Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-10-24 ccm MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA October 24, 1994 ***************************** . The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, October 24, 1994, at 3:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Vincent, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Stueck (arrived at 3:18 p.m.), Commissioner Frost, City Manager Wysocki, City Attorney Luwe and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. None of the Commissioners requested that any of the Consent Items be removed for discussion. Minutes. August 29. 1994 It was moved by Commissioner Youngman, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the . minutes of the regular meeting of August 29, 1994, be approved as submitted. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Frost and Mayor Vincent; those voting No, none. The Mayor deferred action on the minutes of the regular meetings of September 6, September 12, September 19, September 26, October 3, October 10 and October 17, 1994, to a later date. Pledged Securities as of Seotember 30. 1994 City Manager Wysocki reminded the Commission that at last week's meeting, Commissioner Stiff and Commissioner Stueck were appointed to serve on the subcommittee to review the Pledged Securities as of September 30, 1994. He noted that, due to scheduling . conflicts, the subcommittee was unable to meet prior to today's meeting, and requested that this item be delayed for a period of one week. 10-24-94 .2- Decision - reauest for modification of Condition Nos. 7 and 21 for aooroval of Durston Meadows Subdivision Included in the Commissioners' packets was a copy of a letter from Assistant Planner Lanette Windemaker to Mr. Ken Burnham, dated October 21, 1994, acknowledging his telephone call of this afternoon in which he requested that the Commission postpone the . decision on this application indefinitely. City Manager Wysocki reminded the Commissioners that they may either recognize and accept the applicant's request or they may proceed with action at this time. He then recommended that, rather than having this item be placed on the agenda time and time again, the Commission take action today. Commissioner Youngman stated it is her inclination to approve the applicant's request and defer action. Commissioner Stiff stated that, with the way in which Assistant Planner Windemaker's letter is written, it appears that she has already acquiesced to his request. He then forwarded his preference to delay action. Commissioner Frost stated that, while he is prepared to make a decision, he is also . willing to wait. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell stated that Mr. Burnham has requested this continuance because he expects to submit new drawings. If those drawings are substantially different from the original, he will be asked to withdraw his old application and begin the process again. The Commissioners concurred that action on this item be delayed per the applicant's request. Discussion - FYI Items City Manager Wysocki presented to the Commission the following "For Your Information" items. . (1) Letter from the Chamber of Commerce, dated October 18, inviting the Commissioners to attend a discussion with the Montana Chamber President at a 7:30 a.m. meeting on Monday, October 31, at the GranTree Inn. 10-24.94 - 3 ~ (2) Copy of a letter from the Citizens to Save Open Space for Bozeman, Inc., to the City Manager, dated October 16, requesting that they be placed on a mailing list for notification of any land development or zoning matters. The City Manager reminded the Commission that the agenda is published in the Sunday edition of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle; all issues pertaining to planning and zoning . items are published in a display ad in the newspaper; and Planning Board agendas are available prior to the meeting. He then reminded the Commission that the City spends approximately $6,000 to $8,000 in advertising annually to keep the public informed through these mechanisms. Responding to Commissioner Stiff, the City Manager noted that agendas for the Commission meetings are available on Friday afternoons. He then noted that just this afternoon, he received a call requesting that an agenda be faxed. (3) Copy of the information prepared by the Montana Taxpayers Association regarding CI-66. Commissioner Frost noted this information was extremely educational. . (4) Copy of the resolutions adopted by the Montana League of Cities and Towns at its annual convention held earlier this month in Butte. Commissioner Frost asked that a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to the County Commission. (5) Draft of guest editorial on the transportation G.O. bond, as prepared by Commissioner Youngman on behalf of the Commission. Commissioner Stiff thanked Commissioner Youngman for her work, stating he feels it is well done. Commissioner Frost stated he has given Commissioner Youngman some very minor changes to be incorporated into the guest editorial, noting that they pertain mostly to sentence structure. . Mayor Vincent stated his support for the guest editorial as drafted. (6) Listings of the new telephone numbers for the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County which go into effect on November 2. The City Manager reminded the Commission that the City and the County will be using a 582 prefix. 10-24-94 - 4 - (7) Agenda for the Development Review Committee meeting to be held at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, October 25, at the Carnegie Building. (8) Agenda for the Design Review Board meeting to be held at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 25, at the Carnegie Building. (9) Copy of a letter from TCI Cablevision to the City Manager, dated October . 21, indicating that a 3-cent charge will be added to the TCI Cablevision bills, beginning in December 1994, to cover the costs of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Commissioner Stueck arrived at 3: 18 p.m. (10) Agenda for the County Commission meeting to be held at 1 :30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 25, at the Courthouse. (11 ) The City Manager submitted his weekly report, as follows. (1) The Police Department is now operating out of the Law and Justice Center. (2) The laying of new sewer pipe at the Bozeman Solvent Site is moving more slowly than anticipated, with about 400 feet being laid this past week. (3) The AIU Insurance Company has denied coverage of the Bozeman Solvent Site incident, an action which was expected. (4) leaf pick-up is scheduled . to begin on Wednesday. (5) The Street Department has its plows and sanders ready for winter use. (12) Commissioner Frost submitted the following. (1) Talked to the Elks Club this past week about the G.O. bond issue. (2) Asked that the letter from the Recreation Board about additional funding for setting cross country skiing tracks in the park be placed on the agenda for discussion. ( 13) Commissioner Youngman submitted the following. (1) Stated concurrence with Commissioner Frost's request to place the Recreation Board's request for funding on the agenda for discussion. (2) Stated an interest in discussing the request from SOS for being added to any mailing lists. She noted that with the advent of technology, the capabilities for an electronic bulletin board exist; and if the City were to participate, the information would be . available via that method of communication as well. (3) She and City Manager Wysocki were interviewed on television regarding the G.O. bond issue. (14) Commissioner Stiff stated his appreciation for the staff assistance he has received in the past few days on catching up with last week's meeting and preparing for this meeting. 10-24-94 - .. ---- - 5 - ( 15) City Attorney Luwe stated that the AIU Insurance Company denial for coverage of the Bozeman Solvent Site was based on an exclusion clause regarding pollution in the insurance policy. He then stated that the City is pursuing coverage with other insurance carriers that do not have similar clauses in their insurance contracts. . (16) Clerk of the Commission Sullivan reviewed the agenda for next week's meeting, which does not include an evening session. ( 17) Mayor Vincent noted that he watched four cars, all headed west, clearly run the red light on the corner of South 8th Avenue and West Main Street. Decision - Zone MaD Amendment - SDringer GrouD Architects for CaDs-France - A-S to B-2 - 38.67 acres known as Tracts A-1 and A-2. cas No. 2827. located in the E%. SE~. Section 26. T1 S. R5E. MPM (west side of North 19th Avenue off ramp. south of 1-90) (94106) This was the time and place set for the decision on the Zone Map Amendment to change the zoning from A-5, Agriculture Suburban, to B-2, Community Business, as requested by Springer Group Architects for Cape-France, under Application No. Z-941 06, for a 38. 