Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-06-20 ccm ----, .-- --,-'.'. - -----,. '7".'.,- - ---;------.,-,,---' ',:'I" ... .::r, ~. -_.,-- ., ,---.-.--.--....-- MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA June 20, 1994 ***************************** . The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, June 20, 1994, at 3:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Vincent (for the evening session only!, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Frost, Acting City Manager Brey, 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. Authorize absence of Mayor Vincent from afternoon oortion of meeting, in comoliance with Section 7-3-4322(2), M.C.A. It was moved by Commissioner Youngman, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the . Commission authorize the absence of Mayor Vincent from the afternoon portion of the meeting, in compliance with Section 7-3-4322(2), M.C.A. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Frost and Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck; those voting No, none. Minutes - June 6. 1994 It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the minutes of the regular meeting of June 6, 1994, be approved as submitted. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman and Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck; those voting No, none. . Preliminary plat review - Annie Subdivision Phase II - Roger H. and Rosalind Smith - to subdivide 94.934 acres located in the NE~ and SEY2, Section 2, T2S, R5E. MPM, into five tracts for future subdivision/development (immediately west of Annie Subdivision, Phase I, along north side of Durston) (P-9422) This was the time and place set for review of the preliminary plat for Annie Subdivision, Phase II, as requested by Roger H. and Rosalind Smith under Application No. 06.20-94 ..----...- .....---- ~ --- - 2 - P-9422, to allow for subdividing of 94.934 acres located in the northeast one-quarter and the southeast one-quarter of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Montana Principal Meridian, into five tracts for future subdivision/development. The subject site is located along the north side of Durston Road, immediately west of Annie Subdivision, Phase I. . Included in the Commissioners' packet was a letter from Donald E. White, attorney representing the applicants, dated June 17, 1994, requesting that this preliminary plat review be continued indefinitely. It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that review of the preliminary plat for Annie Subdivision, Phase II, be continued indefinitely, per the applicant's request. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman and Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck; those voting No, none. Discussion - FYI Items Acting City Manager Brey presented to the Commission the following "For Your . Information" items. ( 1 ) Letter from Joseph W. Sabol, II, representing the applicants for Courtyard Cottages Subdivision, dated June 13, asking for reconsideration of one of the conditions for approval of that subdivision. The Acting City Manager asked that any Commissioner interested on placing this item on next week's agenda contact the City Manager by Wednesday, June 22. (2) Letter from Janet Dwyer, 2150 Story Mill Road, dated June 10, regarding a disputed traffic citation. (3) Letter from Charles R. Swart, 324 South Grand Avenue, dated June 15, regarding closure of Perkins Place with a temporary barrier. (4) Copy of a letter from the Municipal Treasurers' Association of the United . States and Canada to Treasurer Joanne Riley, dated May 13, notifying her that she has received the professional credential of Certified Municipal Finance Administrator (CMFA). (5) Copy of a letter from the International Institute of Municipal Clerks to Clerk of the Commission Robin Sullivan, dated June 9, notifying her that she has been accepted into the IIMC Academy for Advanced Education. 06-20-94 .._". - - 3 - (6) Copy of an article entitled Oregon's Takings Tangle, which was published in the June 1994 edition of Planning magazine. (7) Agenda for the Board of Adjustment meeting which was held last Thursday at 1 :30 p.m. in the Commission Room. . (8) Agenda for the Development Review Committee meeting to be held at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 21, at the Carnegie Building. (9) Agenda for the City-County Planning Board meeting to be held at 7:00 p.m on Tuesday, June 21, in the Commission Room. (10) Agenda for the County Commission meeting to be held at 1 :30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 21, at the Courthouse, along with daily minutes for the weeks of May 30 and June 6 and minutes for the public meeting of June 14. (11 ) The Acting City Manager submitted his weekly report, as follows. (1 ) Announced that on Thursday morning, he will attend a meeting regarding the Parktrol proposal which was submitted to the Commission a couple of weeks ago. (2) Announced that Joe Chrisman is serving as intern this summer under his office. Duties which have been assigned . to Joe include development of a City safety program, to bring the City into compliance with the Montana Safety Culture Act; determining the type of surfacing and access ramps necessary to make the linear park from Church Avenue to Willson Avenue accessible for the disabled. (3) Announced that bids for installation of signs for the neighborhood residential parking district will be opened on Wednesday afternoon. He noted that bids were previously sought; however, there was only one bidder who did not meet all of the qualifications. (4) Encouraged the Commissioners to discuss any issues they may want to at this time, since the agenda is short. (12) Commissioner Frost submitted the following. (1) The full downtown improvement steering committee met last week, to review the sub-committee recommendations. He noted that one sub-committee will meet next week to prioritized those recommendations and another sub-committee will meet next week to try to identify funding to . hire a person for six to eight months to complete the business improvement district for the downtown. (2) Noted the Commissioners have received information regarding juvenile offenses, as submitted by Ms. Leslie Halko. He stated that a review of that information, in comparison with the information contained in the Building Inspection Division reports for the 06-20-94 .