HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-28 Minutes, City CommissionMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
May 28, 2002
The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room, Municipal
Building, on Tuesday, May 28, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Steve Kirchhoff, Commissioner
Marcia Youngman, Commissioner Lee Hietala, Commissioner Jarvis Brown, CommissionerAndrew Cetraro,
City Manager Clark Johnson, Director of Public Service Debbie Arkell, Planning Director Andy Epple, Staff
Attorney Tim Cooper (for the afternoon session), StaffAttorney Patricia Day-Moore (for the evening session)
and Clerk of the Commission Robin Sullivan.
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence.
City Manager Johnson asked that the staff report and Commission Resolution No. 3518 be removed
from the Consent Items for discussion.
Minutes - January 18, 2000, and May '13 and May 20, 2002
Mayor Kirchhoff deferred action on the minutes of the meetings of January 18, 2000, and May 13
and May 20, 2002, to a later date.
Consent Items
City Manager Johnson presented to the Commission the following Consent Items.
Claims
It was moved by Commissioner Youngman, seconded by Commissioner Hietala, that the
Commission approve the Consent Items as listed, and authorize and direct the appropriate persons to
complete the necessary actions. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye
being Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Hietala, Commissioner Brown, Commissioner Cetraro and
Mayor Kirchhoff; those voting No, none.
Staff report - annexation of 10.64 acres described as Tract 2 and a portion of 48 FM 220, located in
the NE%, Section 11, T2S, RSE, MPM (north side of West Babcock Street, immediately west of Kirk
Park) - David MacDonald for the Estate of Eula May Lessley (A-02003)
Commission Resolution No. 3518 - intent to annex 10.64 acres described as Tract 2 and a portion
of 48 FM 220, located in the NE%, Section 11, T2S, RSE, MPM (north side of West Babcock Street,
immediately west of Kirk Park); set public hearing for July 8, 2002
Included in the Commissioners' packets was a copy of Commission Resolution No. 3518, as
approved by the City Attorney, entitled:
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3518
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA,
DECLARING IT TO BE THE INTENTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, THE
INHABITANTS THEREOF AND THE INHABITANTS OF A TRACT OF LAND
CONTIGUOUS TO SAID CITY OF BOZEMAN, AND HEREIN MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED, TO EXTEND THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID CITY OF BOZEMAN SO AS TO
INCLUDE SAID CONTIGUOUS TRACT WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS THEREOF.
05-28-2002
-2-
Mayor Kirchhoff stated the City Manager had removed these items from the Consent Items at his
request. He noted this property, which served as Judge W.W. Lessley's home for many years, contains
many wonderful items, including many mature trees alOng the driveway, a 3,000-square-foot rancher style
home, cabin, garage, and horse barn on the southern portion and 8 acres of open space on the northern
portion. He suggested that this property could have some intrinsic value that should be protected, although
it does not have any historic value at this time. He also noted that this property is bordered by the HRDC
affordable housing on the west and Kirk Park on the east, and care should be taken to ensure that its
development is sensitive to those bordering uses. He proposed that, if there is support by a majority of
Commissioners, staff be directed to work with the applicant to accommodate preservation of as many of the
elements as possible and to ensure that the site is developed with sensitivity.
Commissioner Youngman voiced her concurrence with the Mayor's comments, noting that
development of this site should blend with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Brown stated that, as long as this step does not slow the process, he is willing to
support the proposal.
Mayor Kirchhoff announced that he will be absent from the July 8 Commission meeting and
proposed that the resolution be revised to set the public hearing date for July 15, so a full Commission is
present.
It was moved by Commissioner Hietala, seconded by Commissioner Brown, that the Commission
acknowledge receipt of the staff report, adopt Commission Resolution No. 3518 as amended to set the
public hearing date for July 15, and direct staff to work with the applicant on the possibility of considering
the historic value of the existing buildings and mature trees and a development that reflects sensitivity to
the existing HRDC affordable housing to the west. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote:
those voting Aye being Commissioner Brown, Commissioner Youngman and Mayor Kirchhoff; those voting
No being Commissioner Hietala and Commissioner Cetraro.
Status report re City-County Health Department - Health Officer Stephanie Nelson
Included in the Commissioners' packets was a copy of the Annual Report for FY 2002 and the
Strategic Activities for FY 2003, dated May 21, 2002.
Health Officer Nelson stated that she has tried to improve the City Commission's participation in the
budgeting process and, as a result, has provided this document to the Commission. She highlighted the
activities of the past year of which she is extremely proud, including the community's response to the
anthrax scares following the events of September 11. She noted that those scares allowed the Health
Department to add new partners in law enforcement and to develop a relationship with the first responders
to health issues. Also, $1.1 billion has been allocated into the public health system, and she anticipates
using some of those funds to assist in identifying new ways of doing business through partnerships with
various county, state and regional entities. Another item is the collaborative effort to develop a health
services safety net, ensuring that the limited resources available are being applied in a more responsible
manner. She cited the fact that the clinic in Livingston has opened a satellite clinic in Bozeman to provide
primary health care to those in need, and there is only one other such model in the United States where a
substantially smaller county has opened a satellite in a larger one.
Health Officer Nelson stated that in 2004, the Department will once again be collaborating on a
community health assessment, and the preliminary work on that effort has begun. She then gave an
overview of the budget process, noting that the budget will be submitted to the City Commission for its
approval and to the County Commission for final adoption once the budget has been finalized.
Responding to Commissioner Brown, Health Officer Nelson stated that the state's match to the
federal monies is the limiting factor on the CHIP program, which is for children from working poor families.
She then confirmed that the community clinic, which has expanded its hours of operation from approximately
6 hours per week to 40 hours per week, has helped a lot in ensuring health services to those in need.
Health Officer Nelson concluded by stating she will present the budget to the Commission in August.
05-28-2002
-3-
Presentation re quasi-judicial vs leqislative actions - Staff Attorney Tim Cooper
Included in the Commissioners' packets was a primer on quasi-judicial versus legislative actions.
At the beginning of his presentation, Staff Attorney Cooper distributed a "red flag checklist" regarding those
actions.
Staff Attomey Tim Cooper stressed that quasi-judicial versus legislative actions is not a black and
white issue; rather, Montana has its own unique attributes in determining the differences between the two.
He noted the terms "governing body" or "elected body" are typically synonymous with legislative actions;
however, a cross-over occurs when the governing body acts in an adjudicatory manner and is applying the
rules rather than making the rules, or when it is determining the legal rights and duties of individuals as
opposed to applying them on a broader basis. He then noted the statutes authorizing zoning almost
universally provide for an administrative or advisory board, with the powers granted to those boards being
generally quasi-judicial; and in Bozeman the City Commission has reserved the right to make those
decisions.
The Staff Attomey tumed his attention to the broad categories of actions in the second table on the
"red flag checklist", whether those actions are legislative or quasi-judicial, and any restrictions on ex partb
communications. He noted that ex partb contacts will occur; and when the Commission is acting in a quasi-
judicial manner, it is important to disclose those contacts on the public record. He indicated that, to avoid
possible problems, staff recommends that subdivisions and planned unit developments be treated as quasi-
judicial actions, and that ex part6 communications be avoided to the greatest extent possible.