67-acre parcel known as Tracts A-1 and A-2, Certificate of Survey No. 2827, located in the East one- . half, Southeast one-quarter of Section 26, Township 1 South, Range 5 East, Montana Principal Meridian. The subject parcel is more commonly located at the west side of the North 19th Avenue off ramp, south of 1-90. Included in the Commissioners' packets was a copy of the draft minutes for the public hearing which was held at last week's meeting. Responding to questions from Commissioner Frost, City Attorney Luwe stated it is in the Commission's purview to approve a zoning designation which represents a downzoning for this parcel rather than approving the requested B-2 zoning designation. Responding to questions from Commissioner Stueck, the City Attorney noted that one of the questions raised at last week's meeting was whether approval of this requested zone map amendment would increase the City's responsibilities for remediation of the solvent site. . He noted his response is that the City would be jointly and severally responsible for the remediation if the plume does move into the subject site. He noted, however, that if the State approves water and sewer systems for the subject parcel, and the plume does travel to the subject site, the City will likely argue that the State should be held responsible for that remediation. 10-24-94 --..- - 6 - Commissioner Frost stated he had asked about the possibility of downzoning because he is concerned about a B-2 zoning along a gateway to the city. He noted it has been his understanding that this entryway would be residential; and he was somewhat surprised to learn that this area is, in fact, master planned for commercial development. He noted that under a B-2 zoning, anything which can be build downtown can be built here. He stated that, while . it is currently suggested that this area will be used for motels and restaurants, which he feels are appropriate uses for the subject 40-acre parcel, any B-2 use could be constructed on this parcel since zone map amendments are tied to the land rather than to any specific project. Commissioner Frost suggested that, to address his concerns and avoid the potential for development of an intense retail area that competes with the North 7th Avenue corridor and the downtown, this subject parcel be zoned BP, Business Park. He noted that under this zoning designation, the Commission could then consider a planned unit development, which would result in a development that is more appropriate for this corridor. Responding to questions from Commissioner Stueck, Planning Director Epple stated that under the master plan land use designation of commercial, the B~ 1, Neighborhood . Business, B-2, Community Business, and B-3, Downtown Business, Districts are all acceptable. He cautioned that the BP zoning proposed by Commissioner Frost allows light industrial activities not allowed under the commercial zones; therefore, it would not be considered a downzoning from the proposed B-2 zoning. He indicated that if the Commission wishes to consider the BP zoning, a new public hearing must be held. Planning Director Epple stated that the area designated for commercial development extends from the interchange to Baxter Lane only, with residential development from the south side of Baxter Lane to Durston Road. He noted that these land use designations represent an extension of the types of development that already exist in those areas. City Manager Wysocki cautioned that if the Commission wishes to pursue BP zoning, a master plan amendment must first be sought. . Responding to Commissioner Youngman, the Planning Director stated that now, with the entryway corridor design objectives, steps can be taken to ensure that development in this area will be quality developments. He also noted that the site plan review process is now considerably more sophisticated than in the past. He suggested that, with those two processes now available, he feels the necessary safeguards are in place to protect that corridor. 10-24-94 - .-. - 7 - Further responding to Commissioner Youngman, the Planning Director indicated that, unless the applicant pursues the planned unit development process, the Commission cannot specify the uses which would be allowed on this B-2 zoned parcel. Commissioner Stiff stated he would be concerned about downzoning this parcel, . particularly since he feels the planning and zoning processes can adequately respond to the concerns which have been raised. Responding to questions from Commissioner Youngman, City Attorney Luwe stated that if the plume spreads into a central water system for this site, the State will probably require that the structures in the area be connected to City services or that the water be purified through a carbon filtration system. City Attorney Luwe reiterated his proposed language for approval of this application, asking that staff be directed to bring an ordinance back at the time municipal water is available, or is assured through creation of an SID or other acceptable financing method, or when another central water distribution system is approved by the State with specific concurrence of the Department of Health and Environmental Science. . Planning Director Epple suggested that the Commission place a time limit on this approval, such as three or five years. He cautioned that if this is not done, several years from now, it could become confusing for those who try to understand the intent of this Commission. Commissioner Frost stated he cannot support this requested zone change because he does not believe it meets the twelve criteria set forth for review of zone map amendments, particularly No.3, which is "will the new zoning promote health and general welfare?" Commissioner Youngman stated her support for the requested rezoning. She noted that her concern about protecting the groundwater has been adequately addressed through the proposed language forwarded by staff. It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Stueck, that the Commission approve the Zone Map Amendment to change the zoning from A-S, Agriculture . Suburban, to B-2, Community Business, as requested by Springer Group Architects for Cape- France, under Application No. Z-941 06, for a 38.67-acre parcel known as Tracts A-1 and A-2, Certificate of Survey No. 2827, located in the East one-half, Southeast one-quarter of Section 26, Township 1 South, Range 5 East, Montana Principal Meridian, and direct staff to bring back an ordinance enacting this change at the time municipal water is available, or is assured 10-24-94 - - 8 - through creation of an SID or other acceptable financing method, or when another central water distribution system is approved by the State with specific concurrence of the Department of Health and Environmental Science, with the stipulation that this approval is effective for a period of three (3) years from this date. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Youngman . and Mayor Vincent; those voting No being Commissioner Frost. Decision - Master Plan Amendment - Don Hannah for Sourdouah Creek ProDerties - change land use desianation from Suburban Residential to Urban Residential - cas No. 1735. located in the NE%. Section 25. T2S. R6E. (147.23 acres located at the northeast corner of the intersection of South Third Avenue and Goldenstein Lane) (P-9441) This was the time and place set for the decision on the Master Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Suburban Residential to Urban Residential, as requested by Don Hannah for Sourdough Creek Properties, under Application No. P.9441, on Certificate of Survey No. 1735, located in the Northeast one-quarter, Section 25, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, Montana Principal Meridian. The subject 147.23-acre parcel is more commonly located at the northeast corner of the intersection of South Third Avenue and Goldenstein Lane. . Mayor Vincent reminded the Commissioners that their decisions must be based on the staff report and information received during the public hearing. He cautioned that none of the information received since the public hearing may be considered. Senior Planner Dave Skelton reviewed the contents of his memo dated October 19, which was included in the Commissioners' packets. He reminded the Commission that the Planning staff and the City-County Planning Board have recommended denial of this master plan amendment and the subsequent zone map amendment. He noted that if the Commission chooses to approve the master plan amendment, however, it must also approve urban density zoning. He reminded the Commission that they could choose to downzone the zoning, rather than approving the zoning which was requested. Commissioner Stueck noted that when the Commission voted to approve annexation . of this parcel, they discussed all of the issues which have been discussed in conjunction with this master plan amendment. He then indicated his support for this requested amendment. Commissioner Frost stated that, to him, annexation of the subject parcel enables the 10-24-94 - 9 - Commission to protect this sensitive area. He forwarded his preference that this area be served by City services rather than wells and septic systems. Commissioner Youngman concurred that during the annexation process, the Commission reviewed how sensitive this area is. She noted that a review of the discussions at that time revealed that issues discussed include wetlands, wildlife habitat, open space, . riparian zones, high groundwater, clustering, soil characteristics, and the undesirability of septic systems in this area. She noted that the issues of downstream flooding and on-site storm water retention have also been discussed extensively. She noted that, while the information received may have been more specific during the public hearing on this application, it was essentially the same as that submitted during the public hearing on the annexation request. She feels it is in the best interests of this parcel, with its special characteristics, as well as the entire community, to annex this property, with the