HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-11-15 ccm
--...--
~ ,t
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
November 15, 1993
*****************************
. The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room,
Municipal Building, November 15, 1993, at 3:30 p.m. Present were Mayor Swanson,
Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp, 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 - November 1 and November 8. 1993
It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the minutes
of the regular meetings of November 1 and November 8, 1993, be approved as amended. The
.otion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost,
Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp and Mayor Swanson; those
voting No, none.
Decision - Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit DeveloDment - Doug Rand reDresenting Boz. Inc.
- allow construction of two 12-unit aDartment buildinas on 1.94-acre unDlatted Dortion of NW%.
SW%. Section 12. T2S. R5E. MPM (115 South 11th Avenue) (Z-93125)
This was the time and place for the decision on the Conditional Use Permit for Planned
Unit Development requested by Doug Rand representing Boz, Inc., under Application No. Z-93125,
to allow construction of two twelve-unit apartment buildings on a 1.94-acre tract known as the
unplatted portion of the northwest one-quarter of the southwest one-quarter of Section 12,
Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Montana Principal Meridian. The subject property is more
eommonlY known as 115 South 11th Avenue.
City Manager Wysocki noted that, included in the Commissioners' packets, was a memo
from Neighborhood Coordinator/Grantsperson Goehrung, dated November 10, forwarding
information regarding fair market rents, in response to questions raised during the public hearing.
11-1 5-93
- ...........,...---- .. ..... -.-
'II. ,
,- I - 2 -
At the Mayor's request, Associate Planner Wall forwarded staff responses to some of the
questions and issues raised during the public hearing. He stated that the Engineering Department
once again reviewed the issue of the ditch along South 11 th Avenue and the proposal to plant trees
close to or on top of it. He stated that the Engineering Department has forwarded the position that
.ince the culvert is big and heavy and is buried quite deep, and since the type of trees proposed
do not have tap roots, there is no technical problem with the application as submitted.
The Associate Planner stated he also discussed the issue of providing a boulevard between
the street and the sidewalk with the Engineering Department. He noted that, following careful
review, staff would forward a recommendation that no boulevard be required because the sidewalk
currently exists along the street and because the properties at both corners of the block are fully
developed. He stated that to provide a boulevard along this section of the street would require
curving the sidewalk at both ends to meet the existing sidewalk along the adjacent properties; and
staff does not believe that to be a desirable alternative.
Associate Planner Wall then addressed the alley issue. He suggested that, through an
apparent oversight at all levels, including the Development Review Committee through the City-
.county Planning Board, one of the recommended conditions for approval was to reconstruct the
alley approach and gravel to full width. He noted the Commission's policy to require that alleys
used to gain access to a parking lot for four-plexes and above are to be paved, citing the recent
Bozeman Interfaith Housing project as an example. He stated that, following review with the City
Attorney, staff has determined that the Commission could add a condition requiring the applicant
to install screening along the alley to mitigate the impacts of the increased usage of that facility.
He suggested that the condition could state, "The developer provide a fence and/or hedge along
both sides of the alley in a manner agreeable to the adjacent property owners. If one or both of
the property owners notify the City, in writing, that they do not want the fencing or screening, this
condition will not apply to either or both properties adjacent to the alley."
In response to questions and comments from Commissioner Frost, the Planner stated that,
.While the City's sidewalk policy does allow for curvilinear sidewalks, on a 25-foot radius, staff does
not recommend the requirement for a boulevard.
Responding to Mayor Swanson, Planner Wall stated that staff is still opposed to the
Planning Board's condition that a break-away barrier be installed on the alley. He noted the Street
Department is concerned about the maintenance aspects and the potential that snow would be
11-1 5-93
~ -
, I
I - 3 -
shoveled against it; and the Fire Department is concerned about the fact that it would hinder their
ability to provide fast response. He noted the Acting Fire Marshal has indicated that the
department policy is to drive around barriers rather than through them. He then suggested that
requiring the alley be paved and screening be provided along the adjacent properties should address
_he issues that the proposed break-away barrier was designed to address.
Respondingto additional questions from Mayor Swanson, City Manager Wysocki indicated
the Commission has no firm policy on requiring the inclusion of affordable housing units in a
project. He suggested that, rather than requiring some of the units in this project to be affordable,
it may be more appropriate to defer any such requirement until after a policy has been established.
He cautioned that if the Commission does include such a condition on this project, it could set an
undesirable precedent that would compromise the policy that is adopted.
Responding to Commissioner Stiff, Planner Wall stated that the criteria for a residential
planned unit development have been amended to provide the opportunity to link affordable housing
-, units to density bonuses. He noted, however, that no formula was included in that amendment
for administering that option, which makes it extremely difficult for staff to address.
. City Attorney Luwe noted that the Commission can add a condition requiring that the four
additional units allowed as a result of the density bonus be maintained as affordable units. He
cautioned that the applicant could choose to eliminate the four units and proceed with development
of the apartment complex as allowed under the code. He noted that this provision in the code was
designed to serve as an incentive; but it could react in the opposite manner without the appropriate
formula and policy in place and, therefore, he agrees with City Manager Wysocki.
Mr. Doug Rand, representing the applicant, noted that the fair market rents of $436 for
a two-bedroom unit and $547 for a three-bedroom unit, including utilities, are higher than the
figures he had quoted during the public hearing; however, they are substantially below the costs
of construction. He stated there is no incentive in providing units at a monetary loss.
He then
stated his client is now working on another housing project to provide lower-cost housing, with
eimPler lines, tailored to that market. He stated this project has been designed to attract retired
families and those wanting a nice place to live, with a garage and garden area; and it was not
designed as an affordable, low-cost structure. He also emphasized the fact that this project has
been in process for a year and a half; and it is extremely difficult to incorporate the idea of four
affordable units into it at this late stage.
11-1 5-93
-----.--......
~
, ,
, - 4 -
Responding to Commissioner Stiff, Mr. Rand estimated that a two-bedroom unit renting
for $389, not including utilities, would probably cost $35,000 to $40,000 to construct.
Mr. Rand stated that in the proposed project, the applicant has attempted to address the
diversity of housing requirement by providing twelve fully accessible units on the lower level, with
'. twelve three-bedroom units above. He suggested that with the site's location between Main Street
and the University campus, it is a good area for higher density housing. He also noted that with
its proximity to shopping, jobs and churches, people can easily bicycle or walk rather than drive a
vehicle.
Commissioner Stiff noted that staff recommended the additional units be maintained as
affordable, as contained in Condition No. 28 of the staff report, which cites Section 18.54.1 OO.E.
of the zoning ordinance; and that recommendation was not removed until the City-County Planning
Board acted.
Mr. Rand stated the idea was raised in a very general way but was never specifically
addressed until recently. He also noted the affordable rent figures were not available until shortly
before the Planning Board meeting, which was late in the process.
. Mayor Swanson noted some of the most angry calls he has received as a Commissioner
are from residents who have shoveled their curbside sidewalks, only to have them covered again
when a plow came by. He then asked where snow storage is proposed.
Mr. Rand responded that four to five feet have been left open between the sidewalk and
the bermed area for snow storage. He stated the applicant has a plow on his truck and could easily
maintain the sidewalk, even at curbside. He then reminded the Commission that the sidewalk
currently exists; and this would not represent any change in the current status.
Further responding to Mayor Swanson, Mr. Rand stated he feels that a density bonus is
deserved, even without addressing the affordable housing issue, because the buildings have been
located in the center of the site, resulting in doubling of the front setback and tripling of the rear
setback. He noted this has provided room for heavy landscaping, which will buffer the residents
.from the noise of the street and passersby from the mass of the structures. He also noted that a
single access will be provided to the site, with all parking in the rear. He reminded the Commission
of the twelve fully accessible units, which will meet the new federal standards.
11-1 5-93
--'_..,,-'-'--~-------_.
,
I - 5 -
Mayor Swanson asked each of the Commissioners to respond to whether they feel a
density bonus should be granted and whether or not a condition should be added to require those
units be made affordable.
Commissioner Knapp stated that, because the area is zoned R-3A, she is opposed to a
.density bonus. She stated, rather, it is important to consider the existing density in the area and
provide a similar density.
Commissioner Vincent concurred with that comment.
Commissioner Stiff stated that he could support the requested density bonus with the four
additional units being designated as affordable. He noted that every time the Commission tries to
address the issue of affordable housing with builders, the response is, "next time"; and the issue
is not being addressed. He recognized that to designate these units as affordable may require some
change in the financing of the project, but he feels it can be accomplished. He further noted that,
particularly because of the concerns expressed by residents of the neighborhood, it will take every
bit of his strength to support this application; but, with the requirement that the four additional
units be affordable, he will.
e Commissioner Frost stated he also recognizes the benefits of designating the additional
units as affordable; however, he suggested a compromise might be to require only two of the units
be affordable. He stated that he understands the arguments forwarded by the City Manager and
the City Attorney, but he feels this application can be acted upon without jeopardizing the policy.
Responding to Mayor Swanson, Commissioner Stiff stated that he could not accept the
proposal to require only two of the additional units being designated as affordable, but remained
firm on designating all four additional units as affordable.
