Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-11-01 ccm , I MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA November 1, 1993 ***************************** . The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room, , Municipal Building, November 1, 1993, at 3:30 p.m. Present were Mayor Swanson (for the afternoon portion ofthe meeting), Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, City Manager Wysocki, City Attorney Luwe and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan. Commissioner Knapp was absent in compliance with Section 7-3-4322(2), M.C.A. 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 - October 25. 1993 It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the minutes eOf the regular meeting of October 25, 1993, be approved as submitted. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent and Mayor Swanson; those voting No, none. Pledged Securities as of SeDtember 30. 1993 In compliance with the provisions of Section 7-6-201 to 7-6-212, M.C.A., Commissioner Stiff and Commissioner Vincent have examined the receipts of Depository Bonds and Pledged Securities held by the Director of Finance as security for City funds deposited in Bozeman banks. The inventory of Depository Bonds and Pledged Securities was found to be in order. It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Vincent, that the Commission approve the Pledged Securities as of September 30, 1993, listed as follows: e DEPOSITORY BONDS AND SECURITIES SEPTEMBER 30, 1993 RATE MATURITY RECEIPT NO. TOTAL AMOUNT FIRST SECURITY BANK - Bozeman Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation $ 100.000.00 11-01-93 - ........--- --- . -----..----...-- .. .--.--.------ ! - 2 - Trusteed with National Bank of Commerce Dupage Cnty, III SID #045 Bds 6.1 06/01/2001 048037 $ 300,000.00 West Jordan UT Wtr & Swr Rev Bd 7.25 07/01/1994 046776 200,000.00 EI Paso Cnty Co Hosp Rfgd 7.20 05/01/1994 046737 200,000.00 Cowlitz Cnty W A SID #401 6.30 06/01 /2000 048236 290.000.00 . Sub-Total - First Security Bank - Bozeman $ 990,000.00 Pledaina Amendment to ReDurchase Aareement: Trusteed with National Bank of Commerce: Fed Home Loan Bank 7.50 06/27/1994 046739 $ 1,000,000.00 Fed Home Bank 4.06 05/11/1998 059170 500,000.00 Fed Home Loan Banks 5.50 OS/27/1997 052984 500.000.00 Sub-Total - Repurchase Agreement $ 2.000,000.00 TOTAL - First Security Bank - Bozeman $ 2.990.000.00 This is to certify that we, the Commission of the City of Bozeman, in compliance with the .Provisions of Section 7-6-207, M.C.A., have this day certified the receipts of the National Bank of Commerce for the Depository Bonds held by the Director of Finance as security, for the deposit for the City of Bozeman funds as of September 30, 1993, by the banks of Bozeman and approve and accept the same. TIMOTHY SWANSON, Mayor JOE N. FROST, Commissioner BEVERLY H. KNAPP, Commissioner ALFRED M. STIFF, Commissioner JOHN C. VINCENT, Commissioner The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, .ommissioner Vincent, Commissioner Frost and Mayor Swanson; those voting No, none. Discussion - FYI Items City Manager Wysocki presented to the Commission the following "For Your Information" items. 11-01-93 - - 3 - ( 1 ) Memo forwarding an invitation to attend the "open house" at Gary Bates' home at 9250 Amsterdam Road to view his artwork. (2) Letter from the Downtown Bozeman Association, dated October 27, asking the City to pick up the trash from the receptacles on Main Street on a year round basis. . (3) Copy of the responses to the candidates' questionnaire, as forwarded by the Bozeman Area Chamber of Commerce. (4) Agenda for the Highway Commission meeting scheduled for Wednesday, November 3. (5) Agenda for the Development Review Committee meeting to be held at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 2, at the Carnegie Building. (6) Agenda for the City-County Planning Board meeting to be held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 2, in the Commission Room. (7) Agenda for the County Commission meeting to be held at 1 :30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 2, at the Courthouse. (8) Letter from the County Commission, dated October 27, inviting City officials to .particiPate in a meeting to discuss concerns about the pending legislative session, scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Friday, November 12, in the Community Room of the Courthouse. (9) Notice from the Chamber of Commerce of a seminar entitled "Safety Should Not Cost An Arm and A Leg", which is to be held at 7:00 p.m on Wednesday, November 3. (10) The City Manager submitted his weekly report, as follows. (1) Attended the MSU/Chamber of Commerce Relations Committee meeting. (2) Noted the progress of the Law and Justice Center renovation, suggesting the possibility of a tour within the next couple weeks. (3) Met with the County Commission regarding proposed legislation for the special session. (4) Reviewed the police activities surrounding Halloween, including four DUI arrests. (5) Noted the leaf pick-up continues. (6) Announced that the Highway Commission will open bids for the North 19th Avenue interchange project this Thursday, with award of the bid anticipated at the December .eeting of the Highway Commission. (7) Stated his intent to ask for another DNRC presentation regarding the Hyalite Dam project prior to asking the Commission to enter into the final paperwork for the project, particularly since it involves a 40-year loan. (11 ) Commissioner Frost reminded the Commissioners that he will be absent from next week's Commission meeting. 