Responding to Mayor Kirchhoff, Staff Attorney Cooper stated that staff does not want to discourage
communications on legislative matters, and annexation is considered a legislative manner. He noted,
however, that once an application for subdivision or development of that property has been submitted, the
matter becomes quasi-judicial, and efforts should be made to minimize any contacts.
Responding to additional questions from the Mayor, Staff Attorney Cooper stated that issues
revolving around legislative actions may be matters of impropriety or conflicts of interest rather than quasi-
judicial versus legislative.
Commissioner Youngman stressed the importance of recognizing that these rules apply to anyone
interested in discussing a specific application or property, and not just the applicant.
The Commission thanked the Staff Attorney for his report.
Presentations re detention center from Citizens for a Gallatin County Detention Center (GCDC) and
Citizens for Cost Effective Public Safety
Responding to Mayor Kirchhoff, the representatives for both groups indicated that, at the end of the
presentations, they would like the Commission to write a letter of support for their position.
County Attorney Marty Lambert spoke on behalf of the Citizens for a Gallatin County Detention
Center (GCDC). He reminded the Commission that funding for a new detention center is on the ballot
because a petition drive generated sufficient signatures. He distributed an information packet showing the
inmate counts for May 21 and May 28 and a graph showing the levels of overcrowding for the past year.
He stated that during the first quarter of this year, 219 offenders were cited and released at the detention
center for lack of space; 85 of those were DUIs. He characterized this as a totally unacceptable risk to
public safety and a liability situation that needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. He cautioned that
a failed ballot issue could result in the federal court running this facility and making the decisions that should
be made at the local level.
County Attomey Lambert recognized the demands placed on the City, the County and the School
District and the need for additional funding to meet those demands; however, he stressed that the only
mechanism for funding a new detention facility is through bond debt that is paid through increased property
taxes. He indicated that the proposal before the voters at this time will cost an additional $96 per $100,000
of assessed valuation. He also identified the importance of constructing a new detention center as quickly
05-28-2002
-4-
as possible, since the lower court judges and justices are losing their ability to enforce sentences because
of the lack of beds. He cautioned that the criminal, element is figuring these problems out, leading to
additional criminal activity and further frustration on the part of the judges.
The County Attorney turned his attention to the information in the handouts, noting that for the week
of May 21, the jail had 41 more inmates than its functional capacity of 37 inmates. He stressed that these
figures reflect a public safety issue that needs to be addressed. He concluded by encouraging support of
this bond issue, which will provide for construction of a new detention center on the Oak Street site. He
noted that the opposition agrees a new facility is needed; their only disagreement is with the location. He
stressed, however, that the Oak Street site is the only location on which voters will have a voice, since there
is no intent at this time to put another site on the ballot.
Mr. Darrell Behrent spoke on behalf of the Citizens for Cost Effective Public Safety. He confirmed
that this group recognizes the need for a new jail; they simply feel that construction of that facility on the
existing site would be less costly and more appropriate than construction of a new jail on the Oak Street site.
He stated that, since money is tight for everyone, it is important to ensure the facility is constructed at the
lowest cost possible.
Mr. Behrent noted that he was on the project team that presented the last 144-bed facility to the
County and stressed that the estimated costs for that facility were based on construction on the existing site.
He noted that constructing a new facility on the Oak Street site will be more costly and, once that is done,
the next step will be to construct a new Law and Justice Center adjacent to it so that all law enforcement
activities are once again close together. He showed a diagram of the existing Law and Justice Center site
with a new detention center, stressing that this area has been conditioned to the functions of the Law and
Justice Center and the detention center.
Mr. Behrent noted the other group has suggested the existing Law and Justice Center does not
meet current seismic codes and that it would be more costly to renovate than to construct a new facility.
He recognized that the building codes change every three years and noted that next year will see big
changes as the intemational codes are implemented. He suggested that the costs of renovation would be
less than construction of a new facility and noted that, if it is found they will not be, the existing building could
be torn down and a new facility constructed at the present location.
Mr. Behrent noted that the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC), which is comprised
of several judges, has indicated it will not take a position on this ballot issue, although it has previously
indicated support for a facility that is close to the courts. Also, County Commissioner Murdock has indicated
that the two sites are virtually equal in size and in the ability to accommodate this facility. Mr. Behrent noted
that the West Oak Street site is located approximately midway between North 7th Avenue and North 19th
Avenue, immediately north of the Gallatin County Rest Home. He stressed that this site is located in an
entryway to the community and questioned whether a detention center will provide a pleasant greeting for
tourists. He noted the site was previously rejected by a 3 to 1 margin, and recent input suggests that people
have not changed their feelings on that issue.
Mr. Behrent stated that proponents of this site continue to ignore the additional costs that will result
from transporting prisoners. He distributed copies of an article in the May 27 edition of the Billings Gazette
entitled Cascade County sheriff may start releasing prisoners if levy fails, in which ways were identified
to address the anticipated $850,000 shortfall in the budget.
Mr. Behrent noted that the Oak Street property is valuable and is located in a prime retail/commercial
area of the community. As a result, he suggested it may be better suited for generating revenues through
taxes than for housing a detention facility. He also stressed the importance of remembering that the County
has entered into long-term contracts with the City to provide space for the police officers, and the City spent
monies on the remodeling of the Law and Justice Center. He concluded by stating the facility should remain
where it is, with the site being finished in conjunction with the new construction.
Mr. Brian Close, Citizens for a Gallatin County Detention Center (GCDC), stated that both sites are
the same size. He then stated that there was no motion before the CJCC to approve a detention center at
the present site. He indicated that, prior to today, opponents were identifying a $5 million cost to operate
the detention center and noted that the costs should be the same for both locations.
05-28-2002
-5-
Mr. Close stated that five years ago, based on expert advice, the County Commission determined
that the Oak Street site was the supedor site, with multiple accesses onto arterial streets and traffic control
devices, as well as easier access from outlying communities. He noted this is significantly different from
the existing site, which has limited access and uncontrolled intersections. The Oak Street site also allows
for cross servicing of the Rest Home and the detention center, and construction can begin sooner and will
not interfere with current operations. He cautioned that if this ballot issue is not approved, the result will be
a delay in constructing a new detention center, additional costs because of that delay, and continued
concern about the safety of citizens. He concluded by stating that the Law and Justice Center does not
need to relocate to this site simply because the detention center is constructed on Oak Street; in fact, there
is no long-term plan to do so.
Sheriff Jim Cashell encouraged the Commission to remember that the issue is the detention center,
not the Law and Justice Center. He noted that, at the present time, prisoners are not taken to justice or city
court, only to the district court. He stressed that a majority of the officer's time is spent in the court room,
with transporting from another site adding only a few minutes. He then turned his attention to the newspaper
article submitted by Mr. Behrent, noting that the budget referenced in that article is for the entire sheriff's
department operations and not just the detention center.
Mr. Darrell Behrent stated that calculations on the sizes of the two sites reveals that the existing site
is just slightly larger. He then indicated that his calculations on the costs of operation are based on national
standards. He recognized that access to the Oak Street site can be provided from West Oak Street and
North 19th Avenue; however, he noted that the current site can be accessed from West College Street via
South 16th Avenue and from South 19th Avenue. He stated that this is a county facility; however, the City
of Bozeman is the single largest user. He noted that if the new detention center is constructed on the
present site, there will be a 100-foot buffer between it and the adjacent residential uses. The residential
properties are largely multi-family units, with institutional surroundings very close, and the area is already
conditioned to this use. He concluded by questioning why the facility should be relocated when the present
site can accommodate it.