___._ ._ _._..u _. - 4 - same periods, reveals that the growth rates have been essentially the same. He suggested that may reflect that what is occurring is "a cost of growth". ( 13) Commissioner Youngman submitted the following. (1) Stated that the ad hoc committee to review cable television franchising options will meet on Thursday evening in . the Commission Room. (2) Stated she has been receiving telephone calls from individuals who are either volunteering to assist in gathering information for the open space and wetlands studies or volunteering to provide information which they have regarding the issues. She indicated that she is gathering all of the information possible, so it is readily available when the studies are actually begun. (14) Commissioner Stiff stated he has had a busy week, receiving input from people "who have been not too complimentary to the City Commission". He noted that the last time he received such strong input, a lawsuit was immediately filed against the City. (15) City Attorney Luwe stated the recent O.J. Simpson incident demonstrates to what level a domestic abuse situation can escalate. He stated that when the Police Department responds to a domestic abuse call, response is being made to a misdemeanor. He . noted, however, that at any time, that situation can turn into a murder. Commissioner Stueck asked if there is anything the Commission could do to promote awareness of domestic abuse, possibly through a proclamation. City Attorney Luwe responded that education is one of the best tools available. He noted that when the police officers walk into a domestic abuse situation, they do not know what to expect; and the prosecutor often encounters a victim who wishes to drop charges or who is uncooperative in testimony. He emphasized the fact that in domestic abuse, the abuser is exercising power and control over the victim. He then stated that he will check with the Battered Women's Network to see if a week has already been scheduled to raise public awareness about domestic abuse. Commissioner Youngman noted that an agreement for the Victim Assistance Program . is on the consent agenda. She stated this program has made a big difference in the County, because someone is assigned to work with an abused party while going through the court system; and it has made a positive difference. She noted that a Safe Bozeman campaign is being undertaken this summer, with young people hired through the Montana Conservation 06-20-94 ..-- --.---..--------.--- --..-.----- - 5 - Corps going door-to-door with basic information on a variety of crisis programs as well as prevention programs and information on abusers and abusees. City Attorney Luwe stated the Victim Assistance Program is primarily funded through the State, with assistance from the City and the County under the agreement included on the . consent agenda. He stated the intent is to try to make the program self-sufficient in the future so that it can be retained once State funding stops. He then suggested that through the approval of a proclamation, accompanied by a presentation from the Police Department and possibly the Battered Women's Network, community awareness can be heightened. County Attorney Mike Salvagni encouraged the Commission to approve the interlocal agreement for the Victim/Witness Assistance Program, noting that it is to be changed from a part-time program to a full-time program effective July 1, with the City's participation. He distributed a flyer which gives information about the program and forwarded additional information verbally. He stated that, because of its part-time status, the program has been limited to victims of bodily injury only; and with expansion to a full-time program, the types of victims serviced will be expanded as well. . County Attorney Salvagni stated that the program has a half-time assistant plus five volunteers who help victims move through the criminal justice system. Since the program began last August, it has served 94 primary victims, 69 secondary victims and 17 witnesses. He then stated that at the present time, the program is funded in part through a grant from the State; and he is seeking alternative funding sources to maintain the program after the State grant is no longer available. He noted this may require some action by the State legislature. (16) City Attorney Luwe stated that he has just received a copy of the District Court decision in the Vaniman case, but he has not had an opportunity to review it. ( 17) Clerk of the Commission Sullivan submitted the following. (1) Reviewed the agenda for the upcoming meeting. (2) Announced that the City Manager's Recommendations for the budget for the upcoming year should be submitted to the Commissioners in their . packets for the July 5 meeting. She then asked the Commissioners if they would be willing to set dates for four or five work sessions, possibly beginning on July 12, beginning at approximately 2:30 p.m. The Commissioners concurred; and the Clerk indicated she will bring back a proposed schedule for review at next week's meeting. 06-20-94 -.- . - 6 - ( 18) Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck submitted the following. (1) Distributed to the Commission copies of a letter he received from Mr. Chad Groth, dated July 16, regarding the Mathew Bird Creek Subdivision decision. (2) Presented the plan for the park on West Babcock Street before the Board of Adjustment on Thursday. . (19) Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck stated he has also received several telephone calls similar to those Commissioner Stiff has received. He noted that many of those individuals are reacting to the Commission decision based on information they have obtained on a piecemeal basis and asked if there is any way to improve the public perception. Commissioner Frost stated that he met with the Gallatin Development Corporation to discuss the issue of perception. He stated that, while members of GDC had several Questions about the Commission's decision, they recognized that one decision does not make history. He then noted that perception is one item you cannot fight, suggesting it is best just to "ride it out". Commissioner Youngman stated she has written a guest editorial about the Mathew Bird Creek Subdivision that should be appearing in the newspaper shortly. She then stated that . she has received more feedback on this item than any other which has been before the Commission; and that feedback has been supportive. (20) Commissioner Frost showed the Commission a map showing arterials and collectors in the community which Director of Public Service Forbes had found, noting it has never been formally adopted. He suggested that this type of map could be very beneficial when considering annexations and subdivisions in the future. Acting City Manager Brey stated the map, which is dated March 1986, is the base map for the 1983 Master Plan. (21 ) Commissioner Youngman noted that the Commission has established policies which are not always followed by the Planning Board in its decision-making processes. She then suggested that a work session be set with members of the Commission, the Planning . Board and the Design Review Board, to discuss the Commission's policies, in an effort to make decisions by the various boards more consistent. Following a brief discussion, the Commissioners concurred and asked that the City Manager set an evening work session. 06-20-94 - 7 - Consent Items Acting City Manager Brey presented to the Commission the following Consent Items. Deviation from Section 18.50.050 ofthe Bozeman Municioal Code. to allow detached garage to encroach 8 feet into reauired 1 O-foot rear yard setback and allow 4-foot seoaration between detached structure and orincioal structure in lieu of 6-foot reauirement - Steven and . Jane Shanevfelt. 