11-01-93 ------ - .--. on_ r - 4 - (12) Mayor Swanson submitted the following. (1) Stated he plans to attend the meeting with the County Commission on November 12. (2) Stated he spent last week in Salt Lake City, where he underwent a corneal transplant in his right eye. He then indicated he will be unable to chair tonight's meeting, with five public hearings; and asked that Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent .dO so. He noted the obvious homeless problem in Salt Lake City, a phenomenon he has not previously seen in that community. (3) Stated the water quality district committee met last Thursday, indicating they are preparing for a presentation on November 8, to get feedback of how community leaders view a potential water quality district. (13) City Attorney Luwe distributed to the Commission copies of a memo from Senior Planner Skelton, dated November 1, reminding the Commission of the process to be followed in conducting a public hearing on an appeal and further reminding the Commission that the decision is to be based on the record of the DRC and DRB meetings. He then stated that any evidence submitted at tonight's public hearing must relate to the grounds for appeal, once again cautioning the Commission that their decision must be based on the record of the two advisory bodies. (14) Clerk of the Commission Sullivan reviewed the agenda for next week's meeting, .. .noting there are no public hearings scheduled. ( 15) Mayor Swanson asked about the possibility of staff providing a review of the Supreme Court regarding the creation of a neighborhood parking district. City Attorney Luwe stated he and Assistant City Manager Brey have begun their review of the Supreme Court decision and should be prepared to submit a report to the Commission later this month. (16) Mayor Swanson noted the misconceptions in the community that have been evidenced in this campaign, suggesting the possibility of writing a guest editorial to forward the facts. The Commissioners indicated general support for the idea, suggesting that such an article not be printed until after "the dust has settled" from the election. .onsent Items City Manager Wysocki presented to the Commission the following Consent Items. Deviation from Section 18.18.030 of the zonina ordinance to allow construction of dUDlex on a lot 54 feet wide. which is 6 feet narrower than the reauired 60-foot minimum requirement - Jerrv Larson for 511 North Montana Avenue 11-01-93 .~_... .-..-.......--.-.--.. - 5 - Deviation from Section 18.16.050 of the zoning ordinance. to allow addition to encroach 2 feet into the reauired 8-foot side yard setback - Marv Plese and Dennis Noteboom. 511 South Grand Avenue Building InSDection Division reDort for SeDtember 1993 It was moved by Commissioner Vincent, seconded by Commissioner Frost, 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 Vincent, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Swanson; those voting No, none. Recess - 3:50 D.m. Mayor Swanson declared a break at 3:50 p.m., to reconvene at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the scheduled public hearings. Reconvene - 7:00 D.m. Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of .conducting the scheduled public hearings. Public hearina - Commission Resolution No. 2937 - intent to annex Tract E-1. Certificate of Survey No. 1623. located in the SE% of Section 31. T1S. R6E. MPM (1.9198-acre tract located alona the north side of Bridger Drive between Zia's and Horse World) This was the time and place set for the public hearing on Commission Resolution No. 2937, as approved by the City Attorney, entitled: COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2937 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN. MONTANA, DECLARING IT TO BE THE INTENTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, THE INHABITANTS THEREOF AND THE INHABITANTS OF A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS TO SAID CITY OF BOZEMAN, AND HEREIN MORE PARTICULARL Y DESCRIBED. TO EXTEND THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID CITY OF BOZEMAN SO AS TO INCLUDE SAID CONTIGUOUS TRACT WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS THEREOF. . Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented the staff report. He reminded the Commission of the comprehensive presentation of the staff report at the September 13 meeting, noting he will simply summarize the staff findings at this time. He noted the subject 1.9198-acre parcel is located between Zig's Building Materials and Horse World and contains a truck facility that is not 11-01-93 ---- - 6 - currently in operation. He stated the parcel is bordered by the Northeast Annexation on the south and the recent Bridger Creek Annexation on the north. The Senior Planner stated that staff has reviewed this annexation request in light of the eight goals and twelve policies contained in Commission Resolution No. 2716. He noted that the _arcel is under the five-acre minimum size listed in that resolution; it will not smooth the boundaries of the