Responding to Mayor Kirchhoff, County Attorney Marty Lambert stated the overwhelming roason
to relocate to the Oak Street site is the need for a new detention center. He reiterated that the opposition
agrees a new facility is needed; they are only opposed to the location. He indicated that the present Law
and Justice Center was originally constructed as the Catholic high school and is in the center of the site.
He suggested that constructing a new facility on an undeveloped parcel could result in better use of that
site and allow for sale of the existing site.
Responding to Commissioner Hietala, Mr. Lambert stated he would rather rely on Sheriff Cashelrs
estimate of operating costs than on Mr. Behrent's calculations. Mr. Close noted that essentially the same
structure is proposed for both sites, so there should be no difference in operational costs.
Responding to Mayor Kirchhoff, Mr. Behrent affirmed that the opposition's issues simply revolve
around the site. He stated that, as part of the last project team, he feels he has as much experience as
anyone who has worked on this issue. He then indicated that if the ballot measure passes, the new
detention center will be constructed on the Oak Street site; if it fails, his group will go to the County
Commission and push for a new detention center on the present site. He then cautioned that there is a 30-
foot-wide sewer easement lengthwise through the center of the Oak Street site, which will severely limit the
location of the structure.
Mayor Kirchhoff identified the options available to the Commission, which include supporting the
proposal on the ballot, opposing the proposal on the ballot, or deciding to not take a stand.
Itwas moved by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that the Commission
take a stand in support of the West Oak Street site.
Commissioner Youngman stated she is uncomfortable taking a stand at this time, noting that the
Commissioners need an opportunity to discuss the issue with staff and allow the voters to analyze the
issues.
05-28-2002
-6-
Mayor Kirchhoff recognized that Commissioner Brown has been more involved in this issue than
the rest of the City Commissioners. He stated, however, that he needs more information and cannot take
a position at this time.
Commissioner Brown stated he has been involved in the jail issue since 1998, and he views building
a detention center at the existing Law and Justice Center as shortsighted. He also cautioned that past
experience suggests that if this ballot measure is not approved, there may not be another opportunity to
vote in the near future.
Commissioner Hietala stated he is inclined to let the voters decide without Commission influence.
In light of the strong division on the Commission, Commissioner Youngman withdrew her second.
Mayor Kirchhoff announced that the motion died for lack of a second and indicated the Commission will not
take a stand on this issue.
Recess - 5:03 p.m.
Mayor Kirchhoff declared a recess at 5:03 p.m., to reconvene at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of
conducting the scheduled public hearings and completing the routine business items.
Reconvene - 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Kirchhoff reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the scheduled
public hearings and completing the routine business items.
Commission Resolution No. 3519 - creation of the solvent site payback district for recoverinq a
portion of the cost of designing and installinq water main improvements
Included in the Commissioners' packets was a copy of Commission Resolution No. 3519, as
approved by the City Attorney, entitled:
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3519
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA,
RELATING TO A WATER MAIN PAYBACK DISTRICT; CREATION OF THE SOLVENT
SITE PAYBACK DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOVERING A PORTION OF THE
COST OF DESIGNING AND INSTALLING CERTAIN LOCAL WATER MAIN
IMPROVEMENTS WHICH THE CITY WAS REQUIRED TO INSTALL.
Project Engineer Rick Hixson noted that installation of 15,000 lineal feet of water main, known as
the solvent site water main, was completed last fall under the fifth amendment to the interim water supply
order. He stated that amendment required the City to provide a safe alternate supply of water to those with
affected wells in the solvent site plume, and it anticipated the possibility of the City providing service to an
extended area that could be subject to a payback requirement. The payback district to be created under
this resolution would contain 478 acres, with approximately $1.7 million in paybacks spread across that
area. He stated that only those people who can connect directly to the main will be subject to the payback
requirements.
The Project Engineer stated that the fifth amendment to the interim water supply order included
Exhibit "A" wells, for which the City was required to provide connection to a municipal water supply at no
cost; and that has been accomplished. The order also included Exhibit "B" wells, which are located in the
plume area but on which sample test results have been below standards. As long as those test results
remain below standard, the City is not obligated to connect those properties to municipal water; but if the
results come in higher than standards, they can be connected and will be subject to the normal fees.
05-28-2002
-7-
The Project Engineer noted that a number of fairly large pieces of land with single residences are
included in the payback area. This district is set up so the owners of properties listed on Exhibit "A" don't
pay for the service but do pay for the water used through a meter; and if they choose to subdivide, those
new parcels will be subject to the payback. He concluded by indicating that annexation is not being required
under this resolution; rather, annexation will occur through the normal process.
Responding to Commissioner Brown, the Project Engineer confirmed that all' properties in the
payback area are located outside city limits.
Mr. Lowell Springer, architect representing Cape-France Enterprises, noted they were involved in
the initial trunk line extension; and it was his understanding that there might be some credit for those upfront
costs. The Project Engineer responded he is not aware of an agreement but will look into the matter.
It was moved by Commissioner Cetraro, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that Commission
Resolution No. 3519, creating the solvent site payback district, be adopted. The motion carried by the
following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Cetraro, Commissioner Youngman,
Commissioner Hietala, Commissioner Brown and Mayor Kirchhoff; those voting No, none.
Continued public hearing - COA with deviation from Section 18.18.050, Bozeman Municipal Code,
to allow new two-car garage to encroach 3 feet into required S-foot side yard setback on Lots 3 and
4, Block 1, Butte Addition - Robert and Carol Bramblett, 806 South Tracy Avenue (Z-02062)
This was the time and place set for the continued public hearing on the Certificate of
Appropriateness requested by Robert and Carol Bramblett under Application No. Z-02062, with a deviation
from Section 18.18.050 of the Bozeman Municipal Code to allow the construction of a new two-car garage
on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Butte Addition, which encroaches 3 feet into the required 5-foot side yard setback.
The subject property is located at 806 South Tracy Avenue.
Mayor Kirchhoff reopened the continued public hearing.
Planning Director Epple presented the staff report on behalf of Historic Preservation Planner Jim
Jenks. He stated that, after last week's public hearing, the Historic Preservation Planner worked with the
applicant and neighbors. As a result of that cooperation, they have reached an agreement that allows the
new garage to encroach 1 foot into the side yard setback.
No one was present to speak in opposition to the requested deviations, as revised.
Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Kirchhoff closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Youngman, seconded by Commissioner Hietala, that the
Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness requested by Robert and Carol Bramblett under
Application No. Z-02062, with a deviation from Section 18.18.050 of the Bozeman Municipal Code by
allowing the construction of a new two-car garage on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Butte Addition, which
encroaches 1 foot into the required 5-foot side yard setback subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall design and construct the new garage in a manner which is both
historically appropriate and in a style that is consistent with the architectural
appearance of the principle dwelling on the subject property.
Should the deviation request be granted, the east elevation of the proposed new
garage shall be located no further then eighteen (18) feet from the rear of the
principle dwelling.
Per Building Code, the construction of eaves along the southem elevations of said
new garage shall not be over half the distance to the property line, a distance of
twenty-four (24) inches.
