pavement. Mr. Livingston responded it was a four foot change in grade. Chairperson Livingston
asked the parapet height for the overall building and the interior height. Mr. Schroeder
responded the parapet height would be 24 or 26 feet in height with an interior height of 12 feet
and stated they recognized the need for the parapet height to be above the mechanical equipment.
Chairperson Livingston opened the public comment portion of the meeting. Seeing none
forthcoming, he closed the public comment period.
Mr. Parker asked if central or eastern Montana had any particular examples of pervious
materials; his team was concerned with freeze/thaw constraints. He stated his other concern was
that heavy loads through the truck aisles might cause the material to fail at a quicker pace.
Planner Krueger responded Bozeman was aspiring to use those materials, but he knew of no
place in town that had already installed them; he would defer to the manufacturers of those
materials and added it would be another way that Safeway could exceed the minimum standards.
Mr. Banziger responded MSU had agreed to test a pervious material that had not been
successful; even when cleaned and maintained it broke down due to drastic temperature changes.
Mr. Livingston added he had a meeting with the manufacturers and the material would need
chemicals and maintenance which were concerns of Safeway. Mr. Ekstrom stated that on airport
tarmacs, a porous top course was included to remove water from the runway quickly, but was a
very thin sheet.
Mr. Parker stated Safeway very much appreciated the opportunity to come and receive comments
from the DRC and DRB. He stated they anticipated incorporating the comments they had heard
today into the formal application submittal. He stated the presentation to the DRB and the
community was not a franchise design and was not a plan that would be seen anywhere else,
though it contained common Safeway themes.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he thought there was no doubt the proposed would be an improvement to
the existing property and, though he would make comments that were critical, he was generally
supportive of the proposal as it would improve the site. He stated he often rolled his eyes at Staff
6
Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010
for requiring amenities where they would never be used, but pedestrian enhancements for the
property would be crucial for the site. He stated there was, at one point, a supermarket in the
Hastings complex that had a tremendous amount of pedestrian activity and suggested a venue for
pedestrian access should be incorporated into the design. He stated the traffic issues would be
tough and there was no doubt there would be a significant increase in that activity; entrance to
th
the site from 19 Avenue would be impossible during certain times of the day. He stated he saw
difficulty in the way the entry was proposed off of Main Street and 95% of the people would be
headed to the Safeway and not the retail stores; the convenience spaces would be a recipe for
disaster. He cited the Radio Shack situation on Main Street and suggested decreasing the
number of tight, sharp turns into the parking lot. He stated it was a property that was not
particularly well suited for a big box store; he did not oppose the concept, but issues unrelated to
the architecture and design would come up. He stated he thought the proposed structure was
well crafted and he liked it, but it had been designed as a Montana stereotype that was not
necessarily a design reflective of Bozeman or the urban center of town. He stated he would like
to see a design with equal creativity and detail, but with a more urban design to it. He cited some
architectural features that he considered brilliant (swooping roofs, etc.) and suggested the
applicant could look at some of the alternative Safeway designs. He stated he liked the tower
feature as it indicated an entryway to Bozeman; he suggested emphasizing the tower more to
make it a space that actually got use (putting the coffee shop in there for instance).
Ms. Zavora concurred with Mr. Hufstetler regarding the stereotypical Montana building design
and she liked the idea of things being more urban in design. She stated she had not seen
exceptional landscaping though the applicant had alluded to a more elaborate plan. She stated
counting existing trees was the easy way to achieve the requirements, but she would rather see
more plantings to give the site more style and pizzazz. She suggested the applicant review the
th
CVS landscaping to give them an idea of what was expected. She stated the trees along N. 19
Ave. looked sickly and were not worth keeping and added she would like to see a more diverse
species palette that would set the site apart; a fresh, new look. She stated she was concerned that
th
on the N. 19 side of the site there was a wet area that was likely meant to be a retention pond
and encouraged the applicant to take a stronger look at drainage. She stated she did not see too
many pedestrian enhanced areas and suggested those amenities should not be located between
two parking spots. She stated the space on the site allowed enough room to install a good
pedestrian area and added she agreed with Mr. Hufstetler that the area had a lot of pedestrian
activity. She suggested the pedestrian connection should be installed, it would be used; the
applicant was losing the opportunity to draw pedestrians to the business. She stated she did not
think the four foot grade change was enough to worry about and suggested she would prefer to
see the building closer to the street.
Mr. Wall stated he was not a professional architect, but he had some strong concerns. He stated
the improvement for the corner would be welcome, but he did not think the proposal would
necessarily be the right improvement. He stated Bozeman’s intention was to be the most livable
place and to contribute to the quality of life to the community. He stated proposal’s needed to
recognize corridor specific design guidelines to make the development unique; he did not think
the development as proposed was unique. He stated the purpose of the rendering presented by
Planner Krueger was to encourage people to develop the street character with facades and
buildings arranged with their parking to the inside of the lot. He stated with regard to geographic
location and access, the site was at the gate of Bozeman. He stated, in his opinion, the project
presented was the antitheses of what Bozeman was seeking and had been demonstrated by the
7
Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010
number of design comments made by the Project Planner. He stated the proposal looked
corporate to him and he understood racking standards and such would need to be followed, but
suggested an alternative design. He stated he was not supportive of the approval of the
Deviation to allow more parking; it would be the opposite of the intent of the design guidelines.
