HomeMy WebLinkAbout91- Minor Site Plan No. Z-9119
; I , i
"',
BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
In the Matter of the Appeal from the
decisions of the Development Review
Committee and the Design Review Board
approving Minor Site Plan No. Z-9119.
A public hearing was held before the City Commission of the
City of Bozeman, Montana, on the 29th day of April, 1991, on the
appeals of the decisions of the Development Review Committe and
the Design Review Board approving Minor Site Plan No. Z-9119.
From the public testimony the City Commission makes the following
Findings of Fact:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. W. P. and Cheryl Kemp of 824 S. Tracy, Les Denning of
307 S. Black, and Matthew L. and Kristi Lavin of 311 S. Tracy,
all of Bozeman, Montana, pursuant to sections 18.42.100,
18.52.040 D. and 18.58.010 et ~. of the Bozeman Municipal Code
(BMC) appealed the decisions of the Development Review Committee
(DRC) and the Design Review Board ( 0 RB ) conditionally approving
Minor Site Plan Application No. Z-9119 allowing the construction
of a second residential condominium duplex on Lots 10, 11 and 12
(Realigned) , Block F, Black's Addition to the City of Bozeman,
Montana, and more commonly referred known as 3l2-316 South Tracy
Avenue, Bozeman, Montana. The conditions imposed on the approval
were as follows:
a) Applicant is to grade and gravel alleys adjacent to
site to City standards;
b) Construction of a pedestrian sidewalk from parking
area to South Tracy;
c) Water service ditch to be dug and backfilled by
applicant, meeting OSHA standards.
I
, , "
"
d) Provide adequate snow removal areas;
e) Garbage dumpster to be located off public r.o.w.
and screened;
f) Adequate drainage to be provided;
2. That the appeal was timely filed. (18.58.030 BMC).
3. That the appellants are aggrieved persons as defined by
18.58.010 BMC.
4. Clair Daines, hereinafter referred to as Daines, filed
Minor Site Plan Application No. z-9119 seeking approval to
construct a second residential condominium duplex on the
aforedescribed property.
5. That the proposed site is classified by the 1990 Master
Plan as Urban Residential Infill.
6. That the property is zoned as an R-3 Residential-Medium-
Density District.
7 . That a four unit multi-family dwelling unit structure is
a permitted principal use in said R-3 Zone. (18.20.020 BMC).
8. That the site, in addition to being located in the R-3
Zone, is also located in an Historic District.
9. That in reviewing Minor Site Plan Application No Z-9119,
the DRC, pursuant to l8.52.010 et ~. BMC, is required to
consider the following criteria:
a) relationship of the plan elements to conditions
both on and off the property;
b) conformance to the City's Zoning Ordinance;
c) conformance to the City's Master Plan;
d) all other applicable laws, ordinances and
regulations;
e) the impact of the plan of the existing and
anticipated traffic and parking conditions;
f) the consistency of the plan with respect to land
use requirements;
g) pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress;
h) building 10cation and height;
i) landscapiIlg;
j) lighting;
2
" 1
k) provisions for utilities;
1) site drainage;
m) open space;
n) loading and unloading areas;
0) grading;
p) signage;
q) screening;
r) setbacks;
s) overlay district provisions;
t) other related matters.
10. After review, the ORe, subject to the conditions set
forth in paragraph No. 1, approved Minor Site Plan Application
No. Z -9119 finding that upon completion of said conditions the
proposed site pIan would not be detrimental to the health, safety
and welfare of the community; that the minor site plan is ln
compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and in
harmony with the purpose and intent of Zoning Ordinance and the
Master Plan.
ll. The ORB, pursuant to the Historic Preservation criteria
set forth in section 18.42.010 et ~. BMC, reviewed the minor
site plan application according to the architectural appearance
design guidelines to consider the appropriateness and
compatibility of the proposed structure with neighboring
structures, focusing upon the following:
a) height;
b) proportions of doors and windows;
c) relationship of building masses and spaces;
d) roof shape;
e) scale;
f) directional expression, with regard to the
dominant horizontal or vertical expression of
surrounding structures; and
g) architectural details.