05-28-2002
-8-
The applicant shall obtain a building permit within one year of Certificate of
Appropriateness approval or this approval shall become null and void.
o
This project shall be constructed as approved and conditioned in the Certificate of
Appropriateness application. Any modifications to the submitted and approved
drawings shall invalidate the project's approval unless the applicant submits the
proposed modifications for review and approval by the Planning Office prior to
undertaking said modifications, as required by Section 18.62.040 of the Bozeman
zone code.
The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Youngman,
Commissioner Hietala, Commissioner Brown, Commissioner Cetraro and Mayor Kirchhoff; those voting No,
none.
Public hearing - intent to annex 29.152 acres described as Lot 4A, Minor Subdivision No. 221A
(containinq 27.730 acres), and the abandoned Roxi Lane right-of-way abutting the eastern boundary
of said tract (containinq 1.422 acres) (school bus barn site on North 27th Avenue, west of Costco) -
School District No. 7 (A-0002A)
This was the time and place set for the public headng on the intent to annex 29.152 acres,
requested by School District No. 7 under Application No. A-0002A, described as Lot 4A, Minor Subdivision
No. 221A and the abandoned Roxi Lane right-of-way abutting the eastern boundary of said tract, as
established by Commission Resolution No. 3516, entitled:
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 35t6
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA,
DECLARING IT TO BE THE INTENTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, THE
INHABITANTS THEREOF AND THE INHABITANTS OF A TRACT OF LAND
CONTIGUOUS TO SAID CITY OF BOZEMAN, AND HEREIN MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED, TO EXTEND THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID CITY OF BOZEMAN SO AS TO
INCLUDE SAID CONTIGUOUS TRACT WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS THEREOF.
Mayor Kirchhoff opened the public hearing.
Senior Planner Skelton presented the staff report. He reminded the Commission that the 27.930-
acre parcel owned by School District No. 7 was annexed in October2000. The School District subsequently
applied to the County for abandonment of the Roxi Lane right-of-way, and that abandonment was approved
and became effective on May 1,2001. As a result, a 60-foot-wide strip of unannexed land now lies along
the eastern boundary of the tract previously annexed; and the applicant is seeking modification of the
previous approval to include that strip.
The Senior Planner stated that staff has reviewed this application in light of the goals and policies
contained in Commission Resolution No. 3137, and staffs comprehensive findings are contained in the
written staff report. He noted that, as a result of that review, staff has recommended approval, subject to
the following additional items being addressed prior to or in the annexation agreement:
That provisions for water rights or cash-in-lieu of water dghts for the reminder of the
proportionate acreage not containing the existing bus barn/maintenance building
facility, in an amount determined by the Director of Public Service, be provided in the
Annexation Agreement whereby it is executed by the land owner prior to final
subdivision plat approval, final site plan approval or issuance of any building permits,
whichever occurs first, prior to the City Commission adopting the Resolution of
Annexation and accepting the Annexation Agreement.
An annexation map with a legal description of the property containing the abandoned
Roxi Lane right-of-way must be submitted by the applicant for use with the
Annexation Agreement. The map must be supplied on a mylar for City records (18-
05-28-2002
-9-
inch by 24-inch), and on an 8'~-inch by 11-inch or 8~-inch by 14-inch paper for filing
with the Annexation Agreement with the County Clerk and Recorder, and a digital
copy for the City Engineer's Office. This map must be acceptable to the Director of
Public Service, and shall be submitted with the signed Annexation Agreement.
That the applicant executes all terms of said Annexation Agreement with the City of
Bozeman within one (1) year of approval by the governing body.
The Senior Planner stated that, due to tonight's School District No. 7 Board of Trustees meeting,
there are no representatives present for the applicant. They have, however, indicated they have no
objections to these additional items being addressed.
No one was present to speak in opposition to the requested annexation.
Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Kirchhoff closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Hietala, seconded by Commissioner Brown, that the Commission
authorize and direct staff to bring back an annexation agreement, addressing Item Nos. 1 through 3 listed
above, for review and possible action. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting
Aye being Commissioner Hietala, Commissioner Brown, Commissioner Cetraro, CommissionerYoungman
and Mayor Kirchhoff; those voting No, none.
Continued public hearin.q - Major Site Plan - Sprin.qer Group Architects for Donald E. Cape, Sr...-
allow construction of eight +3,200-square-foot, two-story duplexes on Parcel B, COS No. 2056 (2650
West Villard Street) (Z-02048)
This was the time and place set for the continued public hearing on the major site plan requested
by Springer Group Architects for Donald E. Cape, Sr., under Application No. 7-02048, to allow the
construction of eight +3,200-square-foot two-story duplexes on Parcel B, Certificate of Survey No. 2056.
The subject property is located at 2650 West Villard Street.
Mayor Kirchhoff reopened the continued public hearing.
Assistant Planner Jami Morris presented the staff report. She stated the applicant proposed to
construct eight duplex units, for a total of sixteen dwelling units on the subject parcel, which is zoned "R-3A",
Residential--Two-family, Medium-density. She noted that staff has reviewed this application in light of the
criteria set forth in the zone code, and staff's comprehensive findings are contained in the written staff
report. She briefly highlighted those findings and forwarded staff's recommendation for approval, subject
to 40 conditions. She then highlighted some of the recommended conditions, and cautioned that, in light
of the Commission's recent action on Laurel Glen, Condition No. 1 may need revision prior to action. She
also suggested that Condition No. 20 be eliminated, since it was already addressed in the annexation of this
property.
Responding to Mayor Kirchhoff, the Assistant Planner stated the landscaping for this project is
accurately depicted on the site plan and meets code requirements.
Mr. Lowell Springer, architect representing the applicant, stated that during the review process, the
design of this project has evolved to what he feels is a good proposal. He stressed that no density bonus
is being sought, and the landscaping exceeds minimum standards by a significant amount. He stated his
concurrence with the conditions as recommended by staff except for Condition No. 1. He noted that the
Bozeman 2020 Community Plan calls for infill in the middle of the community rather than subdivisions on
the fringes, and he feels this development meets that desire. He stated the proposed duplex project lends
itself to the surrounding area, which is largely "R-3" zoning with single-family development. He also voiced
concern about the requirement in Condition No. 3 to install sidewalks on both sides of the street, stating he
would prefer to install sidewalks on one side only. He concluded by showing the Commission a color palette
for the development and encouraging approval of the project.
05-28-2002
10-
Responding to Commissioner Youngman, Mr. Springer stated every building will have the same
colors and same materials.
Commissioner Youngman suggested that the colors of the materials on the buildings be shifted
around so the buildings don't all look the same.
Mr. Derek Homan, 356 Greenway Court, suggested that West ¥illard Street be constructed to a City
standard, including sidewalks, on its entire length between Greenway Avenue and Western Drive. He
expressed concern about the applicant's request to allow sidewalks on only one side of the street within this
development, stressing the importance of ensuring the safety of children. He also voiced concern that the
proposal provides for a hammerhead turnaround at the end that encourages backing, a leading cause of
accidents and fatalities. Since this is a private street, he questioned who will cite vehicles that are illegally
parked and who will be responsible for snow removal. He stated there is no place to park on Michael Grove
Avenue or Hunters Way at this time because of all the duplex and four-plex development, and no parking
is allowed on Western Ddve. He stated these duplexes will only add to the congestion in the area and
compound the existing parking problems. He concluded by submitting to the Commission a petition against
this proposed development, containing the signatures of almost 50 residents of the immediate area.