215 South Grand Avenue; oer DRB recommendations (Z-9469) Award bid for 1994 Street Imorovements - Schedules I. II. and IV to JTL Grouo. Inc.. in the total amount of $148.663; Schedule'" to Bia Sky Asohalt in the amount of $20.925; and Schedule V to Concrete SDecialties. Inc.. in the amount of $32.799.10 Authorize Acting City Manager to sian - Water Pioeline Easement and Aareement with Lehrkind's Coco-Cola - 30-foot-wide easement across Tract 1. CDS No. 546 ( 1715 North Rouse Avenue) Authorize Acting City Manaaer to sign - Sewer and Water Pioeline and Access Easements and Agreements with Montana Deoartment of Fish. Wildlife and Parks; Dave Manlev; Robert Batchelder; and Golf Course Partners. Inc. - 30-foot-wide easement to extend sewer pipeline from main transmission line to Bridger Creek Subdivision Authorize Actina City Manager to sign - Professional Services Aareement with Morrison-Maierle/CSSA - for Oak Street sewer relocation design . Authorize Acting City Manaaer to sian - Professional Services Agreement with HKM Associates - 1994 Water Renovation and Reoair Proaram Authorize Acting City Manager to sian - Interlocal Aareement with Gallatin County for the Victim/Witness Assistant Proaram Authorize Acting City Manager to sian - Sewer and Water Pioeline Easement and Agreement with Montana Power Comoany - 30-foot-wide easement (MPC facilitv on Griffin Drive) Acknowledge receiot of reauest for annexation - John Marks and Karen Neibauer - annex two oarcels located alona the north side of West Babcock Street at North 25th Avenue into City limits (28 North 25th Avenue and 2500 block West Babcock Street); refer to staff Buildina Insoection Division reoort for Mav 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 vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Frost and Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck; those voting No, none. 06-20-94 --------- -- - 8 - Recess - 3:40 D.m. Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck declared a recess at 3:40 p.m., to reconvene at 7:00 p.m., for the purpose of conducting the scheduled public hearings. . Reconvene - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Vincent reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m., for the purpose of conducting the scheduled public hearings. Public hearina - Droposed Ordinance No. 1384 - annexations into neiahborhood Darkina district This was the time and place set for the public hearing on proposed Ordinance No. 1384, as approved by the City Attorney, entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 1384 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, AMENDING THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 10.32.395.A., PERTAINING TO THE AREA DESIGNATED AS THE MSU RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO ENLARGE THE AREA TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN SAID DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.32.395.M. OF THE . BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH CREATES THE PROCEDURE FOR REVISING THE BOUNDARIES OF AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL ON- STREET PARKING PERMIT REGULATION PROGRAM. Included in the Commissioners' packets was a written staff report, as prepared by Assistant City Manager Brey, along with a copy of the proposed ordinance. Mayor Vincent opened the public hearing. Acting City Manager Brey stated this proposed ordinance provides for the inclusion of the following streets within the neighborhood residential parking district which was recently created near the Montana State University campus: 1. West Dickerson Street between South 5th Avenue and South 6th Avenue 2. South 5th Avenue between West Dickerson Street and West Alderson Street . 3. South 14th Avenue between West College Street and West Dickerson Street 4. South 15th Avenue between West College Street and West Dickerson Street The Acting City Manager stated that this proposed ordinance has been forwarded in response to petitions which were received during the public hearing process on implementation 06-20-94 ...__..._._____n__. - 9 - of the neighborhood parking district. He stated that, since the boundaries for the proposed district had been established, it was inappropriate for the Commission to consider the petitions at that time. He indicated that, based on a windshield survey of the residences along the subject streets, it appears that the petitions submitted represent approximately 50 percent of . the residences along South 5th, South 14th and South 15th Avenues and 80 percent of the residences along West Dickerson Street. He noted that the requested addition of South 5th Avenue and West Dickerson Street will serve to square off the northwest corner of the district, except for the fact that the east side of South 5th Avenue, adjacent to Southside Park, is not included. He noted that South 14th and South 15th Avenues serve to extend the district further to the west; however, the cross streets are not to be included within the district, which will make it a little more difficult to enforce. He stated, on the other hand, inclusion of these two streets in the district could provide experience in how less densely developed cross streets might be impacted if more developed streets are included in the parking district. Acting City Manager Brey stated that the Commission must find that the same conditions are met on the subject streets as were met for the original district; and the same . objectives must be addressed as were addressed for the original district. Mr. Michael Vincent, 617 South 5th Avenue, stated his support for including that block in the parking district. He stated that, while he does not agree with the formation of parking district, he is also concerned about the snowball effect it may have and the negative impacts it could have on the street in front of his home. Mrs. Charlotte Grabow, 621 South 14th Avenue, stated concurrence with Mr. Vincent's comments. She stated that since they are on the fringe of the existing district, she feels it is important that they be included to avoid the potential negative impacts that could result. Mrs. Kay McAllister, 606 South 5th Avenue, stated her opposition to this proposed ordinance. She stated that at the present time, it is not known if the existing district will create . a problem for those further to the north and east; and she does not feel it is fair to push the problem further to the north and east if it is determined that a problem does exist. She also expressed concern that the proposed extension of the district will result in parking problems for those who are involved in the T-ball and soccer programs at the Southside Park. 06-20-94 -.- --...----------..-- - ._._ . _n_______.._. .__. - - 10 - Responding to Commissioner Frost, the Acting City Manager stated that the residential parking district restrictions are in force between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for holidays. He noted that means that parking is allowed within the district during evenings and weekends. . Responding to Commissioner Stueck, the Acting City Manager stated that if this proposed ordinance is adopted, parking would still be allowed along three sides of Southside Park; and the parking restrictions along West College Street would not be the result of the neighborhood parking district. Responding to Mayor Vincent, the Acting City Manager stated that if South 5th Avenue is not included within the parking district at this time, it would be quite some time before it could be included. He reminded the Commission that the signs must be installed before the parking district can be enforced; and those signs cannot be installed during the winter. He noted that, on that basis, if the subject street is not included at this time, it probably will not be until next year. He then noted that deannexation is different because the signs can simply be removed from the sign posts at any time during the year. . Responding to Commissioner Youngman, the Acting City Manager stated that, while it is staff's preference to retain uniform boundaries, it is not appropriate to include cross streets within the district for which petitions have not been received. He then reminded the Commission that they may consider all or some of streets that have included in the proposed ordinance, since that was the basis of the advertisement for this public hearing. Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Vincent closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stueck noted that when the district was created, it was with the intent that the district would be under continual review; and after the first full year of college, it would be carefully reviewed to determine if the boundaries need to be adjusted. Acting City Manager Brey stated he has forwarded these petitions because they were . received during the initial creation of the district. He also noted that it is important to act on those petitions now so they can be included in the implementation of the district prior to the beginning of the next college year. It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Stueck, that the Commission adopt Ordinance No. 1384, annexing specified sections of streets into the 06-20-94 - 11 - neighborhood parking district, on first reading, and that it be brought back in two weeks for second reading. 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 - proposed Ordinance No. 1385 - deannexation from neighborhood parking district This was the time and place set for the public hearing on proposed Ordinance No. 1385, approved by the City Attorney, entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 1385 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, AMENDING THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 10.32.395.A., PERTAINING TO THE AREA DESIGNATED AS THE MSU RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO REMOVE SOUTH 11TH AVENUE FROM DICKERSON STREET TO ALDERSON STREET FROM INCLUSION WITHIN SAID DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.32.395.M. OFTHE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH CREATES THE PROCEDURE FOR REVISING THE BOUNDARIES OF AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL ON-STREET PARKING PERMIT REGULATION PROGRAM. Included in the Commissioners' packets was a written staff report, as prepared by . Assistant City Manager Brey, along with a copy of the proposed ordinance. Mayor Vincent opened the public hearing. Acting City Manager Brey stated this proposed ordinance is for the removal of the block of South 11 th Avenue lying between West Dickerson Street and West Alderson Street from the neighborhood parking district, which was established under Ordinance No. 1377. He stated that a conversation with one of the petitioners revealed that the primary concern is the removal of parking on the west side of South 11 th Avenue, which is actually a transportation system management (TSM) project. He stated that, despite staff informing the petitioners that deannexation from the neighborhood parking district would not impact the parking restrictions to which they object, the residents of that area have indicated a desire to proceed with this . action. He noted that he had anticipated that a second petition, to rescind the TSM project for this same block, would have been submitted by this time; however, it has not yet been received. The Acting City Manager stated that 75 percent of the residences in this block are represented on the petition for deannexation. He noted that the majority of the residences are 06-20-94 - 12 - located along the west side of the street, which is the side impacted by the TSM project. He stated there are a few residences along the east side of the street which are impacted by the neighborhood residential parking district but not by the TSM project. He then forwarded staff's recommendation that the subject block not be deannexed and that the TSM project be retained. . He stated that retaining this block in the neighborhood parking district will allow those residents to obtain parking permits and, while the residents along the west side of the street will not be able to park in front of their homes after the TSM project is implemented, they will be able to park on the side streets, which are within the district as well. He noted that if this block is deannexed, the residents along the west side of the street will not be able to park either in front of their homes or within the neighborhood parking district. Responding to Commissioner Frost, the Acting City Manager stated that the TSM project is in the list of projects to be completed this summer. He stated that, unless the Commission takes action to remove this project from the list, it will be implemented. No one was present to speak in support of or in opposition to this proposed deannexation from the neighborhood parking district. . Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Vincent closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Stueck, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the Commission not adopt Ordinance No. 1385, providing for deannexation of South 11th Avenue from West Dickerson Street to West Alderson Street from the neighborhood parking district. 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. Public hearing - Zone Map Amendment from A-S to R-S - Kevin and Kellv Shroyer - 23.0-acre tract of land known as Tract B. cas No. 1493. located in the NW%. Section 16. T2S. RGE. MPM (approximatelv % mile south of intersection of Bozeman Trail Road and Hagaertv Lane) . (Z-9451) This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Zone Map Amendment requested by Kevin and Kelly Shroyer, under Application No. Z-9451, for a zone map amendment from A-S, Agricultural Suburban District, to R-S, Residential Suburban District, on a 23.0-acre tract of land known as Tract B of Certificate of Survey No. 1493, located in the 06-20-94 ------ ___ ._ ___u___.____.___ __ .__ --- ---------.------..-.--.-. '..- - 13 - northwest one-quarter of Section 16, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, Montana Principal Meridian. The subject property is more commonly located approximately one-quarter mile south of the intersection of Bozeman Trail Road and Haggerty Lane. Mayor Vincent opened the public hearing. . Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented the staff report. He stated that this application was the subject of a public hearing before the City-County Planning Board at its meeting of June 7, 1994; and after the public hearing was completed, the Board concurred in staff's recommendation for approval. The Senior Planner stated that the subject parcel is located southeast of the intersection of Bozeman Trail Road and Haggerty Lane. It is adjacent to the Clover Meadows Subdivision; and surrounding zoning designations include A-S and R-S. Through a four~lot minor subdivision in the northwest corner of the subject site, requested by the applicant in 1992, as much development has occurred on this parcel as can be accommodated under the current A-S zoning. Under the requested R-S zoning, approximately 23 lots can be created on the subject 23-acre parcel. . Senior Planner Skelton stated that the Meagher Subdivision, which is located immediately north of the subject property has recently received approval through the County Commission. He then noted that the R-S zoned property in that area is generally developed, while the A-S zoned property is typically vacant agricultural land. Senior Planner Dave Skelton stated that staff reviewed this application in light of the twelve criteria set forth in the Montana Code Annotated; and a written summary of those findings are included in the staff report. He briefly highlighted some of the key items, noting that the 1990 Bozeman Area Master Plan Update designates the subject site as suburban residential; and the requested R-S zoning is in compliance with that designation. The proposed zoning will result in an increase in traffic because it is currently vacant; however, with the fact that Bozeman Trail Road is designated as a rural minor collector, it is anticipated that impacts . will be minimal. He also noted that any traffic impacts will be addressed during the development review processes. The Planner stated that, since private septic tanks and domestic wells are to be used, there will be no impact on the City's water and sewer services. The School District continues to express concerns about growth in the community and surrounding areas because of impacts 06-20-94 .