He suggested the applicant would need to go back to the drawing board and bring back a project
that sought to accomplish the urban planning goals for the City of Bozeman.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with previous DRB comments. He stated the business would need
to be competitive, move, and grow but he was concerned as he walked downtown and saw the
loss of businesses from the downtown area to the outer areas of the City; he suggested the City
may need to consider those moves as the community grew. He stated there was a strong
neighborhood element in the University area and many students would go instead to Town &
th
Country on 11 Ave. He suggested taking Staff comments to heart as he fully supported and
agreed with them; he thought the applicant should look at the design and the layout of the site.
He stated that maybe it wasn’t franchise architecture, but to him, the proposed structure looked
th
as if it belonged north of Oak Street. He stated he agreed with Mr. Hufstetler and Staff that 19
Avenue was the beginning of urban architecture and suggested the site could be the anchor for
urbanism that moved east down Main Street. He stated the long range master plans for the
university also showed more urban design in that location. He stated he appreciated and
supported the sustainability features proposed for the property and encouraged the applicant to
investigate more of those options. He stated he concurred that pedestrian connections should be
included on the site and suggested transit connections also should be included. He stated he truly
appreciated the applicant’s effort to come in advance to compile comments.
Mr. Rea stated he concurred with previous DRB comments, especially Mr. Banziger’s last
comment regarding the applicant’s effort. He stated the Informal review process encouraged him
th
and the DRB had seen the process work on the other side of 19 Avenue (CVS site). He stated
Bozeman is a biking community; people even rode their bikes in the winter. He stated he could
ride down to the current Safeway site with his children in tow and it was difficult, but the new
site would be suicide to ride a bike to. He encouraged the applicant to investigate not only
pedestrian, but bicycle access as well. He stated the term franchise was subjective, but he
thought the proposal was franchise architecture. He suggested increasing the height of the retail
spaces by 2 or 3 stories and added that he thought the building should be closer to the street. He
added that, for that intersection, the proposed design was not good enough and would need to be
better.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he appreciated the applicant pursuing the Informal review
process for comments. He stated Planner Krueger had hit the nail on the head with Staff
recommendations and he was completely supportive of those comments; he suggested focusing
on items I-K. He stated the site itself had to dictate the building and it appeared there wasn’t
enough study done on marrying the functional requirements and the design guideline criteria; the
site was very difficult. He stated the applicant would need to put as much energy as possible into
the submittal and maybe the building would not end up being a box; he suggested really studying
the site. He stated the structure could have a phenomenal solar orientation and suggested
investigation into the use of that orientation. He stated he was not supportive of the “beigeing”
of Bozeman. He reiterated that items I-K of the Staff memo would be critical with regard to
design of the site; there would be great opportunities for solar or other conservation efforts. He
stated good design paid and the community would appreciate it.
8
Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010
Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and what came out of it
was that there was a lot of emphasis on the corner. He stated the site was a more formal way into
the City of Bozeman and was located at a significant intersection in Bozeman. He stated he saw
a lot of traffic concerns with vehicles attempting to go both east and west along Main Street and
understood why the City was discouraging curb cuts. He stated he would advocate a more urban
building and suggested that moving the structure more toward the road would alleviate a lot of
safety concerns. He stated he got the sense that maybe the marketing tool would be that you
could see into the store. He stated there was a way to pull the building forward to prevent
isolation/safety issues on the northern portion of the site. He stated he thought some attention to
pedestrian connectivity would be very important. He stated he was at the Safeway in Missoula
not too long ago and it seemed a little bit stark on the site and landscaping; he suggested more
landscaping be included in the current proposal. He stated he thought all the previous DRB
comments were appropriate.
ITEM 4. CITY COMMISSION LIAISON DISCUSSION
Planner Krueger stated he was the Staff liaison to the DRB and he would be available to answer
any questions.
Commissioner Taylor stated his intention was to start a dialog with the DRB. He stated his
concern was that he was watching instead of participating and he wanted to be able to interpret
the DRB’s views to the Commission better than the notes. He stated the way he had been
assigned to the DRB was the Commissioner’s had chosen which boards/commissions they would
like to be the liaison for and he saw a role for the DRB and HPAB that needed to be respected.
He suggested a method would need to be found to get Staff, the DRB, and the Commission on
the same page. He stated he enjoyed watching the Board members ask questions and he thought
it was a fascinating process; he added that he wouldn’t always know what questions should be
asked. Mr. Wall acknowledged Commissioner Carson’s participation with the DRB and
suggested a joint meeting between the Commission and the DRB could be held to discuss policy
decisions and help promote communication.
Mr. Hufstetler stated one concern was how broad the purview of the Board was supposed to be.
Mr. Taylor responded his fellow commissioners had expressed that the line between aesthetic
reality and aesthetic opinion was very thin. Mr. Wall stated it would really help to couch the
conclusions and recommendations in findings. Mr. Carson concurred that findings would
dovetail with Staff recommendations; he concurred with Mr. Wall that a joint meeting with the
Commission might be in order.
Mr. Hufstetler stated that hours would have been spent by the DRB on the review of a project
and it was very helpful to have the Commissioner attend the meetings.
Mr. Carson stated he would request clarification by Staff if what they were requesting as a result
of the meeting was unclear.
Mr. Wall requested that all Staff reports had a conclusion section explaining which action was
supposed to be taken as a result of the meeting.
9
Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010
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 comment forthcoming.
ITEM 6.ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board
10
Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010