Mr. Leo Zahara, 2723 West Villard Street, stated this street is used by many residents as an access
to Kirk Park and Town and Country Warehouse Grocers. He suggested that once this street is extended
to Greenway Court, traffic will be even greater as people use Villard to avoid Durston Road. He concluded
by noting this will have a big impact on the area and asked the Commission to ensure that the project
doesn't just simply meet the minimum requirements.
Mr. Lloyd Hickey, 361 Greenway Court, voiced concern that they did not receive notice of this
hearing. He stated that Hunters Way is congested and has lots of problems because of the high density
and high rental rate. He stated that Greenway Court is single-family oriented, and many households contain
children. He would rather see more modest single-family homes that will enhance surrounding properties
than the duplexes proposed.
Mr. David Gentholts, 211 North Western Drive, addressed the issue of parking. He cautioned that
if half of sixteen three-bedroom units were rented out to students, the amount of parking proposed would
be woefully inadequate. He noted that no parking is allowed on Western Drive; however, some of the
houses are rentals and people park half on the street and half on the grass, leading to deterioration of the
road. He stated that, even if the landscaping exceeds minimums, he is concerned about the privacy of the
homes on either side of this development, particularly since those homes did not anticipate either the height
or density of this proposal. He voiced his interest in a variation of colors from the color palette, noting that
would be preferable to the same grays, beiges and tans along Hunters Way and Greenway. He concluded
by asking the Commission to reconsider the density of this project.
Mr. Joe Hamner, 111 Michael Grove Avenue, stated this proposed infill as drawn is a mistake. He
stated these units will not attract single families but will attract students that park everywhere. He does not
like the idea of another private street in the area, and stressed the need for sidewalks on both sides of the
street. He stated this development will contribute to urban sprawl because those around it will move outside
city limits, and asked the Commissioners to encourage a project that promotes home ownership. He
concluded by asking the Commission to make sure this project includes Iow level lighting that does not
intrude on adjacent back yards.
Ms. Barb Asper, 313 Greenway Court, stated she is not directly affected by this development, but
she feels it will adversely affect the values of homes in the area. She stated that this development will
overlook the back yards of six homes along Western Drive, resulting in their loss of privacy. Also, the
residents in the single-level homes will lose their views. She acknowledged that the developer may wish
to market these units as family residences but questioned how that could be enforced.
Ms. Kim Walker, 2605 West Villard Street, stated she received no notice of this public hearing. She
noted her property is highly impacted by this project and voiced concern that the proposed density will
effectively change the character of the immediate neighborhood. She cautioned that this development will
have impacts on adjacent roads, and she is concerned that the density and lack of parking in the
development will result in people parking in front of her home.
05-28-2002
11 -
Mr. Bob Stevenson, 348 Greenway Court, stated the height of these units is his main concern,
particularly since it will severely impact his view of the Bridgers. He noted, in fact, that moSt homes on
Greenway Court are single-level, and these new units will effectively create a huge wall outside their back
windows. He is also concerned about the extension of West ¥illard Street and its possible use as a shortcut
to avoid Durston Road. He stated he does not like the idea of the hammerhead being used as a
recreational area that people might use until all hours of the night. He concluded by stating that landscaping
is a critical issue in this project, and by voicing his preference for requiring sidewalks on both sides of the
street.
Mr. Kevin Handelin, 357 Greenway Court, stated that encouraging families to move into units without
sidewalks is asking for trouble. He suggested that if the community or surrounding area were more involved
with the design of the project, he feels the result could be better. He concluded by stating so many places
in the area look the same and suggested that subtle changes, such as roof pitches; could break the
monotony.
Assistant Planner Morris stated that under recommended Condition No. 3, sidewalks are required
on both sides of the private drive. Condition No. 18 requires sidewalks on both sides of West Villard Street
adjacent to this property; and West Villard Street is to be constructed to a City standard from Greenway to
the eastern edge of this property, then to a county standard from the eastern edge of the property to
Western Drive. She indicated that parking for this project includes five spaces on West Villard Street, two
spaces in the driveway of each unit, and an additional six parking spaces and two disabled parking spaces
on site. She indicated that under the noticing requirements, property owners within 200 feet are sent
notices, and Ms. Walker's notice was sent to her street address rather than to her post office box. She
stated the width of this property does not facilitate single-family development. She noted that the two-story
buildings proposed are to be 27 feet high, which is less than the 32-foot height limit; and all lighting is to be
completely shielded.
Mr. Lowell Springer stated every unit has three off-street parking spaces. He noted that these units
are to be 1,600 square feet and are to be high quality, not high density. He stated it is difficult to do infill
projects that comply with the Bozeman2020 Community Plan but don't upset the neighborhood. He noted
that, if the Commission wishes, installing sidewalks on both sides of the private drive is acceptable.
Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Kirchhoff closed the public hearing.
Responding to comments from Commissioner Brown, Commissioner Youngman stated she cannot
support approving this project with the elimination of Condition Nos. 1 and 20, noting that the Commission
tried to draw a line in the sand with its approval of Harvest Creek Subdivision and not allow more traffic until
Durston Road is improved. She voiced concern that approval of this application without Condition No. 1
as recommended by staff reflects a "change in policy on the fly" and stated a standard needs to be
developed instead of this type of process.
Commissioner Hietala stated that, while he is concerned about traffic on Western Drive, he supports
this project.
Commissioner Brown indicated that since this is a relatively small infill project, he will support it;
however, he is concerned about the traffic. He also noted that there is opposition any time an infill project
is proposed.
Commissioner Cetraro indicated he is comfortable with recommended conditions for the project.
Mayor Kirchhoff characterized this proposed project as puffing "twenty pounds of rocks in a five-
pound sack" and encouraged that the density be reduced by as much as 50 percent. He also suggested
that West Villard Street be improved to a City standard to Western Drive.
Planning Director Epple cautioned that Western Drive is a county road, and extending a City-
standard street to that road could result in the need to tear out a portion of those improvements in the future
to make proper connections.
05-28-2002
-12-
It was moved by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Cetraro, that the major site plan
requested by Spdnger Group Architects for Donald E. Cape, Sr., under Application No. Z-02048, to allow
the construction of eight +3,200-square-foot two-story duplexes on Parcel B, Certificate of Survey No. 2056,
be approved subject to the following conditions:
A tot park shall be designated on the property with playground equipment provided.
Additionally, basketball hoops shall be installed on both ends of the emergency
turnaround area. Details regarding all recreation equipment on-site shall be
depicted on the final site plan.
A three-foot-wide sidewalk shall be provided on both sides of the private street and
provide connection to the tot park.
The perimetercurb in the emergency tUrn around area shall be painted red and shall
be posted "No Parking Fire Lane". Unless sufficient space is provided for on-street
parking (i.e., 9 foot width for parallel parking), then both sides of the private street
shall be posted "No Parking" between each driveway and the curb shall be painted
yellow.
4. The final site plan shall be adequately dimensioned.
A Stormwater Drainage/Treatment Grading Plan and Maintenance Plan for a system
designed to remove solids, silt, oils, grease, and other pollutants must be provided
to and approved by the City Engineer. The plan must demonstrate adequate site
drainage (including sufficient spot elevations), stormwater detention/retention basin
details (including basin sizing and discharge calculations, and discharge structure
details), stormwater discharge destination, and a stormwater maintenance plan. A
stormwater easement must be established on the adjacent property and filed with
the County Clerk and Recorder's Office for the retention pond and discharge course
if located off the subject property.