appropriate land use designation and zoning, to ensure that those characteristics are protected. Commissioner Youngman stated that, as she understands the criteria for master plan amendments, she feels that bringing this parcel into the city and establishing an urban land use . designation is not inconsistent with the master plan. She stated that, on balance, the public good will be better served. Commissioner Stiff stated he feels it is in the best interests of the community to follow the previous decision on this parcel by establishing the appropriate land use designation. Mayor Vincent stated he did not support annexation of this parcel; and he does not support this proposed master plan amendment. He cited statements from various portions of the staff report, as the basis for his position. Those include the fact that timely emergency response cannot be provided, street and sanitation services will be very marginal. A lso, the additional vehicular traffic in that area will compound existing problems. Some of the streets in that area which are currently dead-end residential streets with minimal traffic will probably be incorporated into a transportation network that will result in significant traffic loads, . negatively impacting the neighborhood streets. Concerns about the surface water and the potential for flooding are also issues about which Mayor Vincent forwarded his concerns. He noted that wildlife habitat, wetlands and riparian areas in and adjacent to the city are in short supply; and he feels they should be carefully protected, rather than developed. 10-24-94 - 10- Mayor Vincent then reviewed the staff responses to the four criteria for master plan amendments, concurring in those responses and concluding that this application does not meet those criteria. He stated there are adequate alternative sites available in the community which are better suited for development. He also noted that infrastructure is not currently available to the subject parcel, but must be extended; and he is concerned how the transportation . network portion of that infrastructure will impact the surrounding neighborhoods. He also drew attention to the numerous water courses and wetlands on this subject parcel, noting that in its natural state, it is an asset to the community. Mayor Vincent stated he feels there is adequate language in the master plan upon which to deny this application, and that there is no need to wait for a critical lands study upon which to base a decision. He cited one goal in the master plan which calls for protecting "the valuable resources that are truly unique and fragile to the community's high mountain setting". Mayor Vincent stated he feels it is critical to maintain Bozeman's unique characteristics, particularly those which attract people to the community. He further noted the Planning staff and the Planning Board have both forwarded strong recommendations of denial; . and he feels those recommendations were appropriate. Commissioner Youngman stated that she carefully considered the recommendations forwarded by the Planning staff and the Planning Board. She then noted that the Planning Board did not consider the annexation and, therefore, did not need to consider any previous action when making their decision. She further noted that the recommendation for denial is based, at least in part, on the fact that a critical lands study has not been completed. She stated, however, that when the Commission directed that the study be undertaken, there was no discussion about stopping development until that study was completed. Mayor Vincent reaffirmed his position, stating he does not believe a critical lands study is needed to support denial of this application. It was moved by Commissioner Stueck, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the . Commission approve the Master Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Suburban Residential to Urban Residential, as requested by Don Hannah for Sourdough Creek Properties, under Application No. P-9441, on Certificate of Survey No. 1735, located in the Northeast one-quarter, Section 25, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, Montana Principal Meridian. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being 10-24-94 - 11 - Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman and Commissioner Stiff; those voting No being Mayor Vincent. Decision - Zone MaD Amendment - Don Hannah for Sourdough Creek Properties - chanae zoning from R-S to R-1. R-3 and B-1 - cas No. 1735. located in the NE%. Section 25. T2S. . R6E (147.23 acres located at the northeast corner of the intersection of South Third and Goldenstein Lane) (Z-9493) This was the time and place set for the decision on the Zone Map Amendment from "R-S", Residential--Suburban Country Estates District to "R-1", Residential--Single Family, low Density District, "R-3", Residential--Medium Density District, and "B-1", Neighborhood Service District, as requested by Don Hannah for Sourdough Creek Properties, under Application Z-9493, for a 147.23 acre parcel known as Certificate of Survey No. 1735, located in the northeast one-quarter of Section 25, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, Montana Principal Meridian. The subject property is more commonly located at the northeast corner of the intersection of South Third Avenue and Goldenstein lane. Senior Planner Dave Skelton stated that, based on the previous action, the Commission should now act to establish urban zoning designations for this subject parcel. He . then reminded the Commission of the request forwarded by the applicant, which is for the following zones: R-1 Residentialnlow-density, single-family 110.4 acres R-3 Resid entia Inmed i u m-d ensity 15.8 acres B-1 Neighborhood Service 7.5 acres PLI Public lands and Institutions 13.5 acres Total 147.2 acres The Senior Planner reminded the Commissioners that they may approve these zoning designations as submitted or may choose to downzone any of the requested zones, based on the staff report and information received during the public hearing. Responding to Commissioner Stiff, the Senior Planner stated it is possible to consider alternate uses for this site through the planned unit development process if the entire parcel . is zoned for low-density residential development. Commissioner Youngman suggested that the Commission approve the proposed PlI zoning and zone the remainder of the site as R-1, Residentialnlow-density, single-family. She noted that under this proposal, the applicant could still submit an application for a planned unit development to allow a higher density of residential development on some portions of the site. 10-24-94 - 12 - She also suggested that the more restrictive zoning is appropriate for protecting the property and its unique characteristics. Commissioner Frost stated his concern when considering zone map amendments is ensuring that the zoning will provide for appropriate development of a parcel; and he tends to . prefer the more restrictive zoning. He stated that in this instance, it is unfortunate that there is no more restrictive urban designation than R-1. He noted the subject parcel is not a flat piece of land that can be developed from lot line to lot line in quarter-acre, half-acre or acre lots. He then stated that, in light of the options available, he supports PLI and R-1 zoning for this parcel. Commissioner Stueck stated he feels that PLI and R-1 zoning is appropriate for this parcel, particularly since any departure from the typical development within an R-1 zone will require going through the planned unit development process, which includes public hearings. Commissioner Stiff stated he, too, supports PLI and R-1 zoning for this parcel, based on several of the arguments which have been forwarded by the other Commissioners. Mayor Vincent stated that, while he supports the proposed downzoning which has . been discussed by the other Commissioners, he cannot vote for this zone map amendment based on his previous votes regarding annexation and the master plan amendment. Senior Planner Skelton reminded the Commission that any motion on the zone map amendment is contingent upon completion of the annexation agreement, annexation of the property and adoption of the master plan amendment. He further noted that a legal description, prepared by a certified surveyor licensed in the State of Montana, must be prepared prior to adoption or an ordinance enacting the zone map amendment. He stated that the County Commission must also review and approve the master plan amendment before it becomes effective. Commissioner Frost stressed the importance of remembering that approvals of the requests for annexation, master plan amendment and zone map amendment in no way . guarantees approval of any subdivision. He stated that a review of the minutes showed that at least fifteen times, people made the statement that they would prefer that this land remain in its natural state. He agreed that, while that might be preferable, this is private land; and the City cannot afford to purchase it. He noted that, in that light, it is imperative that the Commission take action to ensure that development of this land is in the best interests of the 10-24-94 -.