12. The ORB approved the Certificate oE Appropriateness for
the proposed project, but in so approving the Certificate of
Appropriateness, ORB member Ralph Johnson stated that the
architectural character of the original duplex was inappropriate
to the neighborhood. Historic Preservation Officer Catherine
3
, ; . .
Goetz stated that the proposed duplex was not compatible with the
historic character of the district. Consultant Ben Tintinger
stated that architecturaliy the proposal was not compatible with
the area.
13. The appellants appealed the decision of the DRC stating
the following reasons for their appeal:
"The project approved by the Development
Review Committee does not meet City standards
for safety, parking, access and access
maintenance, and sewer provisions. "
14. The appellants also appealed the decision of the ORB
stating the following reasons for their appea 1 :
"The project approved by the Design Review
Board does not meet the standards for
appropriateness and compatibility of
proposed construction. The character of
the structure is inappropriate, and does
not enhance or contribute to the aesthetic
character of the existing neighborhood, in
violation of the guidelines for the City
of Bozeman Historic Preservation Overlay
District."
15. To support their position that the proposed unit would
add to an already existing traffic problem, the appellants
provided accident information for Babcock/Tracy, Babcock/Black,
Olive/Black and 0Iive/Tracy. The accident information provided
for these streets is not applicable to the proposed development
site as said accident locations are all over one block away. The
accident information for Curtiss and Tracy was within 1 block of
the proposed site, and may be relevant to the site; at said
intersection there have been 9 accidents between 2/27/87 and
5/29/90 consisting of 8 failure to yield right of way, two of
which included excessive speeding and the remaining accident
involved a driver under the influence.
16. The proposed unit will have some impact on area
4
. . . <
.- , \ .
traffic. The estimated ADTs for one unit of a duplex is 5.2 ADTs
per unit or a total of 10.4 per day, while the estimated ADTs for
a single f am i 1 Y residence are 10 (Source: Institue of
Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 3rd edition).
However, a major structure is built within 6 inches from the
sidewalk on the Story Street entrance to the primary access alley
which causes a blind spot for drivers; this blind alley access
intersects with a sidewalk used by elementary students going to
school. The safety of elementary children would be further
endangered by increasing the use of this alley.
17. Appellants are concerned that the primary access
required to serve the proposed project is from an alley in a long
block; a drive access or alley access is required by the zone
code for residential complexes of four or more families.
(18.50.110 B. BMC) . While the proposed access to the project
complies with code requirements, the concern was expressed about
the adequacy of the alley in its present condition for purposes
of primary access; the alley is unimproved with encroachments
decreasing the 20 foot right-of-way to 13 feet to 15 feet in
width.
18. Appellants are concerned about parking and pedestrian
foot traffic from Tracy to the proposed unit. Pedestrian foot
traffic has been addressed by the DRC condition which required a
sidewalk from the back duplex unit to Tracy Avenue. The proposed
development meets the zone code requirements for parking, i.e.,
2.2 parking spaces per unit are required for a total of 4.4
spaces for the project, 7 spaces were proposed on the site plan,
but DRB waived 3 of the parking parking spaces for drainage
purposes and snow storage. Area residents testified that there
5
. . ' ,
" , .
already is an existing parking problem in the area because of the
area's close proximity to the Federal Building and the downtown
area. Not only the construction of the proposed duplex, but the
deletion of the three parking spaces would add to the parking
congestion problem.
19. Sewer concerns were raised by the appellant citing
problems that they have had in the past. City personnel believe
the sewer capable of handling the additional sewage. See staff
report attached hereto as Exhibit A. However, the existing 6
inch sewer line was installed in 1904 and had a 40 year life
expectancy at that time. The sewer that services the South Tracy
area had a back-up most recently in the 300 block of South Tracy
in 1990. Current standards would require an 8 inch sewer line.
The ability of the existing line to carry the increased volume
by allowing the development of this multi-family dwelling is
questioned.
20. The Appel1ants contend that the integrity of their
Historic District will be compromised if the proposed unit is
constructed. The appellants rely upon the Historic Preservation
section of the Master Plan, pp. 46-47:
Goal 1: "Preserve and enhance all of the features
of the community's heritage that define
and contribute to Gallatin Valley's
unique 'quality of life'."
and its implementation policies D and E which provide as
follows:
"D. Amend zoning and other codes and ordinances as
necessary to eliminate provisions which present
or discourage preservation actions; and adopt
provisions that will encourage and reward
preservation and restoration sensitive to the
history, design and neighbooring properties.