Plans and specifications for any water, sewer and/or storm sewer main extensions,
and Public or Private Streets (including curb, gutter and sidewalks) prepared by a
Professional Engineer (PE) shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer.
Water and sewer plans shall also be approved by the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality. The applicant shall also provide professional engineering
services for construction inspection, post-construction certification, and preparation
of mylar record drawings. Specific comments regarding the existing and proposed
infrastructure shall be provided at that time. Construction shall not be initiated on
the public infrastructure improvements until the plans and specifications have been
approved and a pro-construction conference has been conducted. No building
permits will be issued prior to City acceptance of the infrastructure
improvements.
Design plan and profile of the proposed water and sanitary sewer infrastructure must
be provided to the City for review and approval.
The proposed water main extension must be 8 inches and tied to the 8-inch main in
North 25th Avenue.
10.
11.
Existing and proposed water and sanitary sewer infrastructure must be shown on
the site, landscape, drainage and paving plans.
The location of the water meter with backflow protection must be provided to and
approved by the Water Superintendent.
Plans and specifications for any fire service line must be prepared in accordance
with the City's Fire Service Line Policy by a Professional Engineer (PE), and be
provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to initiation of construction of
05-28-2002
-13-
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
the fire service line or fire protection system. The applicant shall also provide
professional engineering services for construction inspection, post-construction
certification, and preparation of mylar record drawings.
All fire hydrants within 350 feet of this proposed development must be shown on the
site plan.
Easements for the water and sewer main extensions shall be a minimum of 30 feet
in width, with the utility located in the center of the easement. In no case shall the
utility be less than 10 feet from edge of easement.
Sewer and water services shall be shown on the final site plan and approved by the
Water/Sewer Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications for service' shall be
completed by the applicant.
The location of existing water and sewer mains shall be propedy depicted, as well
as nearby fire hydrants. Proposed main extensions shall be labeled "proposed".
The drive approach shall be constructed in accordance with the City's standard
approach (i.e., concrete apron, sidewalk section and drop-curb) and shown as such
on the final site plan. A City Curb Cut and Sidewalk Permit shall be obtained pr. ior
to final site plan approval.
City standard sidewalk shall be installed and properly depicted at'the standard
location (i.e., 1 foot off property line) along the street(s) frontage. Any deviation to
the standard alignment or location must be approved by the City Engineer.
Typical curb details (i.e., raised and/or drop curbs) and typical, asphalt paving
section detail shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. Concrete
curbing shall be provided around the entire new parking lot perimeter and
adequately identified on the final site plan.
All existing utility and other easements must be shown on the final site plan.
Adequate snow storage area must be designated outside the sight triangles, but on
the subject property (unless a snow storage easement is obtained for a location off
the property and filed with the County Clerk and Recorder's office).
Drive approach and public street intersection sight triangles shall be free of plantings
which at mature growth will obscure vision within the sight triangle.
This property is within the Main Mall Sewer Payback District. The required payback
shall be made prior to final site plan approval.
The proposed water main shall be eight inches in diameter rather than six inches as
shown.
West Villard Street shall be improved at a minimum to a county road standard from
the east boundary of this property to Western Drive. Plans for this portion of the
road shall be approved by the county road office prior to construction of said
improvements.
Revise the "Notes:" to reflect the City standard is MPWSS 4th edition with addenda,
the required size of the water main is 8-inch, and the minimum cover allowed on
water mains is 6'~ feet.
Not more than 1/3 of the front yard may be utilized for stormwater detention/retention
and shall not exceed a 1%-foot depth and shall provide a maximum slope of 1:4.
05-28-2002
-14-
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
No snow storage shall be permitted within the street vision triangle.
The landscaping noted within the stormwater retention ponds shall be removed
unless the trees are replaced with plants that are tolerant of standing water.
Written approval for the location of cluster boxes (mailboxes) shall be obtained from
the U.S. Postal Service and the City Engineering Department and provided with the
final site plan.
The applicant must submit seven (7) copies of the final site plan within six months
of preliminary approval containing all of the conditions, corrections and modifications
to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Office.
A building permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be obtained within
one year of final site plan approval. Building permits will not be issued until the final
site plan is approved. Minor site surface preparation and normal maintenance shall
be allowed prior to submittal and approval of the final site plan, including excavation
and footing preparation, but NO CONCRETE MAY BE POURED UNTIL A
BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED.
The applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement with the City to
guarantee the installation of required on-site improvements at the time of final site
plan submittal. If occupancy of the structure is to occur prior to the installation of all
required on-site improvements, the Improvements Agreement must be secured by
a method of security equal to one and one-half times the amount of the estimated
cost of the scheduled improvements not yet installed. Said method of security shall
be valid for a period of not less than twelve (12) months; however, the applicant
shall complete all on-site improvements within nine (9) months of occupancy to
avoid default on the method of security.
As outlined in Section 18.49.060.B "Additional Screening Requirements", a 6-foot
high solid wood, privacy fence shall be constructed along the entire south property
line and along the east and west property lines from the rear property marker to the
front yard setback. Per Section 18.50.070 "Fences, Walls and Hedges", the fence
shall be constructed with the finished side out.
Section 18.50.035.R "Bicycle Racks Required", all development subject to minor or
major site plan review as per Chapter 18.52 shall provide adequate bicycle parking
facilities to accommodate bicycle-riding residents.
Per Section 18.50.110. F.3 "Disabled Accessible Parking Spaces", parking spaces
and access aisles shall be level with slopes not exceeding 1:50 in all directions.
Raised signs shall be located at a distance no greater than five feet from the front
of each accessible space and shall state "Permit Required $100 Fine". One of the
disabled accessible spaces shall also be signed "Van Accessible".
Section 18.50.110.F. 1 "Residential Uses" requires three parking spaces be provided
for every two/three bedroom dwelling unit. Each twenty-four linear feet of available
street frontage directly adjacent to a lot, excluding ddve accesses, designated non-
parking areas and similar circumstances, shall be considered to be available for the
purpose of one on-street parking space. Forty-three of the forty-eight required
parking spaces have been depicted on the site plan. Five additional parking spaces
must be provided on-site.
Any exterior lighting on the buildings or anywhere on the site shall be depicted on
the final site plan for review and approval by the Planning Office. All lighting shall
be arranged so as to deflect light down and/or away from any adjoining properties
and shall not detract from driver visibility on adjacent streets. Luminaires and lenses
shall not protrude below the edge of the light fixture per Section 18.50.035.1.
05-28-2002
-15-
38.
A Sign Permit Application shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Office
pdor to the construction and installation of any signage on-site in accordance with
Section 18.65 of the City of Bozeman zone code. One monument sign is allowed
and shall maintain at least a five-foot setback from the property line and may not
exceed 16 square feet in area.
The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Brown,
Commissioner Cetraro and Commissioner Hietala; those voting No being Commissioner Youngman and
Mayor Kirchhoff.
Break - 8:43 to 8:55 p.m.
Mayor Kirchhoff declared a break from 8:43 p.m. to 8:55 p.m., in accordance with Commission
policy.
