Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-29 Minutes, City Commission MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING/WORK SESSION/AGENDA MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA September 29, 1997 ***************************** . The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in special meeting, work session and agenda meeting in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, September 29, 1997, at 3:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Stueck, Commissioner Rudberg, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman, City Manager Johnson, Staff Attorney Cooper and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. Presentation from Joe Driskell. Alcohol Services. re letter of support for arant application Mr. Roger Curtiss, Executive Director of Alcohol Services, distributed resource material to the Commission regarding the proposed grant application. Mr. Joe Driskell, Alcohol Services, requested that the Commissioners support their . application for grant monies through the Board of Crime Control to create a drug court. He stated that this new agency would provide an alternative to the typical penalties for violations of alcohol and drug laws in a structured, supervised environment. Mr. Driskell stated that under this grant application, Alcohol Services would study the feasibility and need for establishing a drug court in Gallatin County. He stated that meetings with several individuals from law enforcement, the court system and the Gallatin County Commission have shown enthusiasm for pursuing this alternative. Responding to Commissioner Frost, Mr. Driskell stated that "drug court" is a term for the system created in Florida in the late 1980s. He stressed that it was created as a separate court to deal with substance abuse. He noted that, in reality, it pulls the systems together that . deal with enforcement, court systems and treatment for alcohol and drug related offenses. He stated that the format of a "drug court" may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, Mr. Roger Curtiss stated that Alcohol Services recognizes that law enforcement agencies, the judicial system and treatment facilities are to work together to coordinate sentences for alcohol and drug related offenses, however, in 09-29-97 ----- - 2 - reality, many people fall through the cracks. He stated that under this proposed grant, a greater coordination would be provided to minimize those instances. Responding to Commissioner Frost, Mr. Curtiss stated that including juveniles in the program is one of the options that stakeholders will look at during the feasibility study. The Commissioners indicated a willingness to sign the letter of support. Mr. Driskell . gave the Commissioners a signature sheet to sign; each of the Commissioners and the City Manager signed the sheet. Signing of Notice of Scecial Meetina Each of the Commissioners, in turn, signed the Notice of Special Meeting. Decision - Zone Mac Amendment - R-S to R-3 - Robert Lee for Hubert M. Reid - 6.978-acre tract described as cas No. 1829 (310 Ice Pond Road) (Z-97114) This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Zone Map Amendment requested by Robert Lee for Hubert M. Reid, under Application No. Z-97114, to change the zoning designation from "R-S", Residential--Suburban, Country Estates, to "R-3", Residential-- . Medium-density, on a 6.978-acre tract described as Certificate of Survey No. 1829, and more commonly located at 310 Ice Pond Road. Mayor Stueck stated that he has received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Hubert Reid, dated September 29, in which they indicated that they were unable to attend today's meeting, but have given Mr. Bob Lee the authority to speak on their behalf. Mr. Bob Lee recognizes the Commission's hesitance to approve the requested "R-3", Residential--Medium-density, zoning designation. In light of that hesitance, he estimated the cost of on-site infrastructure improvements at $150,000 to $200,000. He stated that, to create a competitively priced lot for affordable housing in an area with no attendant amenities, the rule of thumb is a maximum of $10,000 per lot for the on-site improvements. He noted . that, based on these figures and the amount of vacant, undeveloped land available in the subject parcel, neither "R-1", Residential--Single-family, Low-density, or "R-2", Residential-- Single-family, Medium-density, generates the number of lots needed to make a marketable project. He stated, however, that "R-2a", ResidentialuSingle-family, Medium-density, or "R-3a", Residential--Two-family, Medium-density, would allow the number of lots needed to 09-29-97 ..-..------- . ..___._____.._._....._._....._. ...__n. - 3 - create a viable project. He stated that the applicant would prefer the "R-3a" zoning because of the flexibility it would provide, but is willing to accept the "R-2a" zoning. Commissioner Frost stated that, after looking at the drawings in the proposal and walking the site, it does not appear there is adequate room for access to the site from Ice Pond Road. . Mr. Bob Lee responded that the City has an easement for extension of Ice Pond Road, and it is wide enough to accommodate the roadway. Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, Mr. Lee stated that concerns about the continuation of the non-conforming uses and traffic seem to be the two biggest issues for the neighborhood. Further responding to Commissioner Rudberg, Mr. Lee indicated that use of the existing warehouse structures on the site may terminate at some point, but not in the immediate future. He noted that the two smaller buildings on the north end of the site, where the East College Street right-of-way is located, have a limited economic life, and they may, indeed, be removed to accommodate the proposed residential development on the site. . Responding to Commissioner Stiff, Mr. Lee estimated the cost of the on-site street improvements at $80,000 and the costs of extending water and sewer services at $60,000. He indicated the rule of thumb for determining the cost effectiveness of a proposed development is $10.000 per lot for infrastructure improvements. He further noted that doubling of those costs generally provides the price at which the lots may be marketed. He stated that for this particular project, the estimated infrastructure cost per lot is $12,500, which results in a market price of $25,000 per lot; and that seems to be a competitive price. At Mayor Stueck's request, Associate Planner Saunders forwarded a brief response to the applicant's proposal for rezoning. He stated the proposed "R-2a" zoning is substantially less intensive than the surrounding uses, and the proposed "R-3a" zoning is also less intensive. He noted. however, that either one of those zoning designations would allow for development . which is compatible with the existing development in the area. Responding to Mayor Stueck, Staff Attorney Cooper stated the Commission may consider rezoning to "R-2a" since it is a less intense use than the "R-3" zoning which was requested and advertised. 09-29-97 - 4 - Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, Associate Planner Saunders stated that the subject property will probably be developed under a planned unit development, particularly if the applicant wishes to retain the non-conforming warehouse uses. He then stated that, through the PUD process, the development must exceed the standards contained in the code, and concerns identified as a result of reviewing the application must be addressed through . conditions. Commissioner Rudberg stated her support for the proposed "R-3" zoning, noting that once the rezoning is completed, the applicant must determine if it is economically feasible to proceed with any type of development proposal. She noted that the subject property is within the city limits and she feels that developing it at the same density as surrounding properties would be appropriate. Commissioner Frost stated he feels the problems with access are great enough that they cannot be overcome. He noted that since the two streets proposed for access to the site intersect immediately upon entering the property, they cannot be considered two separate accesses, and he cannot support development without a second access. He also forwarded . his concerns about the potential of dumping truck traffic onto South Rouse Avenue, Garfield Street and South Willson Avenue as a result of development on the subject site. He then stated that he reviewed this application in light of the twelve criteria as set forth in the Bozeman Municipal Code and, because of his findings, he cannot support the requested rezoning. He recognized that the "R-2a" zoning would be preferable to the originally requested "R-3" zoning, but his concerns remain valid for that zoning as well. Commissioner Youngman stated that she typically tries to find a compromise that is acceptable to the applicant and the neighborhood and she typically supports development closer to the center of the community, thus avoiding urban sprawl. She stated, however, that in this instance, she does not believe that the application meets Criteria Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 8 and, therefore, cannot support approval of the requested rezoning. She recognized that changing . the zoning does not include a promise for development but "it's a strong hint", and she is concerned about the infrastructure problems that have been identified. Commissioner Youngman stated she feels it is unacceptable to put truck traffic on either South Church Avenue or South Willson Avenue, since both are residential neighborhoods. She also noted that this property alone cannot support the costs of extending infrastructure to the 09-29-97 . --.--..-.- -.....- --.