-...... --- - 13 - general welfare of the community. He stated that the next step is a specific development proposal; and that is the time when many of the issues and concerns raised by those who have testified will be addressed, i.e., traffic, wildlife habitat, and open space. Commissioner Frost then stated that the typical development of R-1 zoned property, which is quarter-acre lots, is not good enough for this piece of property. He noted, instead, . that any development proposal must be sensitive to this specific piece of property. Commissioner Stueck stated his concurrence with Commissioner Frost's comments. Commissioner Youngman noted that this parcel is worth millions of dollars; and the City has only $50,000 in its Parkland Trust Fund. She further cautioned that it is not possible to prohibit development of this parcel because that would constitute a taking of the property. She then indicated that many of the concerns raised during this process will be considered and addressed during review of any proposal for development of the property. Commissioner Stiff stated that under R-1 zoning, he believes this property can develop in a manner which is compatible with surrounding development. Mayor Vincent stated that, while he feels the change to R-1 zoning is an . improvement, he cannot support it. He then reviewed several comments from the staff report concerning the requested :zone map amendment. He noted that this is one of the few pristine areas in or near the city; and he feels it should be protected rather than developed. He stated that, as a result of his review of the twelve criteria for consideration, he found that this application does not meet seven, does meet three and is neutral on two of the criteria. He indicated that his major concerns revolve around traffic impacts and the pristine, natural setting which this parcel provides. He stated that urban growth, an any density, is not appropriate on this parcel. Mayor Vincent stated he is concerned that with approval of each succeeding process, development of the site is becoming inevitable. He noted tremendous amount of testimony received encouraging the Commission to take steps to ensure that this property remains in its . natural state; and he feels it is imperative to consider that input. He stated that, while the proposed downzoning is better than what was requested, he still cannot support it. Commissioner Frost emphasized that he could not support a proposed development of this parcel that is similar to the surrounding development. He noted that this whole area, 10-24-94 - 14 - including the portion already developed, is a sensitive area; and development to date has not taken that sensitivity into consideration. It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that the Commission approve a Zone Map Amendment from "R-S", Residential-Suburban Country . Estates District to "R-'", Residential--Single Family, Low Density District, and "PLI", Public Lands and Institutions, in response to the request by Don Hannah for Sourdough Creek Properties, under Application Z-9493, for a 147.23 acre parcel known as Certificate of Survey No. 1735, located in the northeast one-quarter of Section 25, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, Montana Principal Meridian, contingent upon annexation; approval of the master plan amendment by the County Commission; and preparation of a legal description and map for the zone map amendment, prepared by a surveyor licensed to do business in Montana. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff and Commissioner Stueck; those voting No being Mayor Vincent. . Break - 4:43 to 4:47 p.m. Mayor Vincent declared a break from 4:43 p.m. to 4:47 p.m., in accordance with Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983. Work session with County Commissioners re: a) aas tax b) status of dedication of right-ot- way for West Babcock Street c) impact fees Status of Dedication of Right-of-Way tor West Babcock Street. Commissioner Frost asked what has happened since the memo dated June 22, a copy of which was included in the Commissioners' packets. County Commissioner Jane Jelinski stated that the County Commission approached the City and asked if they should proceed. The response was that they should wait until after . the bond issue has been resolved. She stated they are simply waiting until the City indicates it is ready to move forward; and they will then direct the County Attorney to proceed. County Commissioner Jelinski stated that this will be a long, complicated process, and it is important to forward a jOint petition through the Court system. 10-24-94 __n - 15 - The City Commissioners asked what is needed to move the process forward, noting it was their understanding that the process was moving. City Attorney Luwe suggested that the City Commission instruct him to work with County Attorney Salvagni to prepare the necessary documentation. Responding to questions from the City Manager, Director of Public Service Forbes . stated that the City has a 90-toot right-ot,way tor West Babcock Street in the Valley Unit Subdivision; and it has acquired a 45-foot right-of-way for those subdivisions which have been recently approved. The County Commissioners cautioned that the County standard road right-of-way is 60 feet rather than 90 feet. They cautioned that through the Court system, a BO-foot right-of- way may be established rather than a 90-foot, as required by the City. City Attorney Luwe indicated that is an issue to be addressed by the Court system, possibly the Supreme Court. Mayor Vincent noted this is the type of issue which the public watches carefully. He emphasized the importance of this project, since it reflects a cooperation between the City and . County governments. Impact Fees. County Planning Director Mary Kay Peck stated that the County has contracted with a consultant to prepare a study on impact fees. She stated that the County has formed a committee, comprised of people from the development community, representatives from all of the City governments involved, the fire districts and the school district. The RFP includes fire district fees for the entire county, both inside and outside city limits, as well as school district fees inside and outside city limits, and road fees outside city limits only. The individual Cities may choose to add impact fees for municipal services, such as roads, water and sewer, at their cost. She then stated that the consultant has entered into a twelve-month contract; and the County encourages the individual Cities to utilize this consultant for their work as well, since . the result would be a more unified product. Responding to Mayor Vincent, Planning Director Epple stated he serves on the steering committee for this project and has met with the consultant. He then encouraged the Commission to contract with this consultant to review the work an intern in his office has done 10-24-94 ~.__.- - 16 - on impact fees for the street system, to ensure that the City's impact fees are legally defensible and do not conflict with the County's road impact fees. Responding to Mayor Vincent, County Planning Director Peck stated that the County will probably be divided into districts, with different impact fees set in the individual districts. She suggested that the City could be divided into districts in a similar manner. . County Road Superintendent Sam Gianfrancisco stated the consultant is looking at dividing the County into four or five districts, with the impact fees to be consistent with those areas. He cautioned that the City may not wish to divide into districts, since the monies generated from the impact fees must be used for new construction within that district. Responding to County Commissioner Dave Pruitt, Mayor Vincent stated that the Commissioners have listed the areas in which they would be interested in pursuing impact fees; and that list is extensive. He suggested that the Commission could select the top three or four items and then see about the possibility of including those in the impact fee study. Director of Public Service Forbes stated that the City is in the facility planning process on water and sewer services. He stated that, while no deadline for the plans has been . identified, the consultant is working on those plans. County Commissioner Kris Dunn asked that any requests for inclusion in the impact fee study be accompanied by funding. City Manager Wysocki indicated an interest in working with the consultant to determine whether he has the expertise and time to include additional City impact fees in the study. Commissioner Youngman stated her concern about the timing of the impact fees. She noted that the original discussions were about impact fees being in place early next year; however, it appears that this process will not allow for those impact fees to be in place for the next building season at all. She noted that with the growth rate which Bozeman is currently experiencing, that represents a substantial loss of revenues from impact fees. She then asked . if there is any way to get impact fees in place prior to the next building season. County Planning Director Peck suggested that the County could prioritize the various impact fees, with transportation being the most important, in an effort to get that aspect completed more quickly. She then emphasized the importance of making sure that the impact fees are legal and fair because Gallatin County and Bozeman are on the leading edge of 10-24-94 _----"".;""'C"'-::- - - 17 - developing impact fees in Montana; and the study will probably be copied by others in the state. She then indicated that the consultant is one of the top people in the United States in this field. Mayor Vincent noted that the election on November 8 could substantially