city; and it is bounded by city limits on only two sides, instead of being bounded on three sides or wholly surrounded. He stated that a 1 2-inch water main runs along the south side of Bridger Drive; and a fire hydrant is located immediately across Bridger Drive from the subject site. He stated that a private sanitary sewer line runs immediately west of the Zig's site, ending about 300 feet from the subject property. He forwarded Director of Public Service Forbes' recommendation that the issue of seeking City ownership and maintenance of the private sewer line be considered as a separate issue apart from this request for annexation. He concluded his report by forwarding the staff recommendation that the Commission proceed with annexation. Senior Planner Skelton noted that, included in the Commissioners' packets, was a memo, dated October 28, listing five items for the Commission to consider and address during the .annexation process. Attorney Bob Planalp stated that he and Mr. Lee Chase, Vice President of First Security Bank, are present to respond to any questions. He then stated that they have reviewed Senior Planner Skelton's memo dated October 28, and agree to respond to the five issues raised. No one was present to speak in opposition to the requested annexation. Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the Commission authorize and direct staff to prepare the necessary documents for annexation of the subject 1.9198-acre parcel. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Frost and Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent; those voting No, none. . Continued Dublic hearing - apDeal of decisions bv the DevelODment Review Committee and Design Review Board to deny a minor site Dlan review sDDlication to modify an existina final site Dlsn under ADDlication No. Z-91122 to convert a aasoline service station to an automotive lubrication and oil change business Paul Ellis. SDeedv Lube - Lots 17 and 18. Block 3. Violett Addition (438 North 7th Avenue) This was the time and place set for the continued public hearing on the appeal of decisions 11-01-93 - 7 - by the Development Review Committee and the Design Review Board to deny a minor site plan review application to modify an existing final site plan under Application No. Z-91122 to convert a gasoline service station to an automotive lubrication and oil change business, as requested by Paul Ellis, owner of Speedy Lube. The subject parcel is known as Lots 17 and 18, Block 3, Violett . Addition, and is more commonly located at 438 North 7th Avenue. Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent opened the continued public hearing. Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented the staff report. He noted the subject site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of North 7th Avenue and West Short Street. He stated that the site plan posted for Commission review is the exhibit upon which the Development Review Committee and the Design Review Board based their reviews and decisions. The Senior Planner stated that the applicant has requested the following revisions to the final site plan approved under Application No. Z-91122: 1. Reduce the amount of landscape within the front yard along North 7th Avenue from 1,700 square feet to 1,070 square feet; 2. Reduce the amount of landscape within the front yard along West Short Street from 850 square feet to 430 square feet; . 3. Eliminate the continuous concrete curbing around all landscaped areas and access driveways onto the property that are required by the zone code, and replace with a four-foot high two-rail split cedar fence that has already been installed; 4. Allow the curb cuts along North 7th Avenue to remain at the existing widths of 38 feet instead of decreasing the width to the allowable maximum width of 35 feet as set forth in the zone code; 5. Allow the westernmost curb cut along West Short Street to remain open for vehicular access instead of installing the required landscaping; 6. Relocate four of the designated off-street parking spaces from the designated area and provide five one-way diagonal parking spaces in front of the building; 7. Provide a landscape/picnic area in the area of the approved off-street parking area that is already installed; and 8. Replace the approved 4-foot by 6-foot freestanding sign along North 7th Avenue (which was later altered to a 6-foot by 6-foot) to a 5-foot . by 9 Y2 -foot freestanding internally illuminated plastic sign. The Senior Planner stated that, in addition to these eight requested revisions, staff has identified three additional deviations that are necessary as a part of the subject application: 1. From Section 18.30.050, to encroach approximately 5 Y2 feet into required 25-foot front yard setback along North 7th Avenue; 11-01-93 - 8 - 2. From Section 18.50.060.C.1., to encroach 5 feet into required 15-foot corner side yard along West Short Street; and 3. From Table 18.65.050.C., to allow 28.56 percent of wall to be covered by signage instead of allowable 15 percent. Senior Planner Skelton stated that on September 7, 1993, the Development Review .committee reviewed the application as part of the three-week review process, and voted to deny the proposed modifications because they would not provide an adequate vehicular circulation pattern; would