------.. - 5 - site, and the other undeveloped properties in this area are environmentally sensitive and should be protected against inappropriate development. Commissioner Youngman briefly addressed the history of the site, noting that the existing non-conforming uses have existed for a long time. She stated that the last plan for those non-conforming uses has been expanded beyond the level approved by the City, and the . ice house that was to have been removed still remains. She expressed concern that the applicant has failed to comply with the items negotiated through the various processes. She concluded by once again indicating she cannot support this application. Commissioner Stiff stated his support for the requested zone change, stating that it will result in a level playing field for the applicant. He noted that development of the site will probably be subject to the planned unit development process, which is a very stringent process for the applicant. Mayor Stueck stated he agrees with the comments made by each of the Commissioners. He noted that he would like to see Ice Pond Road developed and its intersection with South Church Avenue improved. He expressed concern that the promises . made in conjunction with previous applications have not been carried out, and the ice house has not been removed. He then stated that, because of the review processes under which development of the site must be reviewed, he can support rezoning of the subject property to "R-2a", which will give the applicant a chance to determine if it can be developed in an economically feasible manner. Mayor Stueck reminded the Commissioners that, because of the petition of opposition which has been filed, four affirmative votes are required for approval of a zone change. It was moved by Commissioner Rudberg that the Commission approve the Zone Map Amendment requested by Robert Lee for Hubert M. Reid, under Application No. Z-97114, to change the zoning designation from "R-S", Residential--Suburban, Country Estates, to "R-3", ResidentialnMedium-density, on a 6.978-acre tract described as Certificate of Survey No. . 1829. The motion died for lack of a second. It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Rudberg, that the Commission approve the Zone Map Amendment requested by Robert Lee for Hubert M. Reid, under Application No. Z-97114, by changing the zoning designation from "R-S", Residentialn Suburban, Country Estates, to "R-2a", Residential--Single-family, Medium-density, on a 6.978- 09-29-97 --- .__._.__u__ .---....-. - 6 - acre tract described as Certificate of Survey No. 1829. The motion failed by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Rudberg and Mayor Stueck; those voting No being Commissioner Youngman and Commissioner Frost. Discussion - direction to City-County Plannina Board re work Droiects for uDcomina fiscal year . Mayor Stueck noted that during last week's work session with the City-County Planning Board, several of the Board members stated an interest in looking at transfer of development rights (TORs), off-site parkland dedications and an affordable planned unit development. He suggested that the Commission direct the City Manager to write a letter to the City-County Planning Board asking them to address these issues to avoid the potential that they might be "lost in the shuffle". Commissioner Youngman noted that transfer of development rights and off-site parkland dedications are a part of the critical lands study. She also noted that the affordable planned unit development is a part of the housing policy adopted three years ago. She then forwarded her strong support for directing the Planning Board to proceed with these projects during the . upcoming fiscal year. Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell stated that the Planning Board is scheduled to provide direction to staff regarding the rewriting of the planned unit development section of the code at their next meeting. She then reminded the Commission that this project is designed to provide a unified planned unit development process in place of the separate processes not provided in the zone code and the subdivision regulations. She indicated that she will keep the affordable planned unit development concept in mind as she prepares the new proposal. It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that the Commission direct the City Manager to write a letter to the City-County Planning Board directing them and the staff to address the issues of transfer of development rights, off-site . parkland dedications and planned unit developments during this fiscal year. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Rudberg, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Stueck; those voting No, none. 09-29-97 - 7 - Agenda Meeting - for reaular meetina and Dublic hearings to be held on October 6. 1997 Since this is an agenda meeting, only those issues requiring staff action are contained in the minutes. City Manager Johnson briefly reviewed the background information which was included in the Commissioners' packets. . (4) Project Planner Williams provided a brief overview of the application, under which an accessory dwelling unit is to be constructed in an existing residence in New Hyalite View Subdivision. He stated that no exterior modifications are proposed, and two interior walls and the installation of kitchen appliances are the only proposed interior alterations. He noted that seven letters of opposition have been received, and some of the neighbors have been quick to point out that the covenants limit development in the subdivision to single-family dwellings. He recognized that the application may be in violation of the covenants, however, enforcement of those covenants is an issue to be addressed by the neighbors in a separate action. He then forwarded staff's recommendation for approval, subject to several conditions. Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, the Project Planner stated that if the neighbors . seek to enforce the covenants, which have been in place for thirty years, the Court will take into consideration the changing characteristics of the neighborhood. (5) City Manager Johnson stated that staff spent a day working on the proposed annexation agreement, to ensure that all of the issues were adequately addressed. He noted that three different options have been provided for one of the items, and staff is seeking Commission guidance. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell distributed a memo, dated September 29, forwarding an addition to Section 8 of the draft agreement, in response to a telephone call from Mayor Stueck. She stated the draft agreement is based on the revised conditions contained in the July 10 memo. She then reviewed the three options for Section 8, noting that Option A reflects the applicant's offer, with one change to require that Durston Road be paved to the . west edge of Bronken Park to avoid the potential impact of heavy traffic on a gravel road. She stated that Option B provides for the installation of infrastructure improvements by a date specific, with the improvements being financially guaranteed with a letter of credit; and Option C provides for the installation of infrastructure improvements by a date specific, with the 09-29-97 - 8 - improvements being financially guaranteed by cash in escrow. She noted that, based on 150 percent of the estimated cost of improvements, the guarantee would be $3.4 million. Responding to Commissioner Stiff, the Assistant Planning Director stated that the applicants received a copy of this draft agreement on Thursday and have not yet forwarded a response. She indicated that any response received before the packets are distributed will be . forwarded to the Commission. Assistant Planning Director Arkell noted that Section 9 provides for a payback for the sewer main. She stated that the applicant has asked about paybacks for water and streets but has not formally requested them. She then stated that Section No. 17 pertains to extension of municipal services not currently available to the site. Commissioner Frost expressed concern that Sections 3 and 17 are in conflict. Following discussion, the Assistant Planning Director stated that she will carefully review the two sections to ensure that conflicts do not exist. Commissioner Youngman noted that in his memo forwarding revised conditions, Planning Director Epple included some parenthetical statements in italics which she felt should . be included in the annexation agreement to ensure that they are not lost or forgotten. She noted that one of those comments pertains to ensuring this annexation does not place any additional burden on the taxpayers of the city. She recognized that impact fees address some of the services, but there are many others that are not, such as snow plowing, police, parks and the library. Commissioner Stiff stated he does not concur with Commissioner Youngman's comments and asked that any proposed changes to the agreement be submitted in writing. (6) Associate Planner Saunders stated the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland for improvements to the park within this subdivision was raised at the beginning of the subdivision process. He indicated that the Commission has the authority to earmark the monies as requested under State statutes and the City's zone code. . Assistant City Manager Brey recognized that the Commission may make the decision requested by Mr. Daines, but cautioned that specific steps must be taken in doing so. (10) Responding to Mayor Stueck, the City Manager stated that the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board will address this issue at Thursday night's meeting. He then indicated 09-29-97 .. ---.--.-- -- .- --.. -----.-.--. __n__.._..__.....___ __ - 9 - that he will forward the Board's recommendations in a memo to the Commission, which will be mailed out on Friday. ( 17) Assistant Planning Director Arkell provided a brief overview, reminding the Commission that the application was considered by the Commission approximately six weeks ago but, because the height deviation was not advertised, it could not be considered. She . indicated that the applicant has requested a one-foot deviation to allow a 14-foot-tall sign, however, staff has processed it as a request for a 20-percent deviation, which would allow the sign to be a maximum of 15 % feet. She noted that this will give the applicant some flexibility on the sign height, but will not allow a larger sign than the 6-foot by 6-foot sign previously approved. (18) Assistant Planning Director Arkell provided a brief overview of the application. She stated that staff has reviewed the requested variance in light of the three criteria established by the Montana Supreme Court and compared it to a similar application on South Wallace Avenue a few years ago. She then stated that, following review, staff is unable to support the application. . ( 19) Project Planner Williams reviewed the variances being requested in conjunction with the new signage package for the subject site. He noted that the applicant is seeking four variances and, following review of those variances in light of the three criteria, staff supports three of those variances. He noted the