Public hearing - variances from Section 18.38.060 of the Bozeman Municipal Code to allow buildin;
to exceed maximum adjusted heiqht of 38 feet by 8 feet initially and by up to 36 feet within five
years, from Section 18.56.090 to extend the time limit for drawinq buildinq permits from six months
to five years, and from Section 18.52.060 to extend the time limit for ;rantin_cl buildin.q permits based
upon site plan review from one year to five years - Ellerbe-Becket Construction Services for
Bozeman Deaconess Health Services (C-02002)
This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the variances from Section 18.38.060 of
the Bozeman Municipal Code to allow building to exceed maximum adjusted height of 38 feet by 8 feet
initially and by up to 36 feet within five years, from Section 18.56.090 to extend the time limit for drawing
building permits from six months to five years, and from Section 18.52.060 to extend the time limit for
granting building permits based upon site plan review from one year to five years, as requested by Ellerbe-
Becket Construction Services for Bozeman Deaconess Health Services under Application No. C-02002.
Mayor Kirchhoff opened the public hearing.
Assistant Planner Karin Caroline presented the staff report. She stated this request for variances
precedes the formal application for Medical Office Building 4 (MOB4). She reviewed the proposal, noting
that MOB4 is to be built in two sections. One section is to be a two-level structure and the other section is
to be a three-story building initially, with the possible addition of two floors within five years. The taller
section is to exceed the adjusted height limit of 38 feet by 8 feet initially and by up to 36 feet with the addition
of two floors within five years, for a total height of 74 feet excluding the mechanical penthouses. The
applicant is also requesting variances from the time limits between approval of variances and site plans and
the drawing of building permits, to allow the drawing of those permits for up to five years.
Assistant Planner Caroline stated that staff has reviewed this application in light of the criteria set
forth in the zone code, and staff's comprehensive findings are contained in the written staff report. She
highlighted staff's findings, noting that Old Highland Boulevard, Ellis Street and Highland Boulevard may
limit the growth of this medical campus and its attendant parking needs. She stated the topography of the
site slopes to the north and the northeast and can also be limiting on the siting of the structures.
Staff Attorney Patricia Day-Moore stated that variances are typically granted for only use or area,
not for time. As a result, she suggested that only the first variance be considered.
Commissioner Brown asked how the applicant could obtain assurances that the additional two
stories will be approved if the three-story portion of the building is constructed to accommodate a five-story
structure.
Mr. David Hullinger, Ellerbe-Becket Construction Services, stated the two-story section will blend
with the existing facility. The taller section, which is proposed to be initially constructed with three stories
and later expanded to five stories, will also blend well with the existing structure because of the slope of the
property. He identified parking constrictions on the site, particularly since surface parking is becoming
05-28-2002
16-
limited as the facility expands to meet the needs of the community. He indicated that parking on the site is
designed to accommodate the new structures as initially proposed, but not to accommodate the additional
two stories.
Mr. Hullinger stated'they are seeking the variance on the timeframe for drawing building permits
because demographics will determine when that expansion occurs. He stated that if the Hospital is not
guaranteed that it will be able to add the fourth and fifth floors, the second portion of the structure will be
designed as a three-story facility rather than a five-story facility. He concluded by stressing the importance
of growing up rather than out as the facility continues to expand.
Mr. Phil Sparks, Facilities Manager at Bozeman Deaconess Hospital, stated the master plan drafted
in 1996 showed expansion on the west/southwest end of the complex. He noted the current facility is nearly
600 feet long with eight entrances; and parking can be quite a distance from one's destination, which
becomes an issue for the ill or disabled. As a result of those issues, the Hospital is recognizing the need
to create vertical parking, thus shortening the distance to the facility. He concluded by encouraging
Commission approval of the requested variances.
Mr. Jim Pepper, 1322 South Rouse Avenue, stated his support for the expansion and his agreement
that vertical expansion is preferable to horizontal expansion. He suggested that rather than making
variances a planning tool, it may be preferable to amend the zone code and zone map to establish a medical
complex zone that could possibly accommodate the type of heights being proposed. He proposed that this
new zoning also carry with it a requirement for providing a visual image and visual impact assessment.
Mr. Michael Delaney questioned the desirability of the hospital becoming a monopoly, noting they
now own over 90 percent of the quality medical space in the community.
Mr. Sparks responded that the Hospital needs the additional medical office space. He noted that
they have one space and two physicians coming in, and at this point they have no room for any additional
· physicians wanting to locate their offices in this complex.
Mayor Kirchhoff suggested that Mr. Pepper's comments are worth considering. He noted that the
arguments are compelling for building up rather than out; and he proposed that for every story a building
goes up, structure parking must also be provided. He noted that this will help to stop the sprawl and sea
of asphalt around the hospital and medical office complex. He indicated that the creation of a hospital zone
with different height allowances, review criteria, and possibly special considerations could provide the
desired flexibility; however, those regulations would probably not guarantee a 70-foot-high medical office
or hospital wing.
Responding to questions from the Commission, Staff Attorney Day-Moore stated she would not
suggest a five-year timeframe from approval of a variance to issuance of a building permit.
Commissioner Brown noted that the two patient wings of the hospital were designed for additional
floors, except that plastic pipes were used in the walls, precluding upward expansion. In light of those
problems, he cautioned that care must be taken during construction to ensure that additional stories can
be added if the structure is so designed.
Commissioner Youngman stated she is uncomfortable voting on the requested height variance
without a visual impact analysis. She noted that the hospital can be seen from surrounding residences and
from Burke Park, and adding two more stories will make it even more visible. She also indicated she would
like more information on the issue of variances versus a hospital zone before making a decision.
Commissioner Brown stated that he is comfortable with the initial height variance; however, he
recognized the Hospital needs approval for a five-story structure to accomplish their desires.
In response to the Commissioners' comments, Mr. David Hullinger stated that allowing the three-
story structure initially helps the Hospital meet its goals. He indicated a willingness to work with the City on
reaching the Hospital's objective of a five-story structure if a three-story structure is approved at this time.
Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Kirchhoff closed the public hearing.
05-28-2002
17-
It was moved by Commissioner Cetraro, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that the variances
from Section 18.38.060 of the Bozeman Municipal Code to allow building to exceed maximum adjusted
height of 38 feet by 8 feet initially and by up to 36 feet within five years, from Section 18.56.090 to extend
the time limit for drawing building permits from six months to five years, and from Section 18.52.060 to
extend the time limit for granting building permits based upon site plan review from one year to five years,
as requested by Ellerbe-Becket Construction Services for Bozeman Deaconess Health Services under
Application No. C-02002, be approved. The motion failed by the following Aye and No vote: those voting
Aye being none; those voting No being Commissioner Cetraro, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner
Hietala, Commissioner Brown and Mayor Kirchhoff.
It was moved by Commissioner Youngman, seconded by Commissioner Hietala, that the variance
from Section 18.38.060 of the Bozeman Municipal Code to allow the building to exceed the maximum
adjusted height of 38 feet by 8 feet, requested by Ellerbe-Becket Construction Services for Bozeman
Deaconess Health Services under Application No. C-02002, be approved. The motion carded by the
following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Hietala,
Commissioner Brown, Commissioner Cetraro and Mayor Kirchhoff; those voting No, none.
Mayor Kirchhoff suggested that the Commission direct staff to investigate the best long-term solution
for the City to accommodate this type of request, possibly including a new section in the zone code or the
creation of a new zoning district, with the staff to submit its response and process any revisions within six
months if possible. The Commissioners concurred with that direction.