E. Adopt policies and implement measures as may be
6
... .. ,.
I, .
appropriate to protect the unique features of
each of the several historic neighborhoods and
individual historic properties."
21. The City Commission of the City of Bozeman enacted its
Historic Preservation/Conservation Overlay District as part of
its zone code to implement the policies of the Master Plan set
forth in paragraph no. 20, supra. which encourages compatible
contempory design of new structures in a historic district.
(18.42.010 BMC):
" . . . New construction will be invited and
encouraged provided primary emphasis is given
to the preservation of existing buildings and
further provided the design of such new space
enhances and contributes to the aesthetic
character and function of the property and the
surrounding neighborhood or area. Contemporary
design will be encouraged, provided it is in
keeping with the above stated criteria, as an
acknowledged fact of the continuing developmental
pattern of a dynamic, changing community."
22. Although there was disagreement between the DRB and the
architectural review by Consultant Ben Tintinger, the DRB
reviewed and approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
project.
23. Daines rebutted appellants historic preservation
argument by stating that his proposal meets the intent of the
Residential section of the Master Plan:
Goal 1. "Encourage residential development in the
City of Bozeman where there is adequate
road, bicycle and pedestrian acces, with
provisions for shopping and commercial
development.
Objective:
a. Provide for residential development
in and adjacent to the Central Business
District and near appropriate commercial
nodes.
Goal 2. Encourage construction of a full range of
housing types, sizes and costs, including
manufactured and modular homes, to assure
7
. . , . .
the opportunity for future residents to
obtain a choice of living environments.
. . .
Goal 5. Recognize and, to the extent possible, preserve
and promote the unique character of neighborhoods
in the City of Bozeman through land use classifi-
cations and zoning.
Objective:
a. Discourage conversion of single family
residences to multifamily residences
. . . in Bozeman's older neighborhoods,
where parking facilities and other
infrastructure elements are inadequate
to serve higher density properties."
Daines argued that this neighborhood is not a single family
neighborhood, presenting pictures of multifamily residences 1n
the area.
Daines also rebutted Ben Tintinger's report by providing a
picture of the existing duplex, stating that the unit blends in
with the neighborhood.
24. Section V, Master Plan Elements, subsection D. Historic
Resource Preservation, Zoning Designations, provides that within
historic neighborhoods that the city zoning designations shall
match the historic development patterns to minimize conflicts in
land development intensity and use. R-3 can be appropriate to
certain older areas that have a substantial number of multiple
family dwellings originally designed and constructed for this
purpose. The construction of the first duplex was not
appropriate for the neighborhood, to allow the construction of
the second duplex would only serve to continue the degradation of
this historic area caused by the inroad of the first
inappropriate duplex.
25. The neighborhood has a history of using back yards for
privacy which would be compromised if this duplex would be
8
. . . .
" ~
allowed to be constructed in the back yard of the existing
duplex, thereby having a detrimental impact on the neighborhood.
26. The open space requirements set forth in Paragraph 9 (m)
herein would be eliminated by the location of the duplexes and
their privacy walls, such open space loss is contrary to the
Master Plan and Zone Code and adverse to the interests of public
health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood.
CONCLUSIONS
l. Based upon 18.52.040 and these Findings of Fact, the
ORC's decision is reversed because the proposed site plan is
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; fails to
comply wi th the requirements of the Zone Code; and IS not In
harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zone Code and the
Master Plan.
2. Based upon these Findings of Fact and the architectural
design guidelines set forth in Section 18.42.060 BMC, the
decision of the ORB is reversed for the failure of the ORB to
properly consider the appropriateness and compatibility of the -
proposed structure with neighboring structures, focusing upon the
following:
a) height;
b) proportions of doors and windows;
c) relationship of building masses and spaces;
d) roof shape;
e) scale;
f) directional expression, with regard to the
dominant horizontal or vertical expression of
surrounding structures; and
g) architectural details.
/ / /
9
, . . .
. . ~ ~
,. . .
Dated this 29th day of APril~~~
ROBERT L. HAWKS
Mayor
ATTEST:
V~ J~
ROBIN L. SULLIVAN
Clerk of the Commission
10