fourth variance would result in the installation of signage within the State Department of Transportation's right-of-way along North 19th Avenue, which is not acceptable to the MDoT. Responding to Mayor Stueck, the Project Planner stated that if there is a difference in the elevation of the street and the elevation of the site, an increase equal to one-half of the difference is allowed in sign height. He noted that, since there is no difference in elevation along North 19th Avenue, 13-foot-high signs will be required. . Work Session - (A) Meeting with Desian Review Board (A) Meeting with Design Review Board. Those present at the meeting included the following Board members: Kim Walker, Chair Roger Cruwys Paul Gleye 09-29-97 - 10- Mara-Gai Katz Ed McCrone Henry Sorenson Mayor Stueck stated the Commission is reviewing its communication with the various boards and commissions and is attempting to address any issues that may be unresolved. He also noted that one of the primary issues of concern is training for new board members. . Planning Director Andy Epple provided a brief background of the Design Review Board. He noted that the design review program is contained in the 1990 Master Plan Update and the new zone code, which was adopted in late 1990 and was designed to ensure compatible development and redevelopment in the historic districts and neighborhood conservation overlay districts in the community. He stated that the Design Objectives Plan was subsequently developed, to provide guidelines for development within the entryway overlay corridors. He stressed that the underlying zoning regulations apply; however, under the design review process, some flexibility is provided through deviations. The Planning Director stated the purpose of the design review process is to avoid typical strip development along entryway corridors and to minimize the impacts of "post World War . II suburban zoning" on historic neighborhoods. He noted that a Certificate of Appropriateness must be obtained for projects in the overlay districts, after they have gone through the appropriate review process and received approval. Planning Director Epple stated that Bozeman is the only community in Montana with the deviation process, and the process is unique on a nation-wide basis. He stressed that the deviation process is designed to encourage development and redevelopment in historic neighborhoods, on properties where the underlying zoning designation requirements are not met, and he feels it has worked well and resulted in significant improvements in the older portion of the community. He noted that, in the entryway overlay corridors, superior design is required in exchange for relaxation of a code requirement, and he noted that the process has seemed to work well in those areas also. He stated that in most communities, exceptions to . the code are granted through the variance process, which is based on hardship, and the deviation process allows those exceptions based on contributions to the historic character of the neighborhood or the entryway corridor. The Planning Director briefly highlighted the composition of the Design Review Board, which includes six professional and two non-professional members. He stated that the 09-29-97 -.... - 11 - Administrative Design Review staff, which is comprised of two staff members, handles small projects in-house, thus turning those projects around in a matter of days. He indicated that the Design Review Board is able to devote its time and energy to the larger and more complex projects under this new structure. The Planning Director stated that projects in the entryway overlay corridors are . reviewed against the Design Objectives Plan and projects in the historic districts and neighborhood conservation districts are reviewed against the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. He stressed that these two documents are designed as guidelines and do not contain specific regulations or requirements. Mayor Stueck reminded those in attendance that, several years ago, the City heard lots of complaints about the cumbersome review process, the Planning Board, the Planning staff and all of the associate advisory bodies. He noted that, for the most part, those complaints are essentially gone, except for a few comments about Design Review Board members voting based on their "personal preferences" rather than the merits of the proposal. He then cited the appeals by the Hampton Inn and the Bozeman Daily Chronicle as examples of instances where . it appears personal preference was the basis upon which a requested change of materials was denied. He then stated he has a phobia about comments on colors and materials and the requirement for a color palette in the conditions. He stated that, unless the color or color scheme is obtrusive, he does not believe the City should be involved in those decisions. Mr. Paul Gleye stated that the Board typically sees projects for a second time because of budget constraints and the desire to use cheaper materials. He stated that sometimes the change in materials does not matter in terms of the perceived quality of the project; sometimes it does. He stressed the difficulty of reviewing a project for the second time with lesser quality or different materials, particularly