----. - 14 - to the school system. With construction of a new middle school, however, some space will be available for expansion of high school activities. If the subject property develops under the subdivision process, one-ninth of the property must be dedicated as parkland; and if the property is developed under a planned unit development 30 percent open space must be . provided. The Senior Planner noted that, given surrounding development, the proposed rezoning seems to be appropriate. He then forwarded the Planning Board's resolution, in which they recommended approval of this requested zone map amendment. Responding to questions from Commissioner Frost, Senior Planner Skelton stated that, due to the fact that private septic systems and domestic wells are to be used to service the individual lots, final determination on the number of dwellings allowed in the subject 23 acres will be made by the State of Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences and the Gallatin County Department of Health. He estimated that 23 to 35 dwelling units could potentially be constructed on this site. Further responding to Commissioner Frost, the Planner stated that under the current . A-S zoning, since the subject site is under 25 acres in size, the sliding scale density bonus does not apply. He then indicated that the property owner to the south has contacted the Planning Office; and he plans to develop the property in a manner similar to surrounding development. Responding to Commissioner Youngman, Senior Planner Skelton stated it is necessary to go through this zone map amendment if any additional development is to occur on the subject 23 acres. He noted that after rezoning is completed the applicant may then go through the planned unit development process to cluster development and obtain a density bonus, if he so desires. He stated the under the zone code, clustered development is encouraged close to the city limits, rather than one-acre parcels. He noted this results in suburban densities rather than rural densities. Responding to Commissioner Frost, Senior Planner Skelton estimated that the subject . parcel was approximately 28 acres before the minor subdivision was completed. Assistant City Manager Brey stated that when the minor subdivision was completed, the applicant took advantage of the clustering option under the zoning regulations and exhausted all development rights to the entire parcel under the A-S zoning. He stated that under this requested rezoning, the applicant is attempting to recapture development rights for 06-20-94 - 15 - the remainder of the parcel. He noted that the clustering option was provided in the zone code for those properties where bona fide agricultural uses were occurring; and it can serve as an effective tool in those instances. He then suggested that in this instance, where the subject parcel is close to city limits, suburban development seems appropriate. . Responding to Commissioner Youngman, the Senior Planner stated that the one-ninth parkland dedication will be based on the 23 acres rather than on the original 28 acres. No one was present to speak in opposition to the requested zone map amendment. Since there was no Commissioner objections, Mayor Vincent closed the public hearing. There were no Commissioner objections to waiving the customary one-week waiting period for land use decisions, so the Commission proceeded to the motion and vote. It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that the Commission approve the Zone Map Amendment requested by Kevin and Kelly Shroyer, under Application No. Z-9451, for a zone map amendment from A-S, Agricultural Suburban District, to R-S, Residential Suburban District, on a 23.0-acre tract of land known as Tract B . of Certificate of Survey No. 1493, located in the northwest one-quarter of Section 16, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, Montana Principal Meridian, and direct staff to bring back an ordinance to implement the Zone Map Amendment. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Vincent; those voting No being Commissioner Stueck. Public hearina - Zone Code Amendments - amendina portions of Chapter 18.04.18.42. 18.43. 18.50. 18.51. 18.52. 18.53. 18.58. 18.62 and 18.65 of the Bozeman Municipal Code to clarifv and simplifv development review orocesses. standards and criteria (Z-9445) This was the time and place for the Zone Code Amendments amending portions of Chapters 18.04, 18.42, 18.43, 18.50, 18.51, 18.52, 18.53, 18.54, 18.56, 18.58, 18.62 and 18.65 of the Bozeman Municipal Code to clarify and simplify development review processes . and development standards and criteria. Mayor Vincent stated that, just prior to this evening's meeting, the Commissioners received copies of a letter from Jennifer Smith Mitchell, 122 South Church Avenue, expressing concern that appropriate notice procedures have not been followed for this public hearing. 06-20-94 ...- ...~-- -.-... - 16 - At the Mayor's request, City Attorney Luwe responded to the letter. The notice for the public hearings before both the City-County Planning Board and the City Commission was published on April 17 and April 19, 1994; and that notice advertised the public hearings before the Planning Board on May 3 and before the City Commission on May 16. At its meeting on . May 3, the Planning Board began the public hearing and continued it to a later date. Because of that Planning Board action, on May 16 the City Commission opened and continued its public hearing until after the Planning Board had submitted its recommendation. The City Attorney stated that, under State statutes, notice must be published fifteen days prior to the hearing; and the published notice met that requirement. Also, the City's zoning ordinance requires that notice not be published more than 45 days prior to the public hearing; and that requirement was also met. City Attorney Luwe noted that at the May 3 Planning Board meeting, Jennifer Mitchell requested that the public hearing be continued due to the late hour; and after testimony was received from five people, the Planning Board did continue the hearing. At that time, those in attendance were informed that the public hearing scheduled before the City Commission on . May 1 6 would be opened and continued. City Attorney Luwe then outlined the options available to the Commission at this time. He suggested that the Commission could choose to conduct its public hearing at this time, since statutory requirements have been met; could conduct a hearing at this time, then readvertise and conduct the remainder of the hearing after the fifteen-day notice requirement has been met; or could choose to wait until after a fifteen-day notice has been given to conduct the public hearing. He