Mayor Swanson stated he feels a density bonus is warranted on the basis of the project
as submitted, without requiring any affordable units. He stated that with the setbacks,
landscaping, single access, and twelve fully accessible units, the requested density bonus is
warranted. He noted that few apartment projects are being undertaken at this time; and he feels
eit is important to see a project like this move forward. He stated that, since this position is very
obviously in the minority, his second choice is to support the requirement that affordable units be
provided. He stated this can be accomplished without establishing a precedent or negatively
impacting the development of future policy because there is no policy in place at this time.
11-1 5-93
I
, - 6 -
Commissioner Vincent stated he would be interested in considering the requirement for
affordable units; however, he is extremely concerned about the position in which that would place
the Commission in future considerations.
City Attorney Luwe stated that requiring the units generated through the density bonus
.to be affordable will make the applicant determine whether he wants to pursue the project as
\ proposed or forego the density bonus and proceed with the project as allowed under the zone code.
He noted that under Commissioner Frost's proposal. the applicant would have an added incentive
to pursue the density bonus.
Commissioner Knapp stated she does not feel that decisions made on immediate situations
serve the Commission well. She also stated she is not interested in setting precedent without
looking at all the parameters involved and the parameters which the Commission wishes to choose
for affordable housing. She concluded that affordable housing is one of the Commission's primary
goals; however, she feels this process is not presently well thought out.
Mayor Swanson asked that, based on the Commissioners' comments, the condition
requiring the four density bonus units be designated as affordable be added.
. The Mayor then asked the Commissioners whether they wish to change Condition No. 19
by deleting the break-away barrier, and adding the requirements for paving the alley and screening
along the adjacent properties. Each Commissioner, in turn, stated support for those changes.
Mayor Swanson then asked about requiring a boulevard sidewalk.
Mr. Doug Rand noted there are some major power lines on poles located close to the
existing sidewalk. He expressed concern that to require a boulevard would result in the need to
relocate those poles.
City Manager Wysocki responded that under the City's sidewalk policy, the sidewalk could
be curved around those poles rather than having them relocated.
Commissioner Vincent stated his preference for a boulevard sidewalk, noting he does have
some questions about requiring it in this instance.
. Commissioner Stiff stated that he prefers a boulevard; however, since the sidewalk is
already in place, he does not feel it appropriate to require those additional costs be incurred.
Commissioner Frost stated his support for a boulevard sidewalk.
Mayor Swanson stated his interest in keeping the costs as reasonable as possible;
therefore, he will support Commissioner Stiff's position.
11-1 5-93
--- -.. -
--
,
, - 7 -
Commissioner Knapp stated her interest in maintaining the sidewalk as it currently exists.
Commissioner Vincent stated he cannot support approval of this application. He noted
concerns about requiring the additional four units be affordable, and concerns about the sidewalk
and where the snow is to be stored. He also noted the petition of opposition forwarded by
.esidents of the area. He stated if this were a somewhat smaller scale project. he could support
it; however, this proposal seems too large and dense. He also expressed concern about the traffic
impacts this proposal could create, particularly with an access onto South 11th Avenue close to
West Babcock Street.
Commissioner Knapp stated she cannot support this application because it is too dense
for the R-3A zoning district, as she had noted previously.
Commissioner Frost stated his support for the application, as did Commissioner Stiff and
Mayor Swanson.
It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Vincent, that the
Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development requested by Doug
Rand representing Boz, Inc., under Application No. Z-93125, to allow construction of two 12-unit
.apartment buildings on a 1.94-acre tract known as the unplatted portion of northwest one-quarter
of the southwest one-quarter of Section 12, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Montana Principal
Meridian, subject to following conditions:
1. That the final elevations shall be subject to review and approval by the
Planning Staff, and shall include architectural grade overhead and man
doors, windows, and detailing. The exposure of the lap siding shall not
exceed 6 inches;
2. That an additional outdoor recreational amenity shall be provided;
3. That a concrete walkway shall be provided to link the "activities
building" and the parking area with the new development on the site;
4. That continuous hedge shall be provided adjacent to the parking area
along the north, south and west property lines, and along the south
property line adjacent to the building;
5. That at least five large conifer trees shall be provided and be regularly
. spaced along both the north and south property lines;
6. That signage shall be limited to one freestanding sign which identifies
the development at the vehicular entrance to the site which does not
exceed 15 square feet in area and 4 feet in height, and one
freestanding directional sign in the parking area that does not exceed
8 square feet in area and 4 feet in height;
11-1 5-93
.__._~
'-'
.
- 8 -
7. That the concrete retaining walls along the front property line shall
incorporate design details subject to the review and approval by the
Planning Staff;
8. That the final plan shall be adequately dimensioned;
9. That the garbage dumpster(s) shall be screened and the dumpsters shall
be made available to the collection hauler. The location of the garbage
'. dumpster(s) shall be shown on the final plan and approved by the
Sanitation Superintendent; and
The owner shall make application with the City of Bozeman for garbage
collection or show that they are being served by the private hauler,
Waste Management, Inc.;
10. That adequate site lighting for visibility and security shall be provided
as per the PUD criteria and noted on the final plan with details of the
fixtures. The Planning Staff suggests that the applicant use "low-key"
fixtures, such as would be accomplished with bollard style fixtures;
11. That the existing gravel driveway and curb cut to the existing house on
the site shall be removed and abandoned in accordance with City
policy. The primary drive approach shall be constructed in accordance
with the City's standard approach (i.e., concrete apron, sidewalk
section, and drip-curb) and shown as such on the Final Plan.
"Commercial development," as this development is categorized, shall
use 15' radii flares at the driveway approach; this may create a conflict
with the existing storm drain inlet in the street which will have to be
resolved on the final plan. The final plan shall include a detail for
. driveway approaches with the sidewalk located adjacent to the back of
curb;
12. That typical curb details (i.e., raised and/or drop curbs) and typical
asphalt paving section detail shall be provided and approved by the City
Engineer. Curbing and/or asphalt or concrete headers shall be provided
around the entire new parking lot perimeter and adequately identified
on the final plan;
13. That adequate snow storage area(s) must be designated outside the
sight triangles, but on the subject property (unless a snow storage
easement is obtained for a location off the property and filed with the
County Clerk and Recorder);
14. That the drive approach and pUblic street intersection sight triangles
shall be free of plantings which at mature growth will obscure vision
within the sight triangle;
15. That bicycle racks which provide parking for at least six bicycles shall
be provided and noted on the final plan. At least one rack shall be
provided adjacent to each building;
. 16. That a minimum of 53 standard sized parking spaces and a minimum
of 3 disabled parking spaces shall be provided as per Section
18.50.120 F NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED (pp. 154 and 155) and
illustrated on final plan. The disabled parking spaces shall be signed
as such and a sign detail shall be provided on the final plan;
17. A stormwater drainage/treatment grading plan and maintenance plan for
a system designed to remove solids, silt, oils, grease, and other
pollutants must be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. The
plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage (including sufficient spot
11-1 5-93
--.--- .-
- 9 -
elevations), storm water detention/retention basin details (including
basin sizing and discharge calculations, and discharge structure details),
stormwater discharge destination, and a stormwater maintenance plan.
The plan as illustrated, showing parking lot drainage piping directly into
the City Storm Drainage system, is unacceptable. Ten-year event
stormwater must first be detained or retained.
'. This plan will need to be approved by the City Engineer's office prior to
final plan approval;
18. That the owner shall execute and file with the County Clerk and
Recorder' Office a Waiver of Right-to-Protest the Creation of Special
Improvement Districts for the signalization of the intersection at College
and South 11 th Avenue;
19. That the alley between Curtiss and the subject site shall be paved to
the full 14-foot (14')
width, and the alley approach shall be
reconstructed to City Standard;
20. That the developer provide a fence and/or hedge along both sides of
the alley in a manner agreeable to the adjacent property owners. If one
or both of the property owners notify the City, in writing, that they do
not want the fencing or screening, this condition will not apply to that
particular property;
21. That the landscape legend on the final plan shall include sDecific
species/cultivers and sizes at installation for all proposed planting
materials. The minimum plant sizes shall be in conformance with
Section 18.50.100.D.5.g. ACCEPTABLE PLANT MATERIALS (pg.136)
. of the Zoning Ordinance. All landscaped areas shall be irrigated as per
the Zoning Ordinance; the type of irrigation shall be noted or illustrated
on the final plan;
22. That plans and specifications for any fire service line must be prepared
in accordance with the City's Fire Service line Policy by Professional
Engineer (PE), and be provided to and approved by the City Engineer
prior to initiation of construction of the fire service or fire protection
system. The applicant shall also provide professional engineering
services for construction inspection, post-construction certification, and
preparation of mylar record drawings;
23. That plans and specifications for the 6 inch water main extension must
be prepared by a Professional Engineer (PE), and be provided to and
approved by the City Engineer prior to initiation of construction of the
water line. The applicant shall also provide professional engineering
services for construction inspection, post-construction certification, and
preparation of mylar record drawings;
24. That all water and sewer mains and service lines, both existing and
. proposed, shall be accurately shown on the final site plan and final
landscape plan. Sizes of all water and sewer lines shall be accurately
shown. All fire hydrants within 500 feet of the site shall be shown or
indicated on the final plan. Water and sewer services shall be reviewed
and approved by the Water/Sewer Superintendent;
25. That application for water and sewer service must be completed by the
applicant, at the City Engineering Office, after the Building Permit is
issued;
11-1 5-93
----.-
- 10 -
26. That all existing utility and other easement shall be shown on the final
plan. Proposed easements must be shown on the final plan and
recorded at the
County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to
construction of the water or sewer main;
27. That the sanitary sewer service can not connect directly into the
manhole as shown. It must connect to the main or a main stub;
. 28. That in accordance with City policy, the three tracts on the site shall
be aggregated before final PUD approval so that the proposed
structures do not extend over a real property line. The tracts may be
aggregated through a Certificate of Survey;
29. That the additional units secured through the use of the density bonus
(Le., four units, shall be maintained as "affordable" as per the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development's definition,
in
accordance with the Residential PUD criteria (form 2 in Ordinance No.
1359) in Section 18.54.100.E. of the zoning ordinance. To ensure
perpetual afford ability, the rental of these units shall be monitored by
the Human Resource Development Council (HRDC). Documentation
which demonstrates perpetual affordability shall be submitted to the
Planning Office;
30. That the right to use and occupancy permit shall be contingent upon
the fulfillment of all general and special conditions imposed by the
Conditional Use Permit Procedure;
31. That all of the special conditions shall constitute restrictions running
with the land use and shall be binding upon the owner of the land, his
successors or assigns;
. 32. That all conditions specifically stated under any Conditional Use listed
in this Ordinance shall apply and be adhered to by the owner of the
land, successors or assigns;
33. That all of the special conditions shall be consented to in writing by the
applicant;
34. That seven copies of the final site plan containing all of the conditions,
corrections, and modifications approved by the City Commission shall
be submitted for review and approved by the Planning Director within
six months of the date of City Commission approval. Signed copies
shall be retained
by the City departments represented on the
Development Review Committee, and one signed copy shall be retained
by the applicant;
35. That the applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement with the
City to guarantee the installation of required on-site improvements at
the time of final site plan submittal. Detailed cost estimates,
construction plans and methods of security shall be made a part of the
Agreement;
. 36. That a building permit must be obtained within one (1) year of final site
plan approval. Building permits will not be issued until the final site
plan is approved. No site work, including excavation, may occur until
a Building Permit is issued; and
37. That if occupancy of the structure or commencement of the use is to
occur prior to the installation of all improvements, the Improvement
Agreement must be secured by a method of security equal to one and
one-half times the amount of the estimated cost of the scheduled
11-1 5-93
-.--.--- ..- . -..
.--..---.. .------ -
- .-."..- . -- .
- 11 -
improvements not yet installed. Said method of security shall be valid
for a period of not less than twelve (12) months; however, all on-site
improvements shall be completed by the applicant within nine (9)
months of occupancy to avoid default on the method of security.
The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff,
Commissioner Frost and Mayor Swanson; those voting No being Commissioner Vincent and
.ommissioner Knapp.
Deviations from Sections 18.20.050 and 18.50.050.F.1. of the Bozeman MuniciDal Code to allow
renovation of an existing single-car aaraae which encroaches 16% feet into reauired 20-foot rear
yard setback and 6% feet into reauired 10-foot rear yard setback for accessory structures- Jennifer
Mitchell. 122 South Church Avenue
City Manager Wysocki noted that, included in the Commissioners' packets, were a memo
1
from Senior Planner Skelton, dated November 10, forwarding the staff report on the requested
deviations; and a letter from Mrs. Jennifer Mitchell, dated November 11, forwarding additional
information regarding the application.
Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented the staff report. He showed the Commission some
color photos of the existing property, which is located within the conservation overlay district. He
.stated this application is for a Certificate of Appropriateness, including deviations as follows:
1. From Section 18.20.050, to allow alteration of an existing garage
which encroaches 16 % feet into the required 20-foot rear yard setback;
and
2. From Section 18.50.050.F.1., to allow alteration of an existing garage
which encroaches 6 % feet into the required 10-foot rear yard setback
for accessory structures.
The Senior Planner also distributed to the Commission a three-page memo, dated
November 15, forwarding additional comments on the application. He stated the existing single-
family residence was constructed in 1904. He noted the existing 14-foot by 22-foot single-car
garage has a flat roof. Because the applicant wishes to add a second story to the garage for
storage and install a gambrel roof and cupola, the Certificate of Appropriateness and the deviations
become intertwined and extremely difficult to separate when considering this application.
. Senior Planner Skelton stated that, following review of the application, staff forwarded
a recommendation to the Design Review Board that they approve the application, subject to four
conditions. He then reviewed those conditions, noting that the City Engineer's office has confirmed
the location of the east property line, adjacent to the single-car garage, and confirmed the
encroachment.
11-1 5-93
- 12 -
The Senior Planner stated the DRB has recommended that the applicant install a gable roof
instead of the proposed gambrel roof and cupola, which is the point upon which the applicant and
the City's advisory board disagree. He noted that, even though the subject property is not listed
in the National Register of Historic Places and it is not located in an historic district, under the zone
_Ode all projects within the conservation overlay district are reviewed under the criteria for
renovation of historic places.
The Senior Planner reminded the Commission that deviations are usually placed on the
consent agenda. He noted, however, the applicant has requested this item be placed on the regular
agenda for discussion, since she does not agree with the recommended conditions for approval.
Mrs. Jennifer Mitchell, applicant, reviewed the basic points in her letter of November 12.
She emphasized the fact that her home is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places and
it is not located in an historic district on the Register. She also noted the garage is not of historic
significance and, she feels, should not be subjected to those standards. She stated the house is
of 1904 vintage; and they recognize the importance of being sensitive to the historic characteristics
of the property. She indicated there are several examples of garages/carriage houses with gambrel
.roofs, cupolas and drop siding, as she has proposed for renovation of their garage. She then
showed the Commission several examples of those throughout the community, noting they are
scattered throughout. She stated there are no such examples in her immediate neighborhood;
however, she noted the neighborhood reflects a wide range of styles and contains many different
types of development, including residential, commercial and park areas.
Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the application, noting her desire to renovate the existing 14-foot
by 22-foot by 9-foot-high garage on the property. She characterized the structure as old, with a
flat roof which is in very poor shape. She noted their need for storage, stating that the proposed
gambrel roof would provide the most usable storage space possible without overwhelming the
neighboring structures. She indicated that the proposed cupola is designed to serve as the vent,
in lieu of the modern plastic roof vents now being used. She also noted it would provide a nice
.mounting for a weathervane.
Mrs. Mitchell stated she does not wish to install the gable roof recommended by the
Design Review Board, nor the proposed side wall with no windows which would face her house.
She noted that the DRB's recommendation would result in more expense than her proposal.
11-1 5-93
- --
~. --
- 13 -
Mrs. Mitchell concluded by stating she feels her proposal is a simple solution to a simple
problem. She feels it relates well with the neighborhood; and it is a design which the neighbors
like.
Responding to Mayor Swanson, Mrs. Mitchell emphasized the fact that gambrel roofs and
.CUPolas are evident throughout the community, noting that many of the examples she provided are
, located in her general area, including 304 North Wallace Avenue. She then underlined her interest
in maintaining the local regional style in her project, and not constructing something that would
blemish her property.
Responding to Commissioner Vincent, Senior Planner Skelton stated that when reviewing
this application, the Design Review Board used the criteria for considering applications within
historic districts and the Secretary of Interior's Standards, as required under the zone code. He
stated that following that review, the DRB concluded that the application does not meet those
criteria and forwarded its recommendation for change to a gable roof. He noted that the drawings
submitted to the Commission include drawings of the garage with the proposed gambrel roof as
well as a gable roof. He stated those drawings were provided by the applicant, cautioning the
.commission that the height of the gable roof could be lowered.
Mrs. Mitchell stated the Historic Preservation Officer has suggested new walls be
constructed. She then noted that her proposal does not include the installation of new walls, but
suggests that additional height be provided on the existing walls at a half-story level rather than
a full story level. She stated this keeps the height of the structure down while providing adequate
space for storage and a work area.
Responding to Commissioner Vincent, the Planner stated the height of the drawings
depicting the gambrel roof and the gable roof is relatively close. He then indicated the key
questions pertain to mass, scale, and proportion to the subject property and surrounding properties.
He then indicated that, while the gable roof is acceptable to the DRB, the height shown in the
drawings in the packet isn't necessarily acceptable.
. Mrs. Mitchell stated that not only the Historic Preservation Officer suggested new walls,
but some of the DRB members as well. She emphasized the fact that she is not trying to design
something that will overwhelm the neighborhood, rather she is trying to design a project that will
enhance her property and the neighborhood.
11-15-93
-...--...
- 14 -
Responding to Mayor Swanson, Planner Skelton stated that in this instance, the Historic
Preservation Officer checked a two-block radius from the subject property for architectural design.
He noted that with the various types of uses in the area, including residential, commercial and a
park, it is difficult to identify a specific neighborhood.
. Mayor Swanson noted the Commissioners have just received a rather detailed memo,
which they have not had an opportunity to review. He then asked that this item be placed on next
week's agenda for a decision, so the Commissioners have an opportunity to review that
information.
Break - 4:42 to 4:47 O.m.
Mayor Swanson declared a break from 4:42 p.m. to 4:47 p.m., in accordance with
Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983.
Discussion - Ordinance No. 1376 - amendina Section 10.32.350 of the Bozeman Municioal Code
as created under Ordinance 1345 - enablina leaislation for creation of neighborhood oarkina district
City Manager Wysocki presented Ordinance No 1376, as prepared by Assistant Manager
.Brey entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 1376
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONT ANA, AMENDING THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE BY REVISING
SECTION 10.32.350, PERTAINING TO THE CITY COMMISSION FINDINGS
NECESSARY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL ON-STREET
PARKING PERMIT REGULATION PROGRAM AND CLARIFYING THE NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING AREAS.
Assistant City Manager Brey presented a brief update on the ability of a local government
to create a neighborhood parking district. He reminded the Commission that eighteen months ago,
they adopted Ordinance No. 1345, establishing the enabling legislation for the Commission to
consider creation of neighborhood parking districts, as the result of a petition they had received for
creation of a district near the University. He noted that in May 1992, between the provisional and
.final adoptions of Ordinance No. 1345, a group of Missoula residents and the Associated Students
of the University of Montana filed suit in District Court against the City of Missoula to stop their
neighborhood parking district, which is the example upon which the City of Bozeman's program
was developed. He stated that the City decided at that time to delay any further action until the
11-1 5-93
,
, - 15 -
court case was resolved; and that was accomplished on October 21, with a Montana Supreme
Court ruling which upheld Missoula's ordinances with no revisions.
The Assistant City Manager briefly highlighted the findings contained in the Montana
Supreme Court decision. He then reviewed the contents of Ordinance No. 1376, noting that it
_mendS Section 10.32.350 10 more closely mirror the language contained in the Supreme Court
ruling. He indicated these revisions are not substantial in character, but he feels it is appropriate
for them to be incorporated into the enabling legislation to avoid potential problems and conflicts
in the future.
Assistant City Manager Brey emphasized the fact that this is only enabling legislation and
that the creation of any specific district must go through all of the appropriate steps. He then
indicated his intent to forward the neighborhood parking district previously petitioned through the
process, beginning in early December. He noted this will allow an opportunity for University
students to participate in the process before their semester break.
Responding to Mayor Swanson, the Assistant City Manager stated there is no statutory
requirement for a public hearing to be held in conjunction with the creation of a neighborhood
.arking district. He noted that the Commission can accept public input if it wishes during either
provisional or final adoption of the ordinance of creation, or at both times; or they may choose to
conduct a public hearing to encourage public participation.
Responding to Commissioner Knapp, Assistant Brey stated that this ordinance amends
only one section of Ordinance No. 1345. He noted that the remainder of Ordinance No. 1345 is
codified and remains in full force and effect.
Mayor Swanson briefly reviewed the history of considering a neighborhood parking district
around the University, noting it has been in process since 1990.
At the Mayor's request, the Assistant City Manager reviewed the funding for this program.
He stated that the district is designed to be revenue neutral and will not be a part of the General
Fund. He noted, however, that substantial up-front costs are involved; therefore, an expenditure
.rom the General Fund will be necessary to implement the program with the monies being repaid
over a period of years. He stated that the fees for the permits and the fines for violation of this
chapter of the Bozeman Municipal Code are to be set so they generate sufficient revenues to offset
the expenditures of the program; and those fees may be adjusted on an annual basis. He cautioned
11-1 5-93
- 16 -
that if the program is successful, the revenues from fines are minimal, with the permit fees bearing
the majority of the costs involved.
Commissioner Knapp noted the University has undertaken expansion and improvement of
its parking facilities on campus. She stated there should now be adequate parking on campus to
.ccommodate students. staff and faculty; and the eighteen-month delay while awaiting the Court
decision has allowed time for that parking to be provided.
Assistant City Manager Brey suggested that creation of a neighborhood parking district
could possibly result in a decrease in the amount of traffic within those neighborhoods close to
campus because there will not be any parking spaces to access in that area.
Commissioner Vincent stated this program as proposed is a "middle-of-the-road" approach,
in light of other programs which have been implemented around the United States, both in terms
of size and restrictions.
It was moved by Commissioner Vincent, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, that the
Commission provisionally adopt Ordinance No. 1376, amending Section 10.32.350, which provides
enabling legislation for creation of a neighborhood parking district. The motion carried by the
.following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp,
Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Swanson; those voting No, none.
ADDointment to Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board (1)
Mayor Swanson noted that this appointment was delayed for a period of one week, so
a full Commission could act on it.
Commissioner Knapp nominated Charles Day. The nomination failed by the following vote:
those voting Aye being Commissioner Knapp and Mayor Swanson.
Commissioner Vincent nominated Elizabeth Pfaff. The nomination carried by the following
vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Frost and Commissioner Stiff.
It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that Elizabeth
.faff be appointed to replace Shae Bunde on the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board, with a
term to expire on December 31, 1994. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote:
those voting Aye being Commissioner Knapp,
Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff,
Commissioner Vincent and Mayor Swanson; those voting No, none.
11-1 5-93
,
T
- 17 -
Discussion - FYI Items
City Manager Wysocki presented to the Commission the following "For Your Information"
items.
(1 ) Copy of a letter to Planner Kevin Wall from Doug Fullerton, dated November 8,
. .equesting an extension on the deadline for code compliance at Kids' Depot.
(2) Letter from Susan J. Smiley and Steven Wenzel, 2502 West Babcock Street,
dated November 12, regarding their request for annexation.
(3) Letter from Stuart Jennings, 613 West Harrison Street, dated November 6,
encouraging the Commission to designate and enact a residential parking district near MSU.
(4) Minutes for the Beautification Advisory Board meetings of September 28 and
October 12 along with the agenda for the November 12 meeting.
(5) Letter from the Montana Department of Transportation, dated November 1,
forwarding notice of the public hearing on the proposed reconstruction of the Belgrade interchange,
scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 2.
The City Manager indicated a willingness to write a letter for the Mayor's signature,
.encouraging improvements to the interchange.
Mayor Swanson noted the Transportation Plan contains very specific language concerning
this interchange and suggested that it be incorporated into a letter for his signature.
(6) Agenda for the Development Review Committee meeting scheduled for 10:00
a.m. on Tuesday, November 16, at the Carnegie Building.
(7) Agenda for the County Commission meeting scheduled for 1 :30 p.m. on
Tuesday, November 16, at the Courthouse.
(8) Agenda for the City-County Planning Board meeting to be held at 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, November 16, in the Commission Room.
(9) Agenda for the Board of Adjustment meeting to be held at 1 :30 p.m. on
Thursday, November 18, in the Commission Room.
. (10) The City Manager submitted his weekly report, as follows. (1) Met with the
County Commissioners, representatives from other cities and towns, schools and local legislators
to discuss the upcoming legislative session and forward their concerns. (2) Noted the Police
Department encountered lots of activity over the weekend due to the weather and the ball games.
(3) Stated a 10-inch water main broke behind the High School this past weekend, dropping the
11-15-93
- ------
.- -\
- 18 -
level in one of the water tanks down six feet. (4) Attended Interagency Breakfast on Wednesday,
where the discussion revolved around the special legislative session and the University's concerns
about that session. (5) Stated that City staff, not just the Planning staff, spent a considerable
amount of time on planning items this past week. He emphasized the fact that these items do
_mpact much of the City staff, adding to their workloads. (6) Stated that staff is trying to develop
safety committees to meet the Safety Culture Act requirements. (7) Announced the Fire
Department is conducting inspections of businesses, in anticipation of the Christmas season. (8)
Announced that three members of the staff went to Missoula for testing regarding building codes;
and the results of those tests will be known in the next two months.
(11 ) Commissioner Vincent stated he attended the Interagency Breakfast on
Wednesday, noting that various agencies in attendance expressed concern about the upcoming
special legislative session. He noted the big issue is whether any of the changes will be made
retroactive.
Responding to comments from Mayor Swanson, Commissioner Vincent noted the
Governor's appointed task force worked diligently on developing a proposal from an academic
.standPoint; and he feels that those recommendations are well presented. He noted, however, that
the recommendations are now in the political environment, which changes the whole tone.
( 12) Commissioner Knapp announced that she will be in Helena on Thursday and
Friday to attend the library Services Advisory Council meeting.
(13) Mayor Swanson submitted the following. (1) Stated he, Boone Lennon and
Ankara EI-Auria, representing the "We Share the Road" campaign, participated in a one-hour
interview for KMMS on Friday. (2) Attended the Gallatin Valley Land Trust's annual meeting, at
which Draftsperson Teresa Larson and Parks Foreman Ron Dingman were given special recognition
for their efforts. (2) Attended a lunch at the Whittier School, at which the Head Smart program
was carefully reviewed by people from Virginia who are studying the program. He reminded the
Commission that this program requires children riding bicycles to school to wear helmets. (4)
.rovided a progress report on the Rails to Trails program, which currently focuses on the Story Mill
railroad line. He stated the Gallatin Valley Land Trust has met with representatives from Montana
Rail Link and a corporation who is interested in getting involved in the project. (5) Stated that
discussions between the Performing Arts Center and the School District regarding renovation of the
Willson Auditorium are continuing. He noted that an agreement may be reached within the next
11-1 5-93
__..___.......
n_
n__ -
- 19 -
few months. (6) Announced he will be giving a State of the City address to the Sunrise Rotary
Club at 7:00 a.m. on Friday.
(14) Commissioner Frost stated he traveled just under 3,000 miles, driving the back
roads of California, Nevada, northern Arizona and southern Utah, looking at communities and
_ooking for trails upon which to hike. He noted, with interest, that the only town with character
was Las Vegas. He then stated that Bozeman has managed to maintain its own character through
growth; and he wishes to ensure that character is maintained.
( 15) Commissioner Stiff stated he and his wife spent the past week visiting with
guests from Boston, Dallas and Memphis, and catching up on trends in the corporate and financial
worlds.
(16) City Attorney Luwe stated that the Complaint against Karst Stage, seeking an
injunction and declaratory judgment, was filed on Wednesday. He indicated a willingness to
provide a copy of that document to any interested Commissioners.
( 17) Clerk of the Commission Sullivan reviewed the rough agenda for next week's
meeting, noting there are no public hearings scheduled.
.
Consent Items
City Manager Wysocki presented to the Commission the following Consent Items.
Authorize City Manaaer to sian - Sewer and Water Pioeline and Access Easement
and Agreement - Fellows Partnershio to the City of Bozeman - 15-foot
easement across south end of DroDertv at 2308 Durston Road
Award bid for one 1994 cab and chassis to Billinas Truck Center. Billinas.
Montana. in the amount of $42.629 and dumo box. sander and Dlow
to Kois Brothers EauiDment. Great Falls. Montana. in the base bid
amount of $16.906 - dumD truck for Street DeDartment
It was moved by Commissioner Frost, 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 Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner
Knapp and Mayor Swanson; those voting No, none.
11-1 5-93
-~--" .-
-. -",",,--,". - - .-- ..----
- 20-
Recess - 5:20 D.m.
Mayor Swanson declared a recess at 5:20 p.m., to reconvene at 7:00 p.m., for the
purpose of conducting the scheduled public hearings.
f1econvene at 7:00 D.m.
Mayor Swanson reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m., for the purpose of conducting the
scheduled public hearings.
Public hearina - review of City's sidewalk installation Dolicy, as set forth in Commission Resolution
2816
This was the time and place set for the public hearing for review of the City sidewalk
installation policy, as set forth in the Commission Resolution No. 2816, entitled:
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2816
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOlEMAN,
MONTANA, REVISING THE POLICY
GOVERNING THE DESIGN,
IMPLEMENTATION, CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR OF SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE
CITY OF BOlEMAN, MONTANA.
. Mayor Swanson opened the public hearing.
City Engineer Craig Brawner presented the staff report. He noted that in September 1990,
the Commission adopted Commission Resolution No. 2816, which implemented the sidewalk
installation policy currently in effect. He stated that the criteria in that policy have been followed
when determining which sidewalks to include in the annual sidewalk programs since that time; and
staff has used the experience obtained from the use of those criteria to determine if any changes
should be considered.
Engineer Brawner noted that he has prepared a memo, dated November 11, forwarding
staff comments based on experience as well as responses to questions and comments from
Commissioners. He characterized most of the suggested revisions as clarifying and fine tuning the
eOliCY, although there are a couple issues which are more substantive.
The City Engineer stated that, following this public hearing, staff will prepare proposed
revisions to the policy for Commission consideration.
Commissioner Frost noted that in the past few years, the Commission has included a
condition that sidewalks must be installed upon development of a site or within three years after
11-1 5-93
- 21 -
the date of subdivision approval. He then questioned whether this action conflicts with the
sidewalk installation policy, or whether it should be specifically addressed in the policy.
City Engineer Brawner responded that if the Commission wishes, it can be incorporated
into this policy. He suggested that it may be more appropriately addressed under the subdivision
.e9ulations than under this policy, but care should be taken to ensure this policy does not conflict
with that provision.
Mayor Swanson noted many of the staff comments pertain to the issue of safety. He then
quoted one statement from Engineer Brawner's memo which reads "In my judgment, one
pedestrian, school child, elderly or handicapped person poses sufficient need to warrant sidewalk
installation and, therefore, even a dead-end street one lot deep should have sidewalk if the
residence obtains access from that street. In general, I feel it is the City's responsibility to provide
for, and the public's right to have, safe pedestrian use of all public right-of-way." He then asked
for further staff comment on that statement.
Engineer Brawner stated that under the current policy, sidewalks are not required on dead-
end streets which are no more than 250 feet deep. He noted that it is possible for there to be up
eto six houses serviced by a street which is only 250 feet long; and he feels that could be a
sufficient number to require the installation of sidewalks to address safety issues. He also
expressed concern about setting criteria which include hard numbers, since specific situations often
create differing results.
Mrs. Shirley Sedivy, 2205 Highland Court, noted she has resided in Bozeman for many
years and has seen changes made in the name of progress. She cited as examples the uncontrolled
development along North 7th Avenue, creating an unsightly entryway which is now being
addressed, and the replacement of diagonal parking with parallel parking along Main Street so
another driving lane could be added. She noted that in 1990, the Commission decided that if one
person had a sidewalk, then everyone else in town needed one. She stated that this past summer,
she and Mayor Swanson took an electric wheelchair tour of a portion of the community,
encountering many of the trials, tribulations and obstacles encountered by a disabled person. She
noted there were times it was safer to travel in the street than on the sidewalks that were
available.
Mrs. Sedivy stated she has resided in Westridge Subdivision for many years, noting that
subdivision has existed for 33 years without any sidewalks. She noted there are few cars parked
11-1 5-93
... .-.--..--.-...--.-.--------.-.--.. - --.-.- - ..--..-----..-.-
- 22 -
on the streets in that subdivision; and the subdivision is essentially a closed area with little traffic
due to the design of the streets. She stated there is a substantial amount of beautiful landscaping
that has grown an average of twenty years; and it would be a catastrophe to defoliate the
subdivision just to install sidewalks. She stated that the subdivision is happy without sidewalks
.and does not need them.
Mrs. Sedivy then suggested that, rather than being required to install sidewalks, the
residents of that subdivision would be willing to pay an amount equal to the cost of a sidewalk in
front of their homes toward improvements along South Third Avenue. She suggested this could
be accomplished through the creation of a district, with each property owner being assessed the
cost of the sidewalk that isn't to be installed. She noted a similar alternative could possibly be
used in other portions of the community, where there may be subdivisions with little vehicular or
pedestrian traffic, and arterials close by which desperately need improvements. She then
recognized that this proposal is a major change from the current policy, which she characterized
as a "one house, one sidewalk" policy.
Ms. Sharon Eversman, 1402 Cherry Drive, stated she walks along her street, often during
.the busiest time of the day, and she encounters very few vehicles. She stated that since first
learning that this issue was to be discussed, she has maintained a casual count of the vehicles, and
the highest number is three to five vehicles in fifteen minutes. She stated that to require
landscaping be removed and replaced with sidewalks would be a disservice to the neighborhood.
Mr. Hugo Schmidt, 1202 South Cedarview, noted the severe safety problems along
Highland Boulevard. He stated that there is a trail along one side, but it is muddy and difficult to
use. He noted there is little traffic within their subdivision, though; and he does not believe there
is any need for sidewalks along those streets.
Ms. Cindy Younkin, 1115 North Spruce, addressed the "Sidewalk Program Schedule
Selection Criteria (in priority order)" as contained on the last page of the sidewalk policy. She
reviewed each of the statements under the three categories entitled "Public Safety", "Public Need"
.and "Practicality of Construction". Her argument was that, because of the low number of vehicles
which travel the street except for residents of the neighborhood, the low traffic volume and the
width of the streets in the neighborhood, she does not believe sidewalks are needed. She stated
there is a substantial amount of mature landscaping in the subdivision; and removing that
landscaping would have a devastating effect on the appearance of the neighborhood. She then
11-1 5-93
-- --------
.--.---.----. ..~'- _..~__.__.,.._.__ n_ '. .n .--------.-,. ..- -..,.,--.
- 23 -
indicated a willingness to participate in improvements to Highland Boulevard in lieu of installing a
sidewalk in front of her home.
Mayor Swanson noted the tenor of the comments which have been received thus far. He
then stated that the City has applied for enhancement monies to fund a bicycle/pedestrian facility
.Iong Highland Boulevard from Kagy Boulevard to Main Street.
Ms. Jean Sternhagen, 1203 Holly Drive, stated that in 1989, she and her year-old son
were run off Highland Boulevard as she rode her bike, which underlines the need for improvements
to that roadway.
Mr. Craig Schumacher, 1203 Cherry Drive, stated he does not believe his subdivision
needs sidewalks; however, there is a real need for improvements to Highland Boulevard.
Mr. Don Weaver, 2404 Spring Creek Drive, stated he is a member of the Pedestrian/Traffic
Safety Committee. He noted that in 1960, he and his brother developed the Westridge
Subdivision, designing it with large lots, curvilinear streets and no sidewalks. He noted that there
are rarely vehicles parked on the streets, which are wide. He stated that in 1990, the Commission
adopted the current sidewalk policy, which requires the installation of sidewalks on almost all
.treets within the community.
Mr. Weaver suggested that, as a compromise between those two positions, one option
might be to require the installation of a sidewalk along the east side of Spring Creek Drive from
South Third Avenue around to Kagy Boulevard. He noted this would provide a nice walking loop
for residents of the area, while maintaining the integrity of the remainder of the subdivision. He
suggested this could be accomplished by establishing a district for installation and maintenance that
encompasses the entire subdivision. The costs could then be assessed to each individual property
owner, based on the linear footage of that parcel. He noted this mechanism could also be utilized
in other areas of the community as well.
Ms. Margaret Kumlien, 1332 Cherry Drive, stated she is opposed to sidewalks and asked
how residents can stop their installation.
. Mr. Bill Schultz, 105 Westridge Drive, suggested that payments in lieu of sidewalk
installation be based on the property value of the residence. He noted this could dramatically
simplify the process of establishing the assessments.
Mr. Dana Huschle, 1222 Cherry Drive, stated he concurs with many of the comments that
have already been made. He noted the lots in New Hyalite View Subdivision are rather small, with
11-1
5-93
1
- 24-
parks running along almost every lot in the subdivision. He noted that installation of a sidewalk
would result in the two mature trees on his lot being removed; and it would seriously encroach
upon the space in his front yard. He then stated that, while the subdivision does not need
sidewalks, Highland Boulevard definitely needs improvements.
. Mr. Tom Anacker, 422 Hendersen Street, noted that he previously submitted to the
Commission a petition from a majority of the residents along cul-de-sac streets in Figgins Addition
asking them to take a look at the pOlicy regarding cul-de-sacs. He stated the City had previously
exempted three of the cul-de-sac streets in Figgins Addition from the requirement to install
sidewalks because there is not adequate right-of-way to so do. He then questioned why the other
cul-de-sac streets within the subdivision, which are essentially the same length and similarly
situated as those three, are being required to install sidewalks. He suggested that if safety is the
issue, then the City should obtain the right-of-way necessary along those three streets, so that
sidewalks can be installed there as well.
Mr. Anacker then asked the Commission to reconsider its policy regarding sidewalks along
cul-de-sac streets. He stated that he likes to see green grass and landscaping; and he feels there
.s already enough paving in the area.
Mr. Frank Manseau, 1209 North Cedarview, stated he likes the neighborhood the way it
is. He stated that when he picked his lot, he was assured that the streets were being designed
wider to accommodate parking, driving, walking and bicycling. He noted that to install sidewalks
now could be expensive for many of the residents because of their existing landscaping and
driveways. He stated most of the traffic in New Hyalite View Subdivision is local traffic, even
though Highland Boulevard is heavily used. He then stated that, while he does support the
installation of sidewalks along Highland Boulevard, he is opposed to their being installed in the
remainder of the subdivision.
Ms. Alice Harwood, 1133 North Cedarview, noted the substantial number of vacant lots
in New Hyalite View Subdivision. She stated that if sidewalks were required, there would be many
.open spots in the sidewalk alignment, which wouldn't provide the desired result.
Mr. Noah Portiz, 1418 Maple Drive, stated he lived on Cherry Drive prior to moving to the
Maple Drive address. He stated his son has safely grown up in that subdivision and learned to ride
his bike, even without sidewalks. He noted that, with the traffic patterns in the subdivision as well
11-1 5-93
--.------ --
- 25 -
as the park system and open spaces, he does not feel the residents should be required to install
an unnecessary "improvement".
Mr. John Parker, 1612 South Tracy Avenue, stated he likes sidewalks, and is willing to
pay his fair share of a sidewalk installation. He stated that sidewalks are safe and convenient; and
_eOPle prefer them to walking in the street.
Mr. Parker noted he lives in the Wood brook Planned Unit Development. He noted that In
Phase IV, the developer was required to install a sidewalk. That sidewalk is a curved one, rather
than straight; and it is extensively used. He noted the residents pay for snow removal, and no one
feels particularly abused because of it. He stated that he does not like to see landscaping torn out
and sprinkler systems torn up; however, he suggested the City Engineer could possibly allow
sidewalk to be located closer to the street and avoid such problems. He concluded by encouraging
the Commission to order more sidewalks be installed around the community.
Mr. Jerry Gajewski, 1104 Cherry Drive, stated he is opposed to installing sidewalks in an
area such as New Hyalite View Subdivision, for several reasons. He noted, however, that he does
concur a sidewalk is needed along Highland Boulevard. He stated that children have a tendency
eto leave toys and bicycles on sidewalks, which makes them a hazard rather than a safe place to
walk. He stated sidewalks should not be required in an existing neighborhoods that were platted
without sidewalks.
Responding to Ms. Eversman, City Engineer Brawner stated he is not aware of any
statistics on the level of vehicular pressure at which sidewalks should be installed.
Mr. Tom Ferch, 1151 North Pinecrest, asked what has to be done to stop the issue of
sidewalk installation being raised every few years.
Mr. Rick Jandron, 1406 Cherry Drive, stated that New Hyalite View Subdivision was
developed without sidewalks. He noted, in fact, the houses are built six feet closer to the street
than in other areas because no sidewalks were planned. He stated that if the sidewalks were
located in their customary location, which extends eleven feet from the curb, they would be
extremelY close to the houses. He then stated he would like to see a provision in the policy that
it will not be reviewed for a period of twenty years, rather than the frequent reviews that are
presently occurring.
Mr. John Parker stated the sidewalks along Kagy Boulevard are heavily used. He noted
that South Third Avenue and Highland Boulevard are also heavily used and are desperately in need
11-1 5-93
...-.--.---..---- ---.-.-
- 26 -
of sidewalks. He then suggested a city-wide assessment for the installation of sidewalks along the
arterial streets, similar to the street maintenance and tree maintenance assessments currently in
place.
City Manager Wysocki stated no written comments have been received.
. It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Vincent, that the public
hearing be closed. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being
Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Frost and Mayor
Swanson; those voting No, none.
Mayor Swanson closed the public hearing. He then requested this item be placed on next
week's agenda, to allow staff an opportunity to respond to the questions and issues raised during
this public hearing.
Break - 8:05 to 8: 15 D.m.
Mayor Swanson declared a break from 8:05 p.m. to 8: 15 p.m., in accordance with
Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983.
.
Public hearina - Zone MaD Amendment - A-S to R-S - Planned DeveloDment. Inc. - 145:t -acre
Darcel known as Tract 1. COS 748A: Tracts 1-5. COS 748C: and Tracts 3A and 3A 1 (remainders).
COS 748B. all situated in the SE%. Section 16. T2S. R6E. MPM (bounded by Bozeman Trail Road.
Canary Lane. Fort Ellis Road and Clover Meadows Subdivision)
This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Zone Map Amendment from
"A-S", Agricultural Suburban, to "R-S", Residential Suburban, requested by Planned Development,
Inc., under Application No. Z-93143, for a 145:t acre parcel known as Tract 1, cas 748A; Tracts
1-5, cas 748C; and Tracts 3A and 3A1 (remainders), cas 748B, all situated in the SE%, Section
16, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, Montana Principal Meridian. The subject parcel is generally
bounded by Bozeman Trail Road, Canary Lane, Fort Ellis Road and Clover Meadows Subdivision.
Mayor Swanson opened the public hearing.
. City Manager Wysocki emphasized the fact that this public hearing pertains to a Zone Map
Amendment only, and not to any specific plan for development of the site.
Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell presented the staff report. She stated the
subject property is located east of the city limits and is accessed by Haggerty Lane and then either
Kagy Boulevard, Bozeman Trail Road or Fort Ellis Road. She noted the subject parcel is divided by
11-15-93
-- - ---
- 27 -
the boundary on the Master Plan land use designation map, with the majority of it being designated
Suburban Residential; and the small sliver lying outside the urban growth area is master planned
as Rural Residential. State lands abut the subject parcel on two sides; and there are currently no
plans for development of that land.
. The Assistant Planning Director stated that three development options are available under
the R-S zoning: (1) one dwelling per 20 acres, until urban services become available; (2) clustered
development, with a density bonus, until urban services become available; or (3) a planned unit
development, at a density of not less than one unit per acre. She stated that under these options,
39 dwelling units could be constructed under Option No.2; and 188.5 dwelling units could be
constructed under Option NO.3. She stated that, due to a conflict between the Master Plan and
the Zone Code, the first two options are available under the existing A-S zone, but a third option
is not available.
Assistant Planning Director Arkell emphasized that this application must be considered on
its own merits and not on the basis of any proposal for development. She stated that, even if the
Commission approves this Zone Map Amendment, there is no guarantee that the applicant will
.forward any specific application for development or that the application will be approved.
The Assistant Director stated that the City-County Planning Board conducted its public
hearing on this application at its November 2 meeting. She stated that three people testified at that
meeting, forwarding their concerns about fire protection, water degradation, water quantity, traffic
and the number of dwelling units. She noted that four letters were also entered into the record;
and copies of those letters have been forwarded to the Commission. She stated that, after
conducting the public hearing, the Planning Board acted on a motion to approve the amendment
and, subsequently, a motion to deny the amendment. She noted that only six members of the
Board were in attendance at the meeting; and under an Attorney General's ruling, a minimum of
six votes is needed to carry a motion. She noted that in this instance, the motion to approve failed
on a 5 to 1 vote; and the motion to deny failed on a 1 to 5 vote. She stated, therefore, this
.PPlication is being forwarded to the City Commission with no recommendation.
Assistant Planning Director Arkell stated that staff has reviewed this application in light
of the twelve criteria set forth in the Montana Code Annotated; and those findings are contained
in detail in the written staff report.
11-1 5-93
--.
- -----. -. ----
- 28 -
Ms. Nadia Beiser, principal in Planned Development, Inc., noted that any concerns about
development of the site will be addressed at the appropriate time, through the review process. She
stated that all of the concerns that were raised during the public hearing before the Planning Board
will be adequately addressed during that review, or the project will probably not be approved.
. Ms. Beiser stated they are considering a request to tie onto the City's sewer system, and
possibly the City's water system. She noted that if they decided instead to provide a central sewer
system, it will be subjected to Montana's regulations, which are the most stringent controls on
septic tanks in the entire United States. She indicated this should help to address some of the
concerns which have been forwarded by residents of the Clover Meadows Subdivision. She stated
that, through appropriate development of the sUbject property, the existing traffic problems in the
Clover Meadows Subdivision could be alleviated rather than compounded.
Ms. Beiser forwarded her company's philosophy of ensuring the quality of life is
maintained, resources are preserved, the environment is protected and open space is preserved.
She then stated that this is the first step in the type of development which was previously
submitted in the concept plan. She noted that if the zoning is not changed from the current A-S
.oning, that plan cannot even be considered.
Ms. Beiser noted that the requested rezoning will bring this property into compliance with
the Master Plan land use designation. She further noted that, since the sUbject property is bounded
on two sides by R-S zoning, it would be in conformance with adjacent zoning and land uses. She
noted those are important issues to consider when reviewing a request for a zone change, along
with the issue of whether it is consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. She
then quoted from the Bozeman Area Master Plan, noting that the community objectives include
ensuring that future growth and development occur within the zoning jurisdiction and in accordance
with the master plan and encouraging innovations in land development.
Ms. Nadia Beiser then reviewed the important features of the concept plan for the planned
unit development which she had previously presented to the Commissioner. She stated the three
.Iusters of housing units help to provide a substantial amount of open space, which is strategically
placed to minimize the impacts of the development on surrounding properties. She stated that a
portion of the site is to remain in its current agricultural status; and some of the open space is to
be used for more active agriculture, including a wholesale nursery.
11-15-93
--
- 29 -
Ms. Beiser then reviewed the environmental goals and objectives contained in the Master
Plan, stating that she feels the proposed development of this site would meet those. she also
reminded the Commission that approving this requested zone change would be the first step in
making that project a reality. She noted that the staff findings have been forwarded to the
.commission for their consideration. She then asked the Commission to concur in the staff's
recommendation for approval of this zone change.
At Commissioner Knapp's request, Assistant Planning Director Arkell reviewed the
development densities that are allowed in the A-S zoning district as well as the R-S zoning district.
She stated that in both the A-S and the R-S zones, (1) 1 dwelling unit per twenty acres, or (2)
clustered development on a sliding scale is allowed, with up to 39 units being allowed in the
subject 145 acres, with density bonus. She noted that the planned unit development option, under
which 188.5 dwelling units are allowed, is not available under the A-S zone; and that level of
development is five times higher than what is allowed in the A-S zone.
Responding to Commissioner Frost, the Assistant Planning Director stated this application
is for rezoning of the entire 145-acre parcel, even though the southeast corner lies outside the
.urban growth area. She noted that, since the applicant does not propose any residential
development in that area, it does not create a problem for the proposed development. She once
again cautioned the Commission that the plan previously submitted may not be used and, in fact,
this developer may not be the one to develop the site.
Mr. Ray Dore, 1518 Bluebird Lane, stated his support for the requested rezoning. He
noted support for the plan for development of the parcel, characterizing it as an intelligent use of
land.' He noted the tendency to subdivide into ten- and twenty-acre parcels and even forty-acre
parcels in some cases. He stated that with the growth projections for this area, it is important to
use the land more intelligently, in a manner such as the one proposed under this application. He
noted that approval of this requested zone change could lead to a desirable development that
maximizes the use of land while maintaining open space. He stated that when he purchased his
aome, he was interested in a larger tract, such as a half-acre tract; however, he was only able to
find the home where he now lives, which is located on one acre. He characterized that as "too
much to maintain but not enough to farm".
11-1 5-93
r
- 30-
Mr. Dore noted that the proposed rezoning does not guarantee the previously viewed
concept plan will become a reality. He noted, however, that it will avoid the potential of a cattle
feed lot or a pig farm being located on the subject 145-acre parcel.
Mr. Dore noted that the residents of Clover Meadows Subdivision were united in their
.0PPosition to the heliport proposal which was before the Commission a couple of years ago. He
then noted that, while most of the residents of Clover Meadows Subdivision are supportive of this
request, there are a few who are opposed. He then encouraged the Commission to approve this
requested zone change, noting that there are adequate safeguards in the planning process to ensure
that development under the R-S zoning designation will be appropriate.
Mr. Harry Huntsinger, owner of The Store, stated he owns 30 acres in Bear Canyon, most
of which is brush, trees and shrubs. He stated that, due to covenants, he cannot raise livestock
on that acreage. He then recounted his experiences with the planning process as his business has
grown, and how it ensures the appropriateness of that growth. He then encouraged the
Commission to approve this requested zone change, noting it will allow this developer or another
developer to come forward with a proposal for development. He stated that the east end of the
.community is becoming the only way for it to grow; and he feels this rezoning, hopefully with an
application for a planned unit development, is a more appropriate method of development than 20-
acre or 30-acre parcels.
Mr. Huntsinger noted the community is growing; and it is best if that growth is positive.
He then encouraged the Commission to approve this zone change.
Mr. Everett Egbert, 9439 Haggerty Lane, stated he has been a resident of the subject area
at various times over the past thirty years. He noted that he has addressed several different groups
regarding the planning process, highlighting the content of those presentations. He stated it is
becoming increasingly difficult for the building industry to provide adequate housing, particularly
low- and moderate-income housing, due in large part to the NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude.
He stated people typically want development next to them of higher value than theirs and don't
. want it to infringe on them. He noted the best way to keep the cost down is to increase the supply
until the supply and the demand matches. He then encouraged Commission approval of this
application, noting it will allow for additional housing units to be constructed in a manner which
best utilizes the available land.
11-1 5-93
.
I
- 31 -
Ms. Diane Heimer, realtor with McKenna Real Estate, stated that there is little land
available close to Bozeman that has enough acreage to meet the needs and desires of the subject
developers. She noted they are, indeed, interested in the land and its qualities and will take steps
to preserve its assets. She noted the subject property is located within the sensitive three-mile
.adius of the community; and it should be developed in a manner other than 20-acre parcels.
Ms. Heimer stated that with the planning process in place, a planned unit development
is subject to close scrutiny and any concerns or issues must be adequately addressed before it can
become a reality. She also stated that a planned unit development provides for the highest and
best use of the land.
Ms. Heimer noted that staff has carefully reviewed this application in light of the twelve
criteria set by statute, and has recommended approval. She also noted that, while the Planning
Board could not obtain the number of votes needed to forward a recommendation, a majority of
the members in attendance at the meeting supported the request. She stated that, while it is
difficult to accept the fact, houses will be built on this beautiful ground that has been open for
years.
. Ms. Heimer noted that with the growing pains which Bozeman is currently feeling, the
subject property is not really that far from downtown. She also noted that the subject property is
within the urban service area; and the proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Master Plan.
She then encouraged Commission approval of this application.
Ms. Jacquie Warddrip, 1429 Robin Lane, stated her opposition to the requested zone map
amendment. She expressed concern about the potential negative impacts that septic systems and
wells for residential development on the subject 145-acre parcel may have on the existing
residences in the Clover Meadows Subdivision. She noted that if a new development taps into an
aquifer and draws a significant amount of water, it could impact not only her subdivision, but
surrounding developments as well.
Ms. Warddrip then noted that the subject area is served by the Fort Ellis Volunteer Fire
er,epartment; and their response time is quite long. She stated that a residential development at the
density proposed under the concept plan previously submitted could create some real problems for
that department; and fire damage could be quite extensive.
Ms. Warddrip also forwarded concerns about the traffic impacts that residential
development on the subject 145-acre parcel could have on Clover Meadows. She suggested that
11-1 5-93
'.
,
- 32 -
with the current road system, people would tend to drive through their subdivision rather than drive
around on the other roads which provide access to the property.
Ms. Warddrip stated that, with the current housing market in the area, she does not
anticipate that development of the subject parcel will provide any affordable housing. She stated
.hat she purchased her home in 1988 for $75,000; and in today's market, she could sell it for
$120,000. She also noted the subject site is quite a distance from the city limits, and would not
be a good location for affordable units because many lower income families do not have two
vehicles. She then concluded by stating that, while she does not want to stop progress, she does
not feel this zone change is in the community's best interests.
Ms. Seidi Albertsen, 1414 Robin Lane, forwarded her statement of opposition to the
requested zone map amendment. She noted that those who spoke in support of this requested
amendment include a realtor, a builder, and the owner of a convenience store who has been
approached about operating the proposed convenience store on the sUbject parcel.
Ms. Albertsen reviewed the residential goals contained in the Master Plan, stating they
make reference to encouraging residential development in the city, not two miles outside the city.
.She stated that, while she is not against progress, she feels that the potential of 188 dwelling units
on the site is too much. She noted that the 39 units that could be constructed under the existing
zoning would be much more appropriate and would blend better with the Clover Meadows
Subdivision development.
Ms. Albertsen showed the Commission a chart of how the Clover Meadows Subdivision
has developed and how much denser the density could be on the subject property under the R-S
zoning with a planned unit development. She noted that the Clover Meadows Subdivision contains
100 acres, subdivided into 74 lots; and 15 of those lots are currently vacant. She stated that if
the subject 145-acre parcel were developed at the same density as Clover Meadows Subdivision,
there would be 106 dwelling units. She then forwarded her position that to allow more dense
development than the existing developments to the south and the east is not appropriate. She
.suggested the tendency should be to decrease density as developments are located further from
the city instead of increasing the density.
Ms. Albertsen then addressed the issue of traffic. She stated that Canary Lane has a large
curve and a hill, which already create a dangerous situation because of the heavy pedestrian and
11-1 5-93
___._no.. .__.". --...---.
--....----
(
I
- 33 -
vehicular use. She stated that to rezone the subject parcel and allow higher density development
will only compound those problems.
Ms. Albertsen then quoted a paragraph from Section 18.55.020, pertaining to rezoning,
noting that paragraph requires that the rezoning is n.. .consistent with the intent and purpose of this
.itle. including but not limited to a finding that the application complies with the Bozeman area
master plan." She suggested that nothing in the testimony has addressed the issue of intent.
Ms. Seidi Albertsen then reviewed various goals contained in the master plan, suggesting
that this proposed rezoning would not meet those goals. She then encouraged the Commission
to protect the area and its values by not approving this requested Zone Map Amendment.
Mr. Greg Dailey, 1577 Bozeman Trail Road, stated he resides at the corner of Bozeman
Trail Road and Tayabeshockup Road. He then forwarded his opposition to the requested rezoning,
stating that if it is approved, it could result in high density development in an area of relatively low
density development. He questioned whether the type of units that would be constructed on this
site would be affordable, even for the average person. He then stated that he feels developing the
145 acres with 39 homes would create an attractive area. He stated, however, that to allow up
eto 188 dwelling units is entirely too dense.
Mr. Dailey stated that the commercial area in the concept plan previously submitted to the
Commission is located only 100 yards from his well. He expressed concern about the potential that
the convenience would eventually sell gasoline, which could create problems for his well. He then
briefly summarized his other concerns, which include traffic, fire, and access for emergency
vehicles, particularly during the winter when the roads tend to drift shut. He also indicated he does
not believe that bike and pedestrian paths, particularly in this part of the valley, are essential.
Mr. Rodney Chouinard, 1413 Robin Lane, stated his opposition to the proposed rezoning,
noting his concurrence with many of the concerns which have already been expressed. He noted
concern about the water table and about the adverse impact that the septic systems may have on
surrounding homes. He also expressed concern about the traffic, particularly since there are no
eidewalks in the Clover Meadows Subdivision. He stated that a development at the density of
Clover Meadows on the subject 145-acre parcel would be acceptable, but not the density at which
it could develop under the requested zoning.
Ms. Nadia Beiser responded to several of the comments and issues raised. She noted
those concerns, which generally revolve around water, sewer and the road system, are all issues
11-15-93
(
.
- 34-
that must be adequately addressed prior to any type of development proposal being approved. She
then reminded the Commission that it must be found that the requested Zone Map Amendment
would be more in compliance with the Master Plan and would encourage innovations in land
development before it can be approved. She stated that in this instance, she feels the requested
.ezoning does meet those two criteria.
Ms. Beiser reminded the Commission of the development proposal that was previously
submitted to them, noting that this is the first step in a multi-step process to make that proposal
a reality. She noted their intent to develop a road system that will actually alleviate some of the
existing traffic problems in that area rather than compounding them. She stated that the water and
sewer issues are of concern to them as well as to the residents in the area, which is one reason
they are contemplating the possibility of tying onto the City's services. She also noted that, even
if they don't, they must meet the State's requirements for those systems, which are designed to
ensure everyone's safety.
Ms. Beiser stated that she has reviewed every goal and objective of the Master Plan; and
she feels that this requested rezoning will allow them to pursue a development proposal that will
.further those goals and objectives. She then encouraged Commission approval of this application.
City Manager Wysocki entered into the record several pieces of written testimony. He
noted that, in addition to the packet of letters forwarded by Assistant Planning Director Arkell, the
Commission has received the following letters of support: Michael L. McKenna, McKenna Real
Estate; Mr. and Mrs. Donald Osen, 1420 Bluebird Lane; Raymon E. and Terri K. Dore, 1518
Bluebird Lane; Dick Walter Motors; 0 & R Coffee Service; Harry Huntsinger, The Store; Bill
Letendre, 1419 Bluebird Lane; Roger Terwilliger, Superior Concrete; Raymon Dore, Director, Clover
Meadows Subdivision Assn; and James A. Schuchard, Willie's Saloon; and the following letters of
concern and opposition: Dorothy J. Keck, 1408 Bluebird Lane; Karen and Leo Dusek, 1406 Robin
Lane; JoAnne Mueller, Clover Meadows; Elizabeth Troxell; James L. Thompson, 1347 Robin Lane;
_eidi Albertsen. 1414 Robin Lane; Pete and Helen Alberda. 9446 Haggerty Lane; and Gary and
etty Reinhard, 1422 Robin Lane.
Responding to Commissioner Vincent, Assistant Planning Director Arkell stated that the
Planning staff uses an average of 2.54 people per dwelling unit when calculating possible impacts
from a proposed development. She then stated that when the Clover Meadows and Painted Hills
Subdivisions went through the planning process, a minimum of one acre per dwelling unit was
11-1 5-93
-
I.
. ,
- 35 -
required, so that septic systems and wells could be installed; and the acreages for roads and parks
were netted out. She noted that under the new zoning ordinance, a minimum of one dwelling unit
per acre is required in the R-S zoning district; and that is based on the gross acreage, including all
roads and parks. She stated that, because of this change in the zone code, developments in the
eR-S zone will be denser.
Further responding to Commissioner Vincent, the Assistant Director stated that during the
planning process, the applicant is required to provide staff with information regarding the
availability of water and other necessary data to determine if a project is acceptable. She noted
that at this time, none of those answers are known. She stated that if it is determined there is not
sufficient water to accommodate a planned unit development, then under the R-S zoning, a total
of 39 homes could be constructed on the subject property.
Commissioner Knapp noted that one issue to be carefully considered is whether it would
be better to allow the subject parcel to develop at the level of one dwelling unit per twenty acres
or if it would be better, in the long term, to encourage clustered development which could then be
tied to City services at some time in the future.
. At Commissioner Stiff's request, the Assistant Planning Director reviewed the allowable
uses in the R-S zoning district. She noted that if the project for this site which has previously been
reviewed is not submitted through the formal application process, another planned unit
development, at a density of not more than 188 dwelling units, could be submitted. She also noted
that the option for developing the site through the standard process would be available.
In response to Commissioner Stiff, Assistant Planning Director Arkell stated that the City
Commission would have more of a voice in the review process under the R-S zoning designation
than under the A-S zoning designation.
It was moved by Commissioner Vincent, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, that the
public hearing be closed. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye
being Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff and
.Mayor Swanson; those voting No, none.
Mayor Swanson closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the
customary one-week waiting period for land use decisions be waived. Since a unanimous vote is
required under the Commission's rules of procedure, the motion failed by the following Aye and No
11-1 5-93
___n.__
_.~--- -=-- _'~ r
, I ...
.
- 36-
vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Frost and Commissioner Stiff;
those voting No being Commissioner Vincent and Mayor Swanson.
Mayor Swanson requested this item be placed on next week's agenda for a decision.
This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit
requested by the Springer Group under application No. Z-93139, to allow construction of a 7,333-
square-foot auto accessories and tire shop, as a second structure at the Main Mall, located on
C.O.S. 467, Main Mall Annexation. The subject site is more commonly known as 2825 West Main
Street.
Mayor Swanson opened and continued the public hearing until such time that the
recommendation is received by the City-County Planning Board.
Adjournment - 10:07 D.m.
. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was moved
by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the meeting be adjourned. The
"
motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, -
Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp and Mayor Swanson; those
voting No, none.
~
ATTEST:
~y~
.OBIN L. SULLIVAN
lerk of the Commission
11-1 5-93
. -.--