when it does not appear the project will be as nice as it would have been originally. Ms. Kim Walker stated that recently there was a multi-family unit on North Bozeman . Avenue which the Board originally approved with predominantly stucco on the front and lap siding on the rear. The applicant proposed revising the finish to allow for vertical metal siding on the back, stucco in the middle and lap siding on the front. She stressed that when this type of application is forwarded, the Board approaches it from the viewpoint of whether it changes the architectural quality of the project. She stated that when the Board deals with architects, 09-29-97 --- - 12 - their initial reaction may be that their egos have been stepped on; however, once they get past that feeling, they often find that the suggestions from individual Board members may result in a better project. She stated that she has not seen the Board members impose their personal preferences on an applicant. Responding to Mayor Stueck's concern about the Board addressing color, Ms. Walker . stated that requiring a color palette for a project is a standard condition. She stated that this is required because of the general language in the zone code and is designed to ensure that intrusive colors are not used. Mr. Rich Noonan, former member of the DRB, stated that when he sat on the Board, colors were discussed in a generic manner, not in specifics. He noted that once the project and all issues have been discussed, a motion reflecting the general consensus of the Board is made and voted on. He stated that in some instances, the projects they approve are not constructed as anticipated, and the result is atrocious. He cited the building on North Church Avenue, just off Peach Street, as an example, noting that the metal siding was to be tinged so that it is not reflective. . Mr. Noonan then stated that he raised concernS about the proposed change in materials on the Chronicle building because a vertical siding element was being proposed in place of Dry- vit, which he feels is a significant change, particularly when a large wall is involved. He noted that the architects on the projects have months to deal with the problems they encounter, and the Board is expected to complete its review and act on the project in an hour or slightly more. He recognized that the Board is advisory, but asked that the Commission back them a little more. Mayor Stueck stated that he gives the DRB recommendations a considerable amount of weight because the Board is generally comprised of design professionals and he is very interested in their comments and views. He noted, however, that he also considers the applicant's position and any public comment when making his decision. . Ms. Walker stated that the Design Review Board considers each application in light of the criteria established for that review. She noted that a project may be beautifully designed but not fit into the setting. Ms. Mara-Gai Katz stated that she has seen some controversial issues while serving on the Board. She noted that in some instances, the applicant is willing to consider alternatives; 09-29-97 -.------..-------.-- --... ----...-.-- --. -....,..- .- ..-.-.---.-.......- - 13 - in other instances, the applicant is not. She indicated that during the past year, the Board has made a strong effort to ask if a hardship is involved and, if so, they attempt to work within those constraints to create an attractive project. Ms. Katz echoed concern that architects may take months to prepare an application, yet the Board is expected to take action in one session. She stressed that each decision is . important, and some result in precedents being set. She stated that the character of the Chronicle building was important because that portion of the community is essentially undeveloped. Mr. Roger Cruwys stated the minutes are a condensed version of what happens in the meeting, and much of the dialog which leads to the decision is omitted or condensed to the point it does not accurately reflect how the Board arrived at its recommendation. He characterized the Board's recommendations as "group decisions". Mayor Stueck asked the Board members if they feel they are receiving adequate training to serve on the board. Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, the Planning Director confirmed that the design . review process is included in the 1990 Bozeman Area Master Plan Update, and the Design Review Board was created under the interim zoning ordinance adopted in February 1990. He noted that there have been some slight revisions to the structure of the body and its duties in response to requests from those serving on the Board at the time. He also noted that the Administrative Design Review staff has been recently created, and that has taken the burden of most of the smaller projects off the Design Review Board and given them time to concentrate on the larger, more complex projects and issues. Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, Mr. Henry Sorenson stated that he did not know what was expected of Board members when he applied to serve on the DRB. He noted that once he was appointed, he was given the Design Objectives Plan and the zone code as resource documents. He noted that, with his strong design background and those documents, . he is generally able to review a project to determine if it is appropriate and then be prepared to take action. Responding to concerns raised by Commissioner Rudberg, Mr. Cruwys stated that applicants often submit landscape plans which were not prepared by a qualified landscape architect. He noted that applicants recognize that if the plantings proposed in that plan are 09-29-97 - 14 - inappropriate, he will identify the problems and they can be easily corrected. He noted that, in other instances, a landscape plan may be acceptable, but he may make suggestions for enhancing that plan; and the applicants are typically appreciative of the input. Ms. Walker noted that the applicant receives input from the Planning staff prior to the Design Review Board conducting its review of the application. She noted it is not uncommon . for the applicant to submit a revised landscape plan or revised plan at the Design Review Board meeting to address the concerns and issues that have been raised, She characterized this as nobody's fault, just a factor of time. She noted that the applicant often relies on the Design Review Board's comments and suggestions, enacting those recommendations. She stated that the conditions imposed by the Design Review Board are monitored by the ADR or the Planning staff, so the projects don't clog the ORB's agenda by coming back to the Board. Responding to Mayor Stueck, Ms. Katz stated the Board has discussed training of its new members at various times in the past. She noted that she was new in town when she was appointed to the Board and a mentor would have been valuable. Ms. Walker noted that when the Design Review Board met with the Commission a year . ago, she gave the Commissioners a letter containing a set of suggestions to improve the Board. She noted that one of those suggestions was for "senior/junior" members. She also noted that the Board does not know when new members have been appointed; the new member is at the next meeting after being appointed. She asked that she be notified when an individual has been appointed so that she can work with the Planning Director to prepare the new member to serve. Mayor Stueck stated the Commission has no right to tell the Board how to operate; it is up to the Board to establish a process that allows it to function to the best of its ability. Following discussion, Commissioner Frost stated it is up to the Board to tell the Commission what it needs to make its job easier. He noted that if that includes making appointments effective six weeks after the appointment date, so they can observe a few . meetings, that can be accommodated. He then noted that he served as the Commissioner Liaison to this Board for the first six years of its existence and observed it during its changes. He stated that he likes the diversity of the Board, and he feels it functions very well. He noted that the minutes are very helpful and allow him to review elements and issues of the application that he would not otherwise consider. He recognized that in some instances, he votes against 09-29-97 -- ...--- - - - 15 - the Board recommendation, but it is only after giving careful consideration to all of the information. Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, Ms. Walker stated the agenda is faxed to all Design Review Board members approximately a week before the meeting, and the packet information is received three to four days prior to the meeting. She noted this gives the Board . members time to visit the site prior to the meeting. Ms. Walker noted that, as a result of this meeting, it is obvious that the Design Review Board is in the same place it was a year ago. She then stated that she has been awaiting a response to her letter from the Commission and has, therefore, not pursued implementation of any of the suggestions. Following discussion, the Commission encouraged the Board to identify ways to improve its training and operation and then to implement those changes through changes to its by-laws. Responding to Mayor Stueck, the Planning Director stated he tries to keep the Design Review Board informed about the Commission's decisions. He noted that, because of the . timing of the meetings, the Board members typically read about the Commission's actions prior to the next meeting. Mayor Stueck asked the Board for input on possibly revising the requirements for one of the architect positions to allow a draftsman or architectural engineer to fill the position if an architect is not available. Mr. Cruwys stated he feels the composition of the Board is good as it currently exists. He characterized a draftsman as a non-professional member, and he does not feel the change is needed. The Board members recognized that Mr. Walt Willett is a valuable member on the Board because of his construction background and encouraged the Commissioners to ensure that this type of expertise is included in the membership. . Commissioner Youngman forwarded her concern that the minutes from the DRB meetings don't necessarily reflect why the members voted the way they did. She then suggested that, just prior to the vote, each member indicate why he/she is voting for or against the application and that those reasons be reflected in the minutes. She recognized that those comments could be very brief. 