HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-22-2004 DRB DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY,DECEMBER 22,2004
NOTES
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
Brian Krueger Chris Saunders, Associate Planner
Dawn Smith Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Visitors Present
Shelly Engler
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10,2004 (Continued from 12/8/04.)
Continued until January 12, 2005 due to lack of a quorum.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8,2004
Continued until January 12,2005 due to lack of a quorum.
ITEM 4. U.D.O.Edits Discussion
A. * Discussion of the U.D.O.text amendments pertinent to the DRB.
Shelly Engler from Cashman's Nursery stated she was there to help if the DRB needed
clarification with regard to U.D.O. Edits,which she had submitted, pertaining to landscaping.
The first edit was#182 pertaining to parking lot screening. Ms. Engler expressed concern
regarding potential conflicts between ordinance requirements and professional standards. The
area of potential conflict is in placement of landscaping in pedestrian areas. Chairperson Smith
asked for an example of a tight-fitting lot. Ms. Engler responded the Wiegand Estates Office
Building; an alternative means of meeting points was chosen. Chairperson Smith stated that her
fear would be a situation where the safety issues were manipulated to the opposite extreme
where the planting did not provide the necessary screening. All recognized that aesthetic and
safety concerns must be balanced.
Ms. Engler stated that edits#182 and#183 related to the current interpretation of the ordinance
and there was a concern that landscapers were being forced to over-plant because the point
requirements were separate for yard and parking lot landscaping. Mr. Saunders responded no
one was allowed to park in the required yard(except the rear yard) and that could lead to an
overlap in the landscaping calculation. Ms. Engler stated residential adjacency made it nearly
impossible to get the required landscaping without over-planting the landscaped parking lot
islands. Chairperson Smith responded that the reason for the landscaping difficulty on smaller
lots was the owners tendency to overdevelop those lots;if the development cannot accumulate
the required landscaping points,the development does not fit. Ms. Engler suggested encouraging
parking lot plantings by changing the language of the ordinance; she added that it all boiled
City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—December 22,2004 1
ATTENDANCE ROSTER
DECEMBER 22, 2004
Those persons attending the Bozeman Design Review Board meeting are requested to
sign the attendance roster.
PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly.
NAME ADDRESS
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
M.
17.
18.
19.
20.
down to the placement of the sidewalk within the development. Chairperson Smith suggested
that the code used the sidewalk as the dividing line between parking and yards.
Ms. Engler stated that edit#184 was for Planning Office clarification.
Ms. Engler stated that in edit#185 the definition of a drought tolerant species should be
according to an outside,third party, and Junipers should be included as a drought tolerant plant.
Mr. Saunders stated the definition was based on the species of plant. Ms. Engler suggested an
appendix to the ordinance that listed plant types and what categories they were classified in. It
was noted that there is not currently an available reference work that would be suitable.
Ms. Engler suggested different ordinance language in edit#186 with regard to the phrase
"grouping". Planner Saunders explained the meaning of the term"grouping"was both the
quantity and the arrangement of the vegetation and suggested there might be another term that
would be better. Ms. Engler stated she had been refused her proposed groupings because
someone couldn't draw a circle around the grouping and so it was not counted as one. Mr.
Saunders stated the ordinance authorizes mix and match quantities and types of vegetation. Mr.
Krueger stated it would be up to the administration and interpretation of Staff whether or not a
proposed grouping was actually allowable.
Ms. Engler stated edit#187 was the same as edits#182 and#183.
Ms. Engler stated that edits#231 and#236 were pertaining to the definition of a non-canopy tree
and she did not know what such a thing was; she thought they would be evergreens. Mr.
Saunders responded evergreens could be included in the non-canopy tree category and Beeches
were an example of a deciduous tree. He added that"canopy" and"non-canopy" are defined in
Chapter 18.80 of the U.D.O. Ms. Engler suggested addressing the option of"non-canopy"trees
in both columns of required landscaping in the ordinance.
Ms. Engler stated edit#238 was describing the areas outside the required yard,but alongside the
structure. She noted the concern that landscaping would not count if it was within a certain
distance from the building; i.e.the yard should be considered between the foundation and
property line. Mr. Saunders suggested rewording the language of the ordinance may improve
clarity. Mr. Saunders added that foundation plantings were counted for performance points as
long as certain requirements were met.
Mr. Krueger asked if at some point the DRB would be required to make a Board
recommendation to the City Commission. Planner Saunders responded that a recommendation
would be the eventual result,but it would be difficult as the DRB was consistently without a
quorum. He added that the current material was not a formal amendment they would be
recommending. After the City Commission reviewed the proposed edits and decided which to
carry forward, formal amendments and public process will be provided. Mr. Krueger asked if
the DRB members were basing their decision on the general ideas of the edits and not the actual
language. Mr. Saunders responded he was correct. He added that Staff would draft necessary
text after City Commission direction, but the City Commission could offer up options that had
not previously been suggested. He stated that a number of the edits in the current materials were
directly in conflict with each other.
City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—December 22,2004 2
Chairperson Smith stated she thought she needed to get the message out that attendance at the
DRB meetings was crucial for the proposed U.D.O. edits. Mr. Saunders stated the updated
Design Objectives Plan was approved by the City Commission on Monday, December 20,2004,
and Staff hopes to have final edits and adoption completed at the end of January 2005.
Chairperson Smith asked what defined historic signs. Mr. Saunders responded that 1)if it was
50 years older or more,that was a red flag, 2) if it was connected with historic persons, etc. and
ultimately, the City Commission and the Historic Preservation Planner make the final decision.
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.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 4:28 p.m.
��_'t a]�- a
Dawn math, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board
City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—December 22,2004 3