cautioned that there are people in the audience who have attended this . public hearing in the anticipation of being able to provide testimony. He further cautioned that the costs to the City should be taken into consideration. He noted those costs include not only the cost of readvertising but, since many of the proposed amendments are designed to streamline processes, delay of the effective date of any changes and the associated effect on . the public operating under the current code instead of the streamlined process must also be considered. Mayor Vincent suggested that the Commission could accept testimony at this public hearing, and leave the period for accepting written testimony open for a few days. The City Attorney concurred, noting that is an option which has been used at times in the past. 06-20-94 - 17 - Mayor Vincent stated he has reviewed the testimony submitted before the City- County Planning Board. He then asked that anyone testifying before the City Commission limit comments to specific provisions of the zone code and the language proposed, stating that he will not allow critiquing of the staff. . Mayor Vincent opened the pUblic hearing. Senior Planner Kevin Wall presented the staff report. He reminded the Commission that the original batch of amendments was forwarded to the Commission approximately two months ago. He then stated that his memo of May 31 forwarded several proposed revisions to those amendments, as requested by the Planning Board; and his June 9 memo provides information on additional revisions. Senior Planner Wall stated that the Planning Board accepted public testimony at its May 3 and May 17 meetings and made its final decision at the June 7 meeting. At the May 17 meeting, the Board directed staff to bring back alternate language to address a majority of the concerns raised. The Planner reviewed the revisions forwarded in his June 9 memo. Sections . 18.42.030 and 18.43.040 have been revised to allow the ADR (Administrative Design Review) staff to approve sketch plan applications within overlay districts and the ORB to approve minor site plans within the overlay district. He noted this allows for a more streamlined review of small and less involved projects. Section 18.51.010.C. has been modified to state that the Planning Director or designee shall serve as an ex-officio, non-voting meeting chair of the ORB. Section 18.52.060 has been modified to require posting and mailing of notices to property owners within 200 feet of the project site for sketch plan and minor site plan applications, except in specified instances. The Planner noted that there was substantial public testimony regarding public notice requirements and public input; and he feels this revision addresses some of those concerns. Section 18.58.030 has been revised to state that appeals of ADR decisions are to be heard by the City Commission, upon recommendation of the ORB. . Senior Planner Wall stated his memo dated May 31 forwards a more extensive set of revisions. He characterized those as minor revisions, noting that he has reviewed the more major revisions in his comments above. He noted that many of the revisions included in this packet create a roll-over effect, impacting several different sections. He stated that many of those revisions are intended to clean up the language of the code, while others are designed 06-20-94 - 18 - to ensure that issues are addressed in a uniform manner in an appropriate section of the code, rather than scattered throughout the code, in various sections which are less appropriate. Responding to Commissioner Frost, the Senior Planner stated that Section 18.52.060 is an example of this change. He noted that all public notice requirements, except those . pertaining to conditional use permits for planned unit developments, are now located in one section; and those requirements have been removed from other locations throughout the document. Further responding to Commissioner Frost, the Senior Planner stated that reference to minor site surface preparation has been removed from Section 18.52.010 and moved to a more appropriate location. He noted that this section is designed as an intent statement for the section; and the reference was not appropriate in that location. He then stated that issues pertaining to appeals have all been combined into one chapter and made more uniform, rather than being scattered throughout the code. Responding to additional questions from Commissioner Frost, the Planner stated that the ADR must follow the standards set forth in the zone code when making decisions. He then . noted that the code also specifies which body is to have authority over each type of application. Commissioner Frost noted the chart on the white board, noting that is the type of chart he has been requesting for four years. He stated that, while it is difficult to find the appropriate code references, it is easy to follow a chart to determine the procedure necessary for a given process. He then suggested that this chart be converted to a piece of paper, so it can be easily copied and distributed. Senior Planner Wall stated that staff has had several different versions of this type of chart; however, it does not have anything current at this time. He concurred that it would be beneficial to have an updated chart, noting it would be well used. Commissioner Youngman asked that the language in Section 18.58.020.B. be . amended to make it clearer. She stated that under the current language, it appears that an appeal of an Administrative Design Review decision would come forward to the City Commission only after a favorable recommendation from the Design Review Board, rather than automatically. 06-20-94 - 19 - Mayor Vincent concurred with Commissioner Youngman's comments, and asked that staff try to address it. Commissioner Youngman then asked why the definition of minor alterations has been eliminated from Section 18.42.050; the Senior Planner responded that is because certificates . of appropriateness apply to minor alterations. Mr. Don Bachman, 109 Broadway, stated he learned of this public hearing through the agenda which is now being published in the newspaper, and stated his appreciation for the weekly publication of the agenda. He stated that today, he went to the Planning Department and obtained a copy of the proposed revisions. Mr. Bachman stated he does not support the proposal to eliminate non-professional members from the Design Review Board. He expressed concern that eliminating this position will result in elimination of citizen involvement. He also expressed concern that this could lead to exclusivity on the board. Mr. Bachman then turned to the minor site proposals, suggesting the use of "impact" as a criteria to determine if a minor site plan is appropriate. He feels that the lower limits set . for a major site plan create a use that is more substantial than can be adequately accommodated under a minor site plan. He stated that, living on the northeast side of town, he recognizes the impacts that a commercial development or a large residential development can have on a residential neighborhood. He cautioned the Commission to take steps to ensure that the code provides for adequate public input in an effort to protect the character of the neighborhood; and he feels that establishing impacts on adjacent properties and the surrounding area as one of the criteria to be considered would be beneficial. He also suggested that a provision be included in this section under which