change the . rules under which local governments are operating, particularly in light of some of the initiatives on that ballot. Responding to Questions from Commissioner Stueck, City Attorney Luwe stated that County Attorney Salvagni has issued an opinion that the City and the County, which are both general government powers, can implement impact fees. He noted that the citations in the opinion are applicable to both cities and counties. He then noted there is only one court case in Montana regarding impact fees; and that case involves a self-government powers government. County Commissioner Jelinski stated the County Commission believes that it has the implicit authority to implement impact fees; and the County Attorney concurs. She then stated a preference to not seek enabling legislation for impact fees because research shows those . states without enabling legislation have better impact fees than those with enabling legislation. County Commissioner Pruitt stated the consultant has cautioned his recommendation may be that impact fees are not the best way to go. Responding to Questions from City Manager Wysocki, County Road Superintendent Gianfrancisco stated that the boundaries of the districts must be carefully drawn. He then suggested that linking of one area to another through a main roadway is also important to consider. Planning Director Epple stated that, while he understands the City Commission's interests in getting the impact fees in place as Quickly as possible, it is also imperative to establish the impact fees in a comprehensive manner for both the City and the County. He then suggested that the City not be divided into districts, but that it be maintained as one . district. The Planning Director then cautioned the Commission that it cannot utilize both impact fees and off-site exactions; it must be one or the other. County Planning Director Peck noted that the fees must also be proportionate to the impact that the development is causing. 10-24-94 - 18 - County Commissioner Jelinski stated that the public hearing process has been included in the timeline proposed by the consultant. She also noted that he intends to involve the development community in developing the impact fees. County Road Superintendent Gianfrancisco noted that Montana City and Kalispell both tried to enact impact fees, but werp. required to refund the few impact fees that they did . collect. He stated it is important for Gallatin County and Bozeman to avoid that same situation. Gas Tax. County Commissioner Jane Jelinski stated that, after the first informal discussion about a local option gas tax, they recognized that legislative changes are needed to assure that that tax does not create a negative impact on the County or City business. She noted that City Manager Wysocki has indicated an interest in seeking a legislative change which would allow municipalities to place a local option gas tax on the ballot, without the concurrence of the County Commission. She noted another legislative change to be considered is revision of the formula by which the gas tax revenues are apportioned. She stated that the gasoline distributors have indicated they would support a change in legislation that would give more gas . tax revenues to local governments from the existing State gas tax. She then reiterated the County Commission's willingness to work with the City, through the Montana Association of Counties and the Montana League of Cities and Towns, in seeking legislative change. Responding to City Manager Wysocki, County Commissioner Jelinski stated that MACo has not adopted any resolution pertaining to this issue. Responding to comments from the City Manager, City Attorney Luwe stated that County Attorney Mike Salvagni har. issued an opinion on the point of sale. County Road Superintendent Gianfrancisco noted, however, that the distributors disagree with that opinion. County Commissioner Jelinski stated that the Yellowstone County Commission had considered placing a local option gas tax on the ballot, but has decided that a legislative change is needed before it can be effectively implemented. . County Commissioner Dave Pruitt stated that the County Commission could not place this issue on the ballot at the request of only one City within the county; rather, all five Cities must request that it be placed on the ballot. He noted that what might be beneficial for Bozeman might be detrimental to Three Forks, Manhattan, Belgrade or West Yellowstone. He 10-24-94 - .-.-.- - - 19 - then indicated that allowing local municipalities to place a local option gas tax on the ballot might resolve some of the problems that could be encountered with a county-wide tax. Mayor Vincent stated that, in light of the fact that the sales tax was resoundingly defeated, this legislative session may be the time to seek the ability for local option taxes. County Road Superintendent Gianfrancisco stated that Governor Racicot has indicated . a willingness to look at the formula for distribution of the gas tax currently coiiected, to give cities and counties a better portion of it. He suggested that if local governments can get another two or three cents per gallon from this source, it may not be necessary to seek a local option tax. Mayor Vincent asked that additional discussion on this topic be placed on the agenda in three to four weeks, after the election results are known. Continued public hearina - Variance from Section 18.50.120.F(2) of the Bozeman Municipal Code - Westmain Ventures. Inc. - allow 16 of the reauired 22 off-street parkina spaces for retail sales - Lot 4. Festival Sauare Minor Subdivision (2405 West Main Street) (C-9417) This was the time and place set for the continued public hearing on the variance from . Section 18.50.120.F(2) of the Bozeman Municipal Code, as requested by Westmain Ventures, Inc. under Application No. C-9417, to allow the installation of 16 of the required 22 off-street parking spaces for retail sales on Lot 4, Festival Square Minor Subdivision. The subject site is more commonly located at 2405 West Main Street. Mayor Vincent opened the continued public hearing. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell presented a brief overview of the staff report, which she had presented at last week's meeting. She reminded them that the requested variance is for Building II in the Oakwood development, which is located within the Festival Square Planned Unit Development. The variance is being sought because the applicant wishes to construct a 2,500-square-foot mezzanine in Building II, which requires an additional seven parking spaces. Since 16 of the 54 parking spaces being provided on the site have been . designated for this building and 15 parking spaces were required, that leaves a shortage of 6 parking spaces. She noted that the 54 parking spaces plus 3 disabled parking spaces represent 4 more than the required number of parking spaces for the two single-story buildings being constructed on this lot. 10-24-94 ~ 20 - The Assistant Planning Director stated that options available under the code include providing additional landscaping in lieu of up to five parking spaces; however, that option has not been pursued. She reminded the Commission that since no on-street parking is allowed in the 40-foot-wide street right-of-way, a separate overflow parking lot, containing 29 parking . spaces, has been constructed at the north end of the development, to serve the entire development on a first come, first served basis. Assistant Planning Director Arkell stated that staff has reviewed this application in light of the three criteria established by the Supreme Court; and those findings have been included in the staff report. She stated that, based on those findings, the staff cannot support approval of this request. The Assistant Planning Director noted that one of the questions raised during last week's public hearing was whether six of the parking spaces in the existing lot could be earmarked for this particular business. She stated that a conversation with Mr. Dave Wallin, one of the owners and original developers of this commercial planned unit development, revealed that he was not supportive of this proposal. She then indicated that, unless he has . changed his mind since and forwarded a letter to the applicants, that does not appear to be an option. The Assistant Planning Director noted that Mr. Jim Cover, Montana Furniture Galleries, has offered to do a deed restriction or an agreement with the City under which the mezzanine would be removed when he moved. Responding to Commissioner Frost, City Attorney Luwe stated that after the Commission has determined that this application meets the three criteria established by the Montana Supreme Court, it can add conditions to approval of the application if it so chooses. Responding to Commissioner Stiff, Assistant Planning Director Arkell stated that under the zone code, an applicant may seek a reduction of up to 10 percent of the required parking spaces, to a maximum of five parking spaces, in exchange for an additional 350 square feet . of landscaping or amenities per space. She noted, however, that this option has not been pursued. Commissioner Stiff noted that a review of the written material reveals that parking requirements for this business could be determined in several different ways. He also noted 1 0- 24-94 - 21 ~ that if employees of the business were required to park in the existing overflow lot, that would open up parking for customers. Mayor Vincent