HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-22-10 Design Review Board Minutes
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:45
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
Michael Pentecost Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Randy Wall Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Walter Banziger
Bill Rea
Mark Hufstetler
Visitors Present
Chris Budeski
Scott Bechtle
Carson Taylor, Commission Liaison
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2010
Mr. Wall stated that on page 8, the language “there is no try” should be included.
MOTION:
Mr. Wall moved, Ms. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of September 8, 2010
The motion carried 4-0.
as amended.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Alpine Orthopedics SP/COA #Z-10175
(Krueger)
Cottonwood Road
* A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the
construction of a 10,844 sq. ft. medical office building with related site
improvements. (Continued from 8/25/10.)
Chris Budeski and Scott Bechtle joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff
Report noting the item had originally been reviewed at the August 25, 2010 meeting of the DRB when the
item had been opened and continued. He stated the revisions had been submitted and reviewed by the
DRC. He stated the situation had originally been to what degree the Entryway Corridor standards applied
to the site. He stated Staff had worked closely with the applicant and had encouraged them to look at the
site as a whole. He stated the lines did not depict phases of the development but delineated how further
development of the site would occur.
Mark Hufstetler joined the DRB.
1
Design Review Board Minutes – September 22, 2010
Planner Krueger stated the building elevations, building itself, and orientation had not changed, but the
site layout had been modified; the building had been relocated closer to the street. He stated there was a
similar parking lot layout as that of First Security Bank, which was adjacent to the site. He stated the
revision allowed the parking areas to be broken into smaller parking areas and noted those locations. He
stated the potential now existed to provide a fully functional shared access which would provide
efficiency in using the drive aisle. He stated the primary pedestrian connection to the street had been
included as well as a plaza area along the right of way. He stated there was a fairly well developed
waiting/plaza area proposed in front of the building and would be a pleasant place to enter the project. He
stated the dashed lines indicated two future building’s pad sites. He stated both future pad sites had the
ability to be constructed along the setback lines; previous concerns regarding the lack of urban design had
been addressed. He stated Staff was supportive of the proposal as revised and felt it addressed many of
Staff’s previous concerns. He stated Staff was seeking a construction management plan that would keep
the site tidy and would include a weed management plan for those areas that were disturbed. He directed
the DRB to revised Staff recommended conditions of approval. He stated two conditions had been added
during DRC review earlier in the day to require a color/materials palette and the construction of the
shared access with the first phase of the development. He stated the entire crosswalk could be required to
be constructed as the easement for the shared access would be in place.
Mr. Rea asked the location of the trash enclosure. Planner Krueger noted the location near the proposed
shared access. Mr. Budeski responded the current trash enclosure location would be temporary and
would be more centrally located when the shared access was constructed.
MOTION
: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation to the Planning Director
for Alpine Orthopedics SP/COA #Z-10175with Staff conditions of approval including the two additional
conditions added by Staff at DRC.
Mr. Wall stated that after what the DRB had gone through in previous projects, he wanted to
acknowledge the applicant’s for being so responsive to DRB and Staff comments.
Mr. Rea stated his concerns had been addressed through mitigation of future phases of the development as
well as Staff recommended conditions of approval.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he liked the revised plan overall and thought it would have the opportunity to be a
cohesive project that would be nice looking. He added he also appreciated the responsiveness of the
applicant’s revisions.
Mr. Banziger concurred with previous DRB comments.
The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
MOTION
: Mr. Banziger moved, Mr. Rea seconded to open and continue the item to the next meeting of
The motion carried 5-0.
the DRB.
ITEM 5. CITY COMMISSION/DRB MEETING DEBRIEF (Continued from 9/8/10)
(Taylor)
Mr. Carson stated he thought the meeting had gone well and the Commission had come away with a
2
Design Review Board Minutes – September 22, 2010
greater understanding of the DRB. He stated that in general, it had been a good meeting and noted the
Commission had gotten something out of it. He stated he wanted to get the DRB’s thoughts on the
meeting with the Commission; his thought was that there would be more joint meetings with the DRB and
Commission at future dates; perhaps with each new City Commission.
Mr. Rea stated he thought the meeting helped him, but it seemed to be more group congratulations as
opposed to specific situations. He stated he was curious to hear Mr. Carson’s thoughts on the meeting
held Monday with regard to the Mayor’s comments.
Mr. Wall stated he was a proponent of the joint meetings; since then he thought there was a sort of three
legged stool that included the DRB, Staff, and the Commission; in order for the stool to effectively stand,
all three entities would need to be on the same level. He stated the Commission had indicated grounding
any comments in City documents and he was concerned the memo had never gotten to the Staff level. He
cited the demolition of the Hannah House as an example and noted that Staff had not required specific
estimates for demolition/rehabilitation as set forth in the UDO for DRB recommendations to be based
upon; he did not have the necessary Staff documentation to ground his DRB recommendations. Planner
Krueger added that when a structural deficiency was being claimed there were required documents to
support those claims. Mr. Wall clarified that the gap in required documentation was coming from Staff
and noted the Design Objectives Plan guidelines was a similar issue; he suggested a matrix be included
for each proposal. Planner Krueger responded Staff had to focus on how those guidelines were being met
and explained the narrative was included to help provide clarification of what items were left outstanding.