ten signatures on a petition from residents in the immediate area could trigger a major site plan review rather than a minor site plan review. Mr. Bachman suggested that under Section 18.52.060.D., the language be changed to provide for the option of denial. He noted the current language suggests only approval of . an application. He then asked if this notice is for public input in the minor site plan process. Mr. Bachman then stated that the attachment of a chart to the zone code, similar to the one drawn on the white board, in the front of each of the zone codes would be extremely helpful. He also suggested that those charts could be placed in the slot next to the agendas by the Commission Room door, so that people could determine what type of processes were 06-20-94 ~ - 20 - coming before the City Commission for action, and the steps that application had already gone through. Mr. Darrel Behrent, 208 Lindley Place, asked about the issue of color, asking if that is still included in the code. . Senior Planner Wall responded that under the revisions, the issue of color is addressed in the neighborhood conservation district; however, the provisions are less stringent than they were before. He noted that it was previously listed in the checklist of submittal items for a certificate of appropriateness; and now it is included in the review criteria. He stated that under that section, review of color is limited to prevention of a nuisance and degradation of building features, unless a deviation is requested. He then noted that, even though he has seen colors which he would classify as "ugly", he has not yet seen a color that he would classify as a "nuisance". Acting City Manager Brey noted that when this was initially included in the code, there was substantial debate about whether the issue of color should be included at all. He noted that these proposed amendments do soften its importance and the extent to which it is . considered. Responding to additional questions from Mr. Behrent, Senior Planner Wall stated that repainting and reroofing of a house are considered maintenance items and can be accomplished without going through the review process. Mr. Darrel Behrent stated the zone code is a confusing document. He noted that the chart which has been proposed is a good approach, encouraging staff to follow the "KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)" method when developing one. Mr. Behrent then stated his opposition to the proposal to eliminate the non- professional position on the Design Review Board. He suggested that this could serve to stratify the process, setting people apart based on economic and social levels. He stated that without the public sector represented on the Board, it could result in polarization of the "haves" . and the "have nots". Mr. Ernie Neckermann, 115 South Church Avenue, stated support for the comments forwarded by the two previous speakers. He then stated he also does not support elimination of the non-professional position on the Design Review Board. He also noted the importance of ensuring that adequate provisions for public input are included in the code. 06-20-94 - - 21 - Mr. Bill Mitchell, 122 South Church Avenue, stated that at the Planning Board meeting, these proposed amendments were characterized as being forwarded by the Commission. He then questioned whether these amendments are the work of the Commission or the work of staff. He also expressed concern that, after spending $50,000 on development . of the master plan update, it appears that these amendments will essentially result in throwing those concepts away. Mr. Mitchell then addressed specific proposed amendments. He expressed that Section 18.42.01 O.F., which provides for notice and public comment, has been deleted. Under Section 18.42.060, Section 9 has been added to address color as an issue to be addressed for a certificate of appropriateness. He expressed concern that this could trigger a full review of the color of a house under an application to add a bay window. Mr. Mitchell then turned his attention to the fact that most of the language in Section 18.52.050.A.1.e., which also pertains to materials and color schemes, is to be eliminated. He stated that when people improve their properties, typically they will choose colors which complement the area, rather than colors which will degrade the neighborhood. . Mr. Bill Mitchell stated that Section 18.51.020.0. has been eliminated, which is another opportunity for pUblic comment. He suggested that, rather than limiting input, more public input should be sought, because he feels that the more people are involved in government, the better off they are. Under Section 18.52.020.C., if a project is requested, such as installation of a bay window, a property owner may be required to correct other violations before he is allowed to complete his project. He expressed concern about this provision, suggesting that it could serve as a deterrent to people fixing up older homes; and that process should, instead, be encouraged. Mr. Mitchell then Questioned why the provisions of Section 18.58.020.8. have been amended to require that appeals of the Administrative Design Review first go through the Design Review Board and then to the City Commission. He suggested that, since the City . Commission is the final decision making body, it should go directly to them rather than through the intermediate step. He stated that in most neighborhoods, people communicate; and he feels that on small items, like sketch plans, the neighbors could make the decision on what would be best for the neighborhood. He suggested that the Administrative Design Review staff could provide some assistance and guidance through the process; but he feels that 06-20-94 - 22 - neighborhood decisions would be well accepted. This proposed process would dramatically decrease the workload for staff, particularly since approximately 50 percent of their workload is at the sketch plan level. He also noted that this can tend to improve one's self worth; and he feels it could be handled well, particularly since Bozeman is rated as the smartest town in . Montana. Commissioner Frost stated he feels the table concept is an excellent idea and would make understanding the zone code much easier. He then addressed the issue of who started this amendment process. He noted the previous City Commission directed staff to review the code and bring back amendments which would streamline the various processes. He also noted that, following the election, the Commissioners-Elect were encouraged to provide their input into the amendment process. With the assistance of Commissioners, Senior Planner Kevin Wall responded to the Questions which had been raised during public testimony. He cautioned that Mr. Bachman's comments regarding the definition of minor site plans cannot be addressed at this time, since it is not a part of this amendment process. . The Senior Planner stated that the notice referenced in Section 18.52.060.D. is a notice announcing approval of a project within an overlay district. He noted that, while this type of notice has not previously been required in the zone code, a legal size green notice has been posted in a conspicuous place on a property announcing that approval has been granted. This notice lets people in the neighborhood know that some type of project has been approved; and tends to decrease the number of telephone calls that the Planning Department receives when activity begins. He stated that, due to the nature of the notice, there is no provision for denial. The Senior Planner stated that elimination of the non-professional member on the Design Review Board is an amendment that was mandated by the previous City Commission. He stated that, based on past history, the non-professional members on the Design Review . Board have not had the background or knowledge of design or engineering that is gained through training and experience in the field of architecture. Commissioner Frost noted that former Commissioner Knapp put this issue in context by asking if you were to have a major operation, would you want a non-professional giving you advice? 