noted he is in a quandary because he cannot find a basis for finding in support of the three criteria established by the Supreme Court; however, he is interested in . approving this application if possible. . Mr. Craig McVicker, developer of the property, stated he feels that an appropriate parking requirement for this subject use is 1 to 1 % spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space. He suggested that staff supports this calculation for this type of retail use. He recognized the Commission's concern that a future retail use of this site might require more parking spaces than this retail use. In light of that recognition, he is willing to accept a condition that the mezzanine be used as show room space only. Mr. McVicker stated that the common parking which has already been provided for this planned unit development is designated as overflow parking for customers, employees and contractors for the tenants within this development. He stated that they were not successful in their attempt to set aside six of these parking spaces to meet the parking requirements for . this project. He then encouraged Commission approval of this variance. Responding to Mr. McVicker, Assistant Planning Director Arkell stated the applicant is asking that the Commission approve his calculations that 1 space per 406 square feet of floor space is adequate. She stated that, as staff she cannot approve that request because it does not meet code requirements, although she does recognize that requiring 1 space per 300 square feet of floor space may be excessive for this use. City Manager Wysocki noted that the draft minutes from last week's public hearing indicate that Montana Furniture Galleries is proposing a 2,500-square-foot mezzanine for offices, storage and furniture display; and that was taken into consideration when determining the number of required off-street parking spaces. He stated that Mr. McVicker's suggestion that the mezzanine area be used as a show room does not change the number of parking . spaces that must be provided for this use. Responding to questions from the City Manager, Mr. McVicker stated that there is no specific off-street parking requirement for small furniture retail spaces; therefore, staff has determined that the general retail requirements must be followed. He stated that a review of technical manuals regarding parking requirements suggests that 1 to 1 % parking spaces per 10-24-94 .---- --- - 22 - 1,000 square feet of gross floor area is sufficient for this type of use; and that is the basis upon which he has forwarded this request. Mr. McVicker then stated that steps have already been taken in preparation for Mr. Cover moving into this building, including terminating of the lease for his present location. . City Manager Wysocki cautioned the Commission that the decision on a variance request must be based on the three criteria set by the Montana Supreme Court, including topography or shape of the lot. He cautioned that a financial hardship is not a basis upon which a variance may be granted. Responding to Commissioner Stiff, Assistant Planning Director Arkell stated that staff has not reviewed the amount of landscaping proposed to determine how much excess exists. She indicated that none of the landscaping may be eliminated to provide more parking because of front yard designations and setback requirements. Responding to Commissioner Stiff, Mr. McVicker stated the applicant would prefer a condition regarding use of the mezzanine rather than providing a deed restriction to ensure that parking requirements for a future use be met. . Responding to questions from City Manager Wysocki, Mr. Jim Cover stated that his current store is approximately 7,500 square feet in size; and he is operating with three to four parking spaces. He stated that, while the floor space of the existing single~story building is 5,000 square feet, a 2,500-square-foot mezzanine was planned from the start, to provide roughly the same square footage as he currently has. Responding to the City Manager, Mr. McVicker stated that, in light of conversations with staff and Mr. Cover, he did not anticipate it would be a problem to complete the actions necessary to install the mezzanine and allow his business to move into this building. Responding to questions from Commissioner Stueck, the Assistant Planning Director stated that the parking spaces for Building No.2 are not specifically designated within the common parking area between the two buildings on this lot. . City Attorney Luwe reminded the Commission that the applicant was given two avenues to pursue, one was the variance process and the other was the zone code amendment process; and the applicant has chosen the variance process. Mr. Jim Cover reminded the Commission that the common parking lot, which contains 1 O~ 24-94 - - - - 23 - 29 parking spaces, is still available to Montana Furniture Galleries, even though none of those parking spaces can be specifically earmarked for its use. Responding to Mayor Vincent, Assistant Planning Director Arkell stated that on-street parking cannot be considered when reviewing an application; therefore, the fact that no on- . street parking is allowed within this planned unit development has no impact on the process to which this application is subjected. Responding to Commissioner Stiff, Mr. Cover stated a willingness to provide a deed restriction prior to occupancy of the structure, if that is the condition imposed on approval of this application. Commissioner Stiff noted the history of this business and the assistance which has been previously provided by the City. He then indicated his interest in allowing the applicant to move into this site, under whatever mechanism is available through the code. Ms. Susan Smiley, 2502 West Babcock Street, stated her property backs up to the subject planned unit development. She stated her concerns pertain to the narrow streets and the negative impacts that parking on those streets may have on emergency vehicles trying to . gain access to building within the development. She recognized that those roads have been designated for no on-street parking, and signed accordingly; however, she noted the violations which are prevalent near the Perkins restaurant. She stated that the common parking lot, with its existing 29 parking spaces, is a substantial distance from the buildings it is designed to serve; and people will typically park on the street rather than parking in that lot and walking to their destination. Ms. Smiley stated there is one way in and one way out from this development, via a circular road. She expressed concern that, with the amount of development which can occur in this planned unit development, there may not be adequate off-street parking; and that could lead to potential problems in traveling down those streets. She then questioned how this building, which was originally designated as a one-story building in compliance with the . covenants, can sUddenly become a two-story building. Mr. Jim Cover responded that the building itself has not changed. He stated there was adequate height, given the steep pitch of the roof, to accommodate a mezzanine with no exterior changes. He then stated that he will still have the same customers and the same off- street parking needs in his new location as he currently has across the street. He then stressed 10-24-94 - 24 - his position that the number of off-street parking spaces provided for this building are adequate for his business. Mr. Stuart Dilly, Store Manager of Montana Furniture Galleries, stated his support for this requested variance. He questioned who will use the 29 parking spaces in the common parking lot if neither the employees nor the customers park there. He suggested that the . employees from Montana Furniture Galleries could be required to park back there, thus opening the spaces within their parking lot for customers. Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Vincent closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stiff noted that Mr. Cover has agreed to provide a deed restriction, which would ensure that any future new business would be required to meet the parking requirements for that type of business. He also noted the excess landscaping which is being provided on this site, stating he feels that the parking provided on site may be adequate. Commissioner Frost stated that he has driven through the subject planned unit development several times this past week; and there are always several cars parked along the . street, particularly near Perkins restaurant. He stated that, while he feels this application could qualify for some type of deviation, it is important to remember that this application is for a variance and must be considered in light of the three criteria set by the Montana Supreme Court. In light of Commissioner comments regarding waiving of the one-week waiting period, Mayor Vincent requested that the decision on this item be placed on next week's agenda. Consent Items City Manager Wysocki presented to the Commission the following Consent Items. Commission Resolution No. 3024 - authorizing submittal of aDDlication for Land and Water Conservation Fund monies (imcrovements to Westlake Park) e COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3024 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONT ANA, AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ASSISTANCE. 10-24-94 __ .n _ --....-.--. ...-... .-...-.---.------.-.---.