Public hearinq - Zone Map Amendment - amend zoninq designation from "M-I" to "R-O" and "R-4"
on 33.20 acres described as Lot '1, Amended Plat C-23-A10 - Delaney and Co., and C&H Enclineerinq
for BRC Investments, LLC (located east of Broadway Avenue and north of East Main Street)
(Z-02035)
This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Zone Map Amendment requested by
Delaney and Company and C&H Engineering for BRC Investments, LLC, under Application No. Z-02035,
to amend the zoning designation on 33.20 acres described as Lot 1, Amended Plat C-23-A10, from "M-I",
Light Manufacturing, to "R-O", Residential--Office, and "R-4", Residential--High-density. The subject
property is located east of North Broadway Avenue and north of East Main Street.
Mayor Kirchhoff opened the public hearing.
Assistant Planner Karin Caroline presented the staff report. She stated the 33.20-acre parcel is a
portion of the old Cupola project, and the proposed rezoning to allow for residential and residential-office
development is in compliance with the Bozernan 2020 Community Plan. She noted this is one of the few
remaining parcels in close proximity to the downtown that is recommended for residential development.
The Assistant Planner stated that staff has reviewed this application in light of the criteria set forth
in the zone code, and staff's comprehensive findings are contained in the written staff report. She briefly
highlighted those findings and noted that the Zoning Commission, following its review at the May 7 meeting,
has concurred in staff's recommendation for approval.
Mr. Michael Delaney, applicant,, stated his concurrence with the staff report and requested
Commission approval.
Mr. Christopher Nixon, 719 North Wallace Avenue, spoke in favor of the requested zone change,
stating it will lead to good solutions for a long-debated area.
Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Kirchhoff closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Hietala, seconded by Commissioner Brown, that the Zone Map
Amendment requested by Delaney and Company and C&H Engineering for BRC Investments, LLC, under
Application No. Z-02035, to amend the zoning designation on 33.20 acres described as Lot 1, Amended
Plat C-23-A10, from "M-I", Light Manufacturing, to "R-O", Residential--Office, and "R-4", Residential--High-
05-28-2002
-18-
density, be approved and that staff be directed to bdng back an ordinance enacting those zoning
designations, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall submit, within thirty (30) days of approval by the City
Commission, a 24-inch by 36-inch mylar map, and 8%-inch by 11-inch or 8%-inch
by 14-inch paper map, and a digital copy to the Planning Office containing the metes
and bounds legal description, total acreage and adjoining rights-of-way and/or street
access easements, acceptable to the Director of Public Service.
The ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant
provides a metes and bounds legal description and a map of the area to be rezoned,
which will be utilized in the preparation of the ordinance to officially amend the City
of Bozeman zoning map,
The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Hietala,
Commissioner Brown, Commissioner Cetraro, CommissionerYoungman and Mayor Kirchhoff; those voting
No, none.
Ordinance No. 1565 - adoptinQ comprehensive revisions to zonin(~ regulations
Included in the Commissioners' packets was a copy of Ordinance No. 1565, as approved by the City
Attorney, entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 1565
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA,
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE COMPREHENSIVE REVISIONS TO THE CITY OF
BOZEMAN ZONING ORDINANCE, ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED BY
REFERENCE AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN, AND ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE A NEW OFFICIAL ZONING MAP.
Commissioner Hietala stated he still has concerns about the proposed amendments, which he wants
to have addressed prior to their adoption.
As a result of discussion, it was determined that a work session can be held at next week's meeting,
to discuss possible revisions to be incorporated into final adoption of the amendments.
It was moved by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Cetraro, that Ordinance No.
1565, adopting comprehensive revisions to the zoning regulations, be provisionally adopted and that it be
brought back in two weeks for final adoption. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those
voting Aye being Commissioner Brown, Commissioner Youngman and Mayor Kirchhoff; those voting No
being Commissioner Cetraro and Commissioner Hietala.
Ordinance No. 1566 - adopting comprehensive revisions to subdivision regulations
Included in the Commissioners' packets was a copy of Ordinance No, 1566, as approved by the City
Attorney, entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 1566
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA,
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE COMPREHENSIVE REVISIONS TO THE CITY OF
BOZEMAN SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED
BY REFERENCE AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN.
It was moved by Commissioner Cetraro, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that Ordinance
No. 1566, adopting comprehensive revisions to the subdivision regulations, be provisionally adopted and
05-28-2002
-19-
that it be brought back in two weeks forfinal adoption. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote:
those voting Aye being Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Brown and Mayor Kirchhoff; those voting
No being Commissioner Cetraro and Commissioner Hietala.
Discussion - FYI Items
The following "For Your Information" items were forwarded to the Commission.
(1) Memo from Planning Director Epple, dated May 24, forwarding a draft resolution from the
County Commission adopting the Bozeman Urban Area Annexation Policy.
City Manager Johnson noted this document is significantly different from the version previously
considered by the Commission and asked if the Commission wishes to discuss it.
Mayor Kirchhoff requested that this item be placed on the agenda for discussion. Commissioner
Brown requested that a copy of the old agreement be included in the packet.
Planning Director Epple cautioned that this is a County resolution and does not, therefore, require
any City endorsement.
(2) Letter from Sandy Ferraro, dated May 20, expressing opposition to the proposed location
of the trail in Tuckerman Park.
(3) Information sheet on the presentation to be made by Ed McMahon at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday,
June 6, at the Hager Auditorium.
(4) Updated listing of upcoming planning projects, dated May 22, 2002.
(5) Agenda for the Development Review Committee meeting which was held at 10:00 a.m. today
at the Professional Building.
(6) Agenda for the Design Review Board meeting which was held at 3:30 p.m. today at the
Professional Building.
(7) Agenda for the School Board of Trustees meeting to be held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May
28, at the Emily Dickinson School.
(8)
School.
Agenda for the County Planning Board meeting to be held at 6:30 p.m. today at the Willson
(9) Notice that the Gallatin County Commission meeting for today was cancelled.
(10) City Manager Johnson stated the InterNeighborhood Council is working with a consultant
to develop a job description and profile for the neighborhood coordinator; and that information will be the
basis for the hidng process.
(11) Planning Director Epple stated he has contacted a consultant to help with the next round of
zone code text amendments and the graphic illustrations for the document. The consultant will be in
Bozeman for at least a couple days dudng the week of July 22.
(12) Staff Attorney Day-Moore announced that the City Attorney's office received a lawsuit on
Thursday filed in federal court by Valley Bail Bonds over the time pay bond issue, despite the recent
Attorney General opinion.
(13) Commissioner Youngman submitted the following. (1) Indicated that, even though she will
be gone for the next month, she will be able to access her home e-mail every couple days. (2) Reminded
the Commissioners of the memo from Municipal Judge Carlson regarding salary and suggested this issue
be addressed prior to or dudng the budget process.
05-28-2002
- 20 -
Adjournment - 10:32 p.m.
There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was moved by
CommissionerYoungman, seconded by Commissioner Hietala, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion
carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner
Hietala, Commissioner Brown, Commissioner Cetraro and Mayor Kirchhoff; those voting No, none.
ATTEST:
ROBIN L SULLIVAN
Clerk of the Commission
05-28-2002