Mr. Wall responded the matrix would allow the DRB to determine which items were most out of
accordance with the guidelines. Planner Krueger responded Staff would be willing to make an attempt to
prepare a worksheet attachment with items checked off. He suggested Staff and the DRB meet to clarify
how Staff reviews projects against the Design Objectives Plan.
Mr. Banziger stated he understood that the Commission would like to see DRB comments grounded in
City Code; he added design was aesthetic in nature based on professional or personal opinion and both
good and bad designs could meet the letter of the code. He suggested each comment relating to design
could not necessarily be grounded in code and would have to have a level of opinion or the Design
Review Board would have to have the name changed. Mr. Carson suggested meeting the intent of the
code could be considered as well. Mr. Banziger responded the intent of the code and not the letter of the
code would need to be considered as well as the interpretation of the code itself.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he kind of thought he was glad the DRB had met with the Commission. He stated
the way it played out would allow for the kind of discourse needed between the DRB and the
Commission. He stated he would like to see the DRB present at Commission meetings on projects of
particular concern to the community to explain why the DRB had made their recommendations; it would
help the DRB seem less arbitrary as well as make the Commission seem less arbitrary. He stated it
would be an interesting concept to provide specialized training for board members in terms of the specific
guidelines for the City.
Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost stated he concurred with Mr. Banziger and Mr. Hufstetler’s comments.
He stated he looked on the DRB as an advisory body; the opinions from the Board had to be based on
each individual’s area of expertise while whether or not the law was being followed should be determined
by Staff. He stated the DRB should express an opinion on the design and how it works while letting the
Commission make the decisions; he suggested the Commission should rely on the good judgment of their
advisory bodies.
3
Design Review Board Minutes – September 22, 2010
Mr. Carson stated he basically agreed with DRB comments, but their experience could be tied into
explanations of their statements during project review. He stated he had received a comment from the
public that he should support a project because the applicant was a “nice guy” which insinuated that if he
were a “bad guy” the project should be denied. He discouraged the use of language such as like or dislike
of a project and suggested it works or doesn’t work instead. Mr. Wall stated the paradigm of like or don’t
like was a subjective term and suggested if someone liked something because it was in accordance with
the review criteria and met the intent and scope of the section it would be pertinent to the discussion. Mr.
Hufstetler added that attempting to quantify the comments would defeat the purpose.
Planner Krueger stated sometimes comments from the DRB were indicative of being supportive of Staff’s
recommendations and comments and asked how those types of comments were perceived by the
Commission as they were included in the Staff Report. Mr. Carson stated that in general, the agreement
with Staff helped the Commission; they relied on Staff expertise and it helped to be able to say that both
Staff and the DRB were in concurrence though it allowed more variation if Staff and the DRB had
differing opinions.
Planning Director McHarg stated he was charged with coming up with a defensible position; the DRB
would provide recommendations that he would need to understand just as they would provide
recommendations to the Commission that would ultimately result in a better design for everyone. The
structure was based on the guidelines adopted by the Commission; difficult design decisions would have
to be made. He stated criticism that wasn’t grounded in either the UDO or Design Objectives Plan would
seem unfair to the applicant. He stated Staff would encourage the submission of Informal applications
for review as there would be more dialogue involved in that review process which would allow the DRB
to give a lot more direction.
Mr. Hufstetler suggested the Commission could request the attendance of members of the DRB during
their project review on certain proposals. Planner Krueger noted the conditions of approval were usually
delineated separately as Staff conditions of approval and recommended advisory body conditions of
approval.
Mr. Carson suggested some DRB members and members of Staff could meet with members of the
Commission over beers to discuss some of the issues. Mr. Banziger added that when an agenda held no
regular items, the meeting could be held to bring the DRB up to speed on current discussions or training.
Mr. Carson suggested the role of the DRB should be read or somehow indicated at the start of the meeting
to provide the applicants with a description of what the purview of the DRB review would be. Mr. Wall
suggested desktop nameplates instead of clothing nametags.
Mr. Carson suggested that every time a DRB member had an idea, it should be presented to the applicant.
He stated the DRB should not suggest something would be better for the business and suggested leaving
the economics out of the discussion. He stated speaking of the good aspects of the proposal at the
beginning of their comments was a good idea. He suggested not challenging the applicant’s motives even
if the DRB thought those motives were bad; they should be less blunt. He recommended the DRB not
discuss the economics of the proposal unless it was brought up by the applicant. He stated the DRB
should not discuss any other projects during the review of a proposal and inconsistencies could be
discussed as a separate agenda item. He stated he would keep a list of things to discuss with the DRB as
they came up.
4
Design Review Board Minutes – September 22, 2010
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 comment forthcoming.
ITEM 7.ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m.
________________________________
Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Pro Tem
City of Bozeman Design Review Board
5
Design Review Board Minutes – September 22, 2010