---------- - 25 - Commission Resolution No. 3025 - ratifvina amendment of the term of bonds for the $374.600 Pooled Scecial Imcrovement Distriqt Bonds. Series 1994 (SID Nos. 660 and 663) COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3025 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN. MONTANA, RATIFYING THE AMENDMENT OF THE TERM OF BONDS FOR . $374,600 POOLED SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BONDS. SERIES 1994 (SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOS. 660 AND 663) Award bids - cooled bond sale for Sceciallmcroyement District Nos. 660 and 663 - $374.600 Authorize setting of Dublic hearings for Detitions for annexation into MSU neighborhood Darking district for November 7. 1994 Apcoint Commissioner Stiff to reclace Mayor Vincent as Commission reDresentative on City-County Health Board Buildina InsDection Division reDort for SeDtember 1994 Claims It was moved by Commissioner Youngman, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, 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 e vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Frost and Mayor Vincent; those voting No, none. Recess - 6:18 D.m. Mayor Vincent declared a recess at 6: 18 p.m., to reconvene at 7:00 p.m., for the purpose of conducting the scheduled public hearings and work session. Reconvene - 7:00 D.m. Mayor Vincent reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m., for the purpose of conducting the scheduled public hearings and work session. e Public hearinQ - Commission Resolution No. 3016 - levyinQ and assessinQ delinquent 1993 sidewalk reDair Drogram charges This was the time and place set for the public hearing on Commission Resolution No. 3016, as approved by the City Attorney, entitled: 10-24-94 -------- --- -..-"'..- - 26 - COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, LEVYING AND ASSESSING A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT UPON CERTAIN SPECIFIED REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, COUNTY OF GALLATIN, STATE OF MONTANA, TO COLLECT 1993 SIDEWALK REPAIR CHARGES PLUS COSTS AND EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CITY OF BOZEMAN. . Mayor Vincent opened the public hearing. City Manager Wysocki stated that there is one delinquency involved. This individual has been billed for the work completed but has not paid to date. The next step in the collection process is to place the delinquent amount on the assessments, which then becomes a lien on the property. No one was present to speak in support of or in opposition to this resolution. Mayor Vincent closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Stueck, that the Commission finally adopt Commission Resolution No. 3016, levying and assessing delinquent 1993 sidewalk repair program charges. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: . those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman and Mayor Vincent; those voting No, none. Public hearing - Commission Resolution No. 3017 - levvina and assessina delinauent weed mowing charaes for Fiscal Year 1994 This was the time and place set for the public hearing on Commission Resolution No. 3017, as approved by the City Attorney, entitled: COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3017 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, LEVYING AND ASSESSING A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT UPON CERTAIN SPECIFIED REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, COUNTY OF GALLATIN, STATE OF MONTANA, TO COLLECT WEED CUTTING OR EXTERMINATING CHARGES PLUS COSTS AND EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 7-22-4101, MONTANA CODE ANNOTATED AND CHAPTER 8.36 OF THE e BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE. Mayor Vincent opened the public hearing. City Manager Wysocki stated that in this instance, as well, one delinquency is involved. This individual has been billed for the work completed but has not paid to date. The 10-24-94 - 27 ~ next step in the collection process is to place the delinquent amount on the assessments, which then becomes a lien on the property. No one was present to speak in support of or in opposition to this resolution. Mayor Vincent closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Stueck, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the . Commission finally adopt Commission Resolution No. 30t 7, levying and assessing delinquent weed mowing charges for Fiscal Year 1994. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Vincent; those voting No, none. Work session with the Planning Board and Design Review Board Since this is a work session, minutes will be abbreviated. Those in attendance at this work session introduced themselves. They included: City Commission Mayor John Vincent Commissioner Don Stueck . Commissioner Joe Frost Commissioner Marcia Youngman Commissioner AI Stiff City-County Planning Board Clark Babcock Lisa Prugh Katherine Ball Michael Vincent Frank Boschi Marty Weaver Jim Devitt Design Review Board Cliff Chisholm Richard Parrish Roger Cruwys Maire O'Neill John DeHaas Kim Walker Ellen Kreigbaum Staff members Andy Epple, Planning Director Debbie Arkell, Assistant Planning Director e Citizens Carol Dietrich Dan Kamp, Southwest Montana Building Industry Association Lowell Springer Dixie Swenson, Gallatin Development Corporation Jim Syth, Southwest Montana Building Industry Association 1 0-24~94 -. - ---..-----.. - 28 - Mayor Vincent asked that the group begin by addressing the question "What is working best?", followed by "What needs to be improved?" Commissioner Frost stated he feels the program under the current zone code is working well; and he appreciates the time which the volunteers on the various boards spend in reviewing applications and forwarding recommendations. . Mr. Michael Vincent noted that Planning staff does a good job of forwarding information to the Board members. He also noted that the technical information provided by the DRB is beneficial to the Planning Board. Dr. John DeHaas noted that the Planning staff has grown over the past few years; and its additional expertise is very beneficial to the advisory bodies. He stated that the DRB is limited to reviewing the design elements of an application, therefore, their recommendations may not be accepted in their entirety because of other considerations. He then forwarded his position that the City is not trying to restrict growth, it is simply trying to control it; and he feels that is imperative. Mr. Clark Babcock characterized the review process as a service to people who don't . know exactly what they want to do in a project. Mrs. Kim Walker suggested that if the public were more informed about the actual processes, it could be beneficial. She pointed out that the general public is afraid of the process and won't try it because of fear of the unknown, noting that a flyer outlining the processes may be all that is needed to alleviate many of those fears and make the process easier for everyone. Planning Director Epple stated that staff has just given a series of tip sheets on the various processes to the Planning Board members for their review. He noted that they are on different colored paper for ease in identifying the different processes featured in those tip sheets. Ms. Carol Dietrich forwarded the frustration which the public feels when they are . precluded from participating in discussion of a topic which has been the subject of a previous public hearing, particularly when the plans have been changed. City Manager Wysocki cautioned the Commission that there comes a point where the opportunity for public comment is ended, particularly when the changes made after that time are the direct result of public input. 10-24-94 - ---------- - - - 29 - Mrs. Katherine Ball expressed concern about those times when projects are forwarded through the Design Review Board, the Planning Board and the Commission; and different sets of plans are submitted at each meeting. She noted the frustration which the advisory bodies feel when the Commission approves a project that doesn't look anything like what they had . reviewed. She suggested that, either the proposal should be forwarded through the entire process with the same site plan or it should be referred back to the advisory bodies for additional review prior to final Commission action. Mr. Cliff Chisholm noted the tendency of ORB members to give advice to individuals when the plans submitted show a lack of good design. He noted it is difficult for a professional not to forward such advice, even though they try not to redesign projects which seem to meet all of the requirements. Mrs. Ball encouraged that staff not accept applications which are incomplete, noting that could alleviate much of the frustration felt by the various boards and the Commission, recognizing that such situations do not often arise. Responding to Mayor Vincent, Planning Director Epple stated that the key juncture . in the process is ensuring that applications which do not meet the submittal requirements are not accepted. He noted that the submittal requirements are not unreasonable; and that would be an appropriate step to take. Mr. Dan Kamp asked how to make the conceptual review process work better. He noted that if some of the key questions were addressed head on during the conceptual review stage, then the developer would be better able to address those concerns and submit a plan which might be more acceptable to the community and the Commission. He stated that the current reviews do not seem to face those issues as directly as they should. Ms. Marty Weaver expressed concern about the concept review process, noting it is scheduled late in the Planning Board meeting; and the Board members have no plans or information to review ahead of time. She also noted that the Board members do not have a . list of questions or issues that should be addressed in that type of review, to ensure a quality review. Mr. Kamp and Mrs. Ball both expressed concern that there is little to no public input early in the process. However, when the application reaches the City Commission, a substantial amount of public input may be encountered. 