06~20-94 - 23 - Senior Planner Wall noted that there are principles and standards to be considered when addressing design issues. He cautioned that it is important to understand these principles and standards when reviewing applications. Senior Planner Wall stated that reference to the master plan has been removed from . two sections of the zone code. In Section 18.42.080.1., the references to "the zoning ordinance and any adopted Master Plan" was deleted because it was not an understandable statement. He noted that so many values and issues are embodied in those documents that it seemed appropriate to reword that section to be more explicit. In Section 18.43.030, reference to the Bozeman Area Master Plan was replaced with reference to the official City of Bozeman zoning map because that is the regulatory instrument upon which the overlay districts are depicted. He stated that this proposed revision is not degrading the integrity of the master plan. The Senior Planner stated that at the present time, not every project is noticed. He noted that the purpose of the amendments must be considered when reviewing the individual changes which are contained in these documents. He recognized when individual amendments . are considered in isolation, they may appear alarming; however, when considered as a whole, they become more understandable. Commissioner Youngman suggested that wording be included in the intent statement which would indicate public input will still be encouraged. The Senior Planner then stated that the language pertaining to color in Section 18.52.050.1.e. was inappropriately located. He noted that it has been included in the appropriate section of the code. Senior Planner Wall stated that the issue of violations, as referenced in Section 18.52.020.C., has been a difficult one for people to understand. He emphasized the fact that this section references "current violations of the Zoning Ordinance". That means violations, i.e., a carport constructed too close to the alley without any review or a building permit. He . further emphasized the fact that this restriction does not apply to any legally non-conforming uses that exist; and it does not pertain to the building codes. He stated that staff has encountered situations where an individual is seeking a certificate of appropriateness for a project when a flagrant violation of the zone code exists; and this addition would give staff one more avenue through which to pursue a remedy. He then suggested that if the Commission 06-20-94 - - - - 24- wishes, a parenthetical expression could be added to this section which stipulates that this does not apply to legal non-conforming uses. Acting City Manager Brey reminded the Commission that the zone code is a legal document; and it is no easier to read that the Montana Code Annotated or the federal . standards. He stated that, because of the legality of the document, he hesitates to add parenthetic statements; however, in this instance he feels it can be accommodated. City Attorney Luwe stated that this provision will allow staff to require that a violation be corrected without going through court action to get an injunction or through criminal proceedings. He then stated it does not make sense to approve a project on a site where a violation exists. He noted that an individual always has the right to appeal if he feels that he has been unjustly coerced into correcting a violation. Senior Planner Wall noted the number of non-conformities that exist in the overlay districts. He stated that is what makes a district unique and why special language is needed in the code to address those areas. City Attorney Luwe also emphasized the fact that this language pertains to zoning . violations only. He noted that the building codes are covered by provisions separate from the zone code; and violations of those codes are addressed under a separate process. Commissioner Frost noted the purpose of the conservation district is to allow property owners to replace existing structures within the district in a manner that protect the historic character. He noted that under the old zone code, much of the improvement to older homes which is now occurring through the deviation process would have been illegal. Senior Planner Wall stated that the path of appeals of the Administrative Design Review staff decisions through the Design Review Board and to the City Commission is the result of public testimony and comments from the Planning Board members. He stated that the original language was to provide for appeal of ADR decisions directly to the City Commission; however, based on the comments received, it appeared that people felt it would be more . appropriate to forward that appeal with some professional feedback. Commissioner Stiff noted that the concept forwarded by Mr. Mitchell under which the neighborhood would make decisions on sketch plan applications is a nice one; however, he questioned whether it could be used. 06-20-94 - - 25 - City Attorney Luwe concurred with Senior Planner Wall's response that the City cannot delegate the authority to make decisions. He then stated that, while public participation can be encouraged, the decision-making authority cannot be given to the neighborhood. He cautioned that, while neighborhood input can be carefully considered and weighed, care must . be taken to ensure that decisions are not solely based on how the neighborhood majority feels. Commissioner Frost noted that neighborhood design review boards have been tried in various communities; but they don't seem to work well. He stated that many people feel the boards act in an arbitrary manner; and the neighborhood board decisions can often lead to court cases. Mayor Vincent stated his desire to review the testimony received before making a decision. He then suggested that, while he does not feel it is necessary to leave the pUblic hearing open, he is interested in allowing an opportunity for written testimony to be submitted. It was moved by Commissioner Youngman, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the Commission close the public hearing to verbal testimony, setting 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 22, as the deadline for receiving written testimony. The motion carried by the following Aye . and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Frost and Mayor Vincent; those voting No, none. Mayor Vincent requested that this item be placed on next week's agenda for discussion, anticipating that a decision probably will not be forthcoming until the following week's meeting. Adjournment - 9:35 n.m. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Stueck, that the meeting be adjourned. 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. 06- 20-94 - 26 - C- -=--~ \J~ -- JOH VINCENT, Mayor . ATTEST: (l~;/~/ ROBIN L. SULLIVAN Clerk of the Commission . . 06-20-94