09-29-97 - - - 16 - Mr. Paul Gleye suggested that the Board could make findings to support the motion, and those could be briefly stated and included in the motion. As a result of discussion the Board members recognized that the Commissioners get the draft minutes at the same time as they do, and the Commissioners are not notified of the corrections to those minutes. In the future, the Planning Director is to forward all corrections . to the Commissioners, so they can take that additional information into consideration during their review of an application. Mayor Stueck thanked the Board members for participating in this discussion and encouraged them to proceed with any changes they feel will enhance their operation. Discussion - FYI Items City Manager Johnson presented to the Commission the following "For Your Information" items. (1 ) Letter from Sandra L. Figgins, 716 East Oak Street, dated September 23, encouraging the Commission to better enforce current animal control laws. . (2) Letter from Clara Pincus, 2010 Springcreek Drive, dated September 22, suggesting specific times for dogs to run free on trails. (3) Memorandum from Fire Marshal Chuck Winn, dated September 23, forwarding information regarding occupant load programs in Billings, Missoula and Great Falls. (4) Memorandum from James F. Brown, Chief of the Building Codes Bureau in Helena, dated September 17, indicating that no written consent from the County is required for existing extended municipal building code jurisdictions. (5 ) Copy of a letter from the Department of Environmental Quality to Neighborhood Coordinator/Grantsperson Goehrung, dated September 24, announcing that the City has been awarded $7,900 in funding support for its demonstration project for local uses of recycled glass. . (6) Draft minutes of the Beautification Advisory Board meeting held on September 17. (7) Agenda for the Development Review Committee meeting, to be held at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 30, in the Commission Room. 09-29-97 _ _n __ ...---. .-...-..-.--..-.----.- - 17 - (8) Notice that there will be no public meeting of the County Commission on Tuesday, September 30. (9) The City Manager submitted his weekly report, as follows. (1) Attended the 9-1-1 Administrative Board meeting last week. He noted that he should have known today whether the second grant application, for $419,000, was successful, but had not heard by . meeting time. (2) Attended the City-County Co-op meeting on Tuesday, where topics of discussion included the building code enforcement in the jurisdictional area and county-wide zoning. (3) Reminded the Commissioners that the breakfast for Fire Prevention Week will be held at the Fairgrounds on Monday, October 6, beginning at 7:00 a.m. (10) Commissioner Rudberg submitted the following. (1) Thanked staff for posting the bulletin board next to the elevator, noting it is a visible location. (2) Acknowledged Streett Sanitation Superintendent Roger Sicz for his efforts on recycling glass locally. (3) Gave statistics from the victim/witness program for the last quarter, which included 44 new victims. (11 ) Mayor Stueck stated that he attended the dedication of the new Habitat for Humanity home on North 24th Avenue last week. . ( 12) Mayor Stueck stated that he attended the Department of Environmental Quality's public meeting on the Bozeman Solvent Site on Tuesday. He stated that at that meeting, he asked several questions to which Ms. Denise Martin was unable to provide responses, although she indicated that she will forward answers from the agency as soon as possible. He questioned why the City should pay for the monitoring of 52 wells when the existing monitoring reflects no excessive contaminants in the wells and a continuing decline in those levels. He also expressed his frustration that Jewel Corporation is not contributing toward the costs of clean-up and monitoring; rather, the City and its ratepayers and insurance companies have borne the costs to date. He then requested an agenda item in the near future to discuss terminating the monitoring and clean-up efforts. Commissioner Frost suggested that an executive session with Attorney Barry O'Connell . and City Attorney Luwe might be appropriate prior to making such a decision. Commissioner Rudberg noted that only three businesses and two residences are currently impacted by the solvent site; the three businesses and one residence are on purifiers, and the other residence is occupied by a 76-year-old gentleman who says he "likes the water the way it is" and does not use a purifier. 09-29-97 - + ~~--~ - 18 - Mayor Stueck stated that at the present time, he feels he is being asked to make decisions with large fiscal implications in a vacuum and without adequate information. Commissioner Frost stated he feels the City is obligated to make the situation safe, but he does not believe the City should be obligated beyond that point. . Adjournment - 6:10 D.m. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Rudberg, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Stueck; those voting No, none. (~ t!"~ DON E. STUECK, Mayor ATTEST: .~;I~&~ . ROBIN L. SULLIVAN Clerk of the Commission . 09-29-97 - ,.- ----