10-24-94 --- -- - 30 - Mrs. Lisa Prugh, Chair of the Planning Board, asked the ORB members to be consistent in their recommendations. She stated that as a lay person on the Planning Board, she values the technical reviews conducted by the Design Review Board; and she realizes heavily on their expertise and advice in making her decisions. She then asked if the recommendations being forwarded by the Planning Board are adequate enough and consistent . enough for the Commission. Commissioner Youngman suggested that more comprehensive discussions at the ORB meetings, and more detailed minutes which reflect those discussions, would be beneficial. She expressed concern that at times, it appears that comments made by individual members are lost in the shuffle rather than consciously dismissed. She also noted that the rationale behind majority and minority opinions, particularly on close votes, could be beneficial. The Commissioner suggested that a similar process for the Planning Board could also provide a better product for the Commission to review. Mrs. Prugh suggested that a liaison member be appointed to attend the meetings of other bodies considering an application. She noted that valuable information could be gleaned . from that individual if the written information does not provide it. Planning Director Epple reminded the Commission that staff prepares a report to the ORB, which includes a checklist; and that is forwarded in conjunction with the application. He noted that if an issue is not specifically addressed by the ORB, it is typically because they agree with the staff's analysis. Mrs. Kim Walker noted that trust is a key issue in the review processes. She suggested that the staff and each reviewing agency must trust the others to address the issues and forward the best recommendation possible. Mr. Michael Vincent stated concurrence with that comment. He then noted that, while the boards must uphold values and the criteria set forth, the City Commission's decision is more politically motivated; and it is important to recognize that difference. . Planning Director Epple recognized that staff should provide a better orientation for new Design Review Board members. He then noted that the Historic Preservation Advisory Commission does have a pool of architectural consultants who are willing to provide up to two hours of review and advice. He suggested that utilizing that service could help to avoid the frustrations encountered by the DRB and the Planning Board. 10-24-94 - 31 - Mr. Lowell Springer stated he likes the changes that have been made in the ORB's procedure; and he feels it is important to ensure those changes remain. He then encouraged the ORB to respect staff opinion, particularly in light of the expertise of various staff members. He noted that the DRB makes any recommendations they feel are appropriate; and those recommendations are then forwarded to the Planning Board. Following its review the Planning . Board makes any needed adjustments through the conditions it attaches to its recommendation, which is then forwarded to the Commission. Mr. Springer suggested that discussion at the Commission level then be limited to discussion of those items which remain at issue, rather than going back through the entire design process once again. Commissioner Frost responded by stating that the minutes of the ORB meetings and the Planning Board meetings sometimes suggest that an issue which was discussed was overlooked when developing conditions for approval; and he feels it is important to go back over that discussion and possibly add conditions. Planning Director Epple stated he plans to address the concerns which have been raised by the Commission, ensuring that all points are specifically address and that the minutes . reflect a disposition of those points, rather than the appearance that they were inadvertently omitted. Mr. Jim Devitt stated that it may be beneficial to incorporate some method of ensuring that the message is carried from one board to the next. He recognized that staff already has a heavy load; however, he suggested that this type of communication could be extremely beneficial to everyone. The Planning Director suggested that with the changes he plans to implement, that issue should be adequately addressed. Commissioner Frost noted how the process has evolved, particularly at the ORB level, in response to requests from the Commission for additional information. He noted that most applications go through the process with little problem; however, there are a few difficult e application with which the Boards and the Commission must wrestle. He then noted the Commission is different because it is elected and is responsible to the community and its residents. He stated that, with adequate support from its advisory boards, the Commission can make the best possible decision after weighing all of the issues. 1 O~24-94 ..- - 32 - Commissioner Frost stated that, after looking at what has happened in the community in the past 4 Y2 years, he feels that the zone code and the attendant processes are working well. Mrs. Lisa Prugh stated she views the public process involved as one of the most . unique in Montana. noting that people have an opportunity to provide input at all the different levels of the review process. Mr. Lowell Springer noted that, while the process is open for public input, the public has a tendency to wait until a project reaches the Commission before submitting their information because they know that is where the final decision is to be made. He then reminded the Commission that the master plan and the zone code must be considered; and they have the support information from the Planning staff and the Boards which should be carefully considered in conjunction with any public input. Mr. Dan Kamp asked how the Commission separates valid input from the NIMBY factor. Mr. Michael Vincent encouraged the Commissioners to send a project back to the . Boards for review if changes have been made through the process. He suggested that this process would lend credibility to the Boards and their recommendations. He noted that, while he recognizes the importance of streamlining the process as much as possible, he feels that the Boards should be allowed to provide input on substantive changes. Mrs. Kim Walker encouraged the Commissioners to determine that those items which were addressed by the Development Review Committee, the Design Review Board and the City- County Planning Board have been adequately addressed, and not rehash them. She further encouraged them to consider the big picture rather than the minute details. She stated that repeated reviews of the same issues can become frustrating to everyone involved. City Manager Wysocki stated that sending applications with substantive changes back through the review process is one of the best ways to ensure that the process is working e properly. He noted that it may take sending four or five applications back through the process for the development community to learn that it is important to forward the same application through the process. Mrs. Lisa Prugh stated it is demoralizing to the Planning Board members to have the 1 0- 24-94 --- ---- - 33 - Commission approve an application for development that is substantially different from what they saw, without being given an opportunity to review the new plans. Following a brief discussion on this issue, everyone concurred it would be best to use the same set of plans through the entire process, thus avoiding the confusion that could be . encountered when reviewing different sets of plans which have been prepared in response to conditions recommended by the various advisory bodies. Planning Director Epple noted that, at the present time, the recommendations from the ORB and the Planning Board are forwarded to the Commission; however, the Commission's final decision is not forwarded back to the Boards. He suggested that the completion of that loop might be beneficial. The Planning Director stated he does not feel the process is broke, particularly when comparing the number of approvals to the number of disapprovals. Mr. Dan Kamp stated that the development community perception is that the process is working quite well. He noted, however, that they are concerned about the political issues, particularly since they are interested in a high degree of predictability. . Commissioner Youngman suggested that another work session be set to discuss some of the questions which have not yet been addressed and to discuss any other issues which may have arisen. Following a brief discussion, those in attendance determined that would be appropriate. Adiournment - 9:55 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 Stiff, Commissioner Stueck and Mayor Vincent; those voting No, none. . .~ ATTEST: GlJ~ ROBIN L. SULLIVAN Clerk of the Commission 1 0- 24-94