not assure a safe, non-hazardous use of the subject property; and would not enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the people working or living in the area. Also, on September 7, 1993, the Design Review Board evaluated the application and voted to deny the application, determining that a Certificate of Appropriateness for the entryway overlay district was not supportable because the requested deviations would not produce an environment, landscape quality or character superior to that produced by the regulatory standards; and would not be consistent with the intent and purpose of the entryway overlay district section of the code. The Senior Planner stated that Mr. Ellis, owner of Speedy Lube, has filed an appeal of the final decisions of the Development Review Committee and the Design Review Board in accordance .With the provisions of Chapter 18.58 of the zone code. He stated that the grounds for appeal include the following four factors: 1. The proposal has met the original site landscaping plan with some variations to accommodate the setback for the freestanding sign; 2. The applicant finds it difficult to justify a $3,000 expenditure to install a landscape irrigation system to irrigate the landscape islands; 3. The applicant has complied with the sign ordinance; and 4. The westernmost curb cut along West Short Street must remain open for the specific business functions. The Senior Planner then forwarded the staff's comments regarding the issues being appealed. He stated that allowing a 41 .23-percent decrease in landscaping in the front yard would not meet the landscape requirements of the original approval. He noted the zoning ordinance was eomprehenSiVelY revised in 1990; and a subsequent amendment required that an irrigation system be installed for all landscaping, either through an underground sprinkler system or frostless hose bibs. He then addressed the issue of signage, noting that the sign code portion of the zone code has been revised; and the signage under this new application must be addressed under the current sign code. The Senior Planner noted the importance of closing the westernmost curb cut on West 11-01-93 ..-...-. -.--.".- --- -- ---------- --- - --- - -- -- ---. ---..--------- ------ - 9 - Short Street, to provide a method of controlling vehicular circulation on the site. He noted, however, that closure of the curb cut will make it impossible for tractor/trailer rigs to access the site because the minimum turning radii cannot be provided to ensure legitimate movement on the site. . Senior Planner Skelton noted he had provided a memo to the Commission this afternoon, to provide a focus for this public hearing. He briefly reviewed the appeals process, reminding the Commission that they may consider only relevant information in making their decision to uphold, overturn or modify the decisions of the Development Review Committee and the Design Review Board. Mr. Tom Anacker, attorney representing the applicant, stated the zoning ordinance states that the Commission can consider evidence relevant to the grounds of the appeal; and that is what Mr. Ellis will present at this hearing. He noted that the map being used by the Planning staff for this hearing is an older map, even though newer maps have been provided. He stated that Mr. Ellis had attempted to complete the process on his own, but has found it necessary to retain him as legal counsel as well as Gaston Engineering, to provide needed engineering services. . Mr. Anacker then reviewed the three options available for the Commission's decision, asking the Commission to modify the decisions of the Development Review Committee and the Design Review Board to allow for modification of the final site plan and to approve the deviations as requested. He stated that Mr. Ellis agreed to the conditions on the final site plan so he could get his business open, only to discover that they created an unworkable situation on the subject site. He stated that, while the applicant does not disagree with providing adequate landscaping and recognizes the importance of protecting the entryway overlay corridors, practicality must also enter into the picture. He stated that meeting the conditions on the original final site plan cannot .be accomplished, and asked the City to work with the applicant to develop a plan that is acceptable to everyone. Mr. Paul Ellis, applicant, stated he has submitted a packet of additional information to each .f the Commissioners. He then posted the new "Exhibit M" from that packet, noting it is the revised site plan he has had prepared. He stated the primary issue is the closure of the westernmost curb cut on West Short Street. He noted that tractor/trailer rigs access his property once a week; and he has found through experience that they would not be able to do so if that 11-01-93 --- ----- ---- ----.-- -..-----. --.;:0-- - 10 - curb cut were closed as required under the original final site plan. He then asked the Commission to work with him, and allow that curb cut to remain. Mr. Ellis then addressed the issue of landscaping. He noted that he has a considerable amount invested in the landscaping he has provided; and he has installed protection which he .believes is effective and attractive, even though it does not meet the code requirements of continuous concrete curbing. He also noted his care to ensure that the landscaping has been watered because he does not want it to die. Mr. Ellis reminded the Commission that this site was developed in 1953, and asked the Commission to use common sense when addressing its re-use. He stated that, while he recognizes and generally agrees with the provisions of the zone code and the City's desire to provide attractive entryways, he feels it is also important to recognize that re-use of a site cannot always result in meeting every code requirement. He noted the requirement to provide water to the landscaped areas, questioning the need for that, at an estimated cost of $3,000 to $4,000 for an underground sprinkling system. He stated that since he has installed the landscaping, he has faithfully watered it, noting his intention to continue doing so because of the financial investment involved. . Mr. Paul Ellis then raised the issue of signage. He stated that any change to his existing signage will be expensive. He also stated that he has received complaints that it is difficult to find his business with the existing signage, particularly when approaching from the south. He emphasized the importance of visibility for a business, which often includes the strategic placement of signage. Applicant Paul Ellis asked the Commission to consider the information he forwarded in his packet. He also asked the Commissioners to consider the common sense aspects of this project, and vote to approve his requests. He emphasized the fact that he has tried to work with the City staff to develop a project that is acceptable. He noted that he has provided the type of landscape protection that he feels is attractive and functional; and he has provided extra landscaping on the north end of the site and additional trees that have not been mentioned. . Responding to Commissioner Stiff, Senior Planner Skelton stated that some of the signage, including two oil product signs on the wall, were removed after the DRB and DRC decisions. He noted there was some discussion about pennant flags, even during review of the 1991 application. He reminded the Commission that pennant flags are not allowed under the current sign ordinance. 11-01-93 _.____..__n__...._ , - 11 - He stated that the sign ordinance now allows only 15 percent of the wall area to be covered by signage. The Senior Planner stated that this application was through a number of informal reviews before the Development Review Committee and the Design Review Board before it went through _he formal process. He stated that numerous recommendations were forwarded by the DRB during ~. those reviews, in an attempt to provide a signage method that would work and provide the desired visibility. He noted that examples were also cited, such as the Western Conservation sign immediately across the street; however, a proposal for that type of signage has not been forwarded by Mr. Ellis. He then noted that the change in the sign code between the 1991 and 1993 applications has impacted the amount of signage that is allowed on the wall under this application. Responding to Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent, Senior Planner Skelton stated that under the code, 75 percent of the landscaped area must be covered by live vegetation. He noted that in the past, some applicants have filled the landscaped area with washed gravel and a few plants, to meet the code requirements. He noted that under the current code, staff allows the installation of live vegetation that, at maturity, will cover 75 percent of the area. He stated that washed gravel is still .allowed; however, a majority of it must be covered by live plantings. He indicated that, given the types of plants involved in this application, he is not sure that the 75-percent requirement will be met by the landscaping involved in this application, noting a licensed nurseryman will be asked to make that determination. Further responding to the Mayor Pro Tempore, Planner Skelton stated that for a long time, the Commission allowed applicants to use railroad ties, 4 by 4's and other alternative methods for landscape protection. He noted that time has proven that those alternative methods are not as acceptable as continuous concrete curbing because they tend to deteriorate and are not well maintained. He stated that, for that reason, the zone code has been amended to require the continuous concrete curbing. He recognized that the split cedar rail fence does look nice now and does provide the needed protection for the landscaping; however, he questioned how long it will .'emain an asset to the site. He also noted that continuous concrete curbing helps to control storm water run-off and further controls vehicular circulation. Responding to Commissioner Stiff, the Senior Planner stated that the DRC and the DRB have carefully reviewed the westernmost curb cut off West Short Street, and possible alternatives to the existing situation. He indicated that, because of its proximity to the intersection, closure of 11-01-93 .---.----... ...--....- ...- .-...-- ..- ... .. .. -..---..--. . -- - 12 - the westernmost curb cut is important due to safety issues. He then indicated one possibility considered was the closure of both curb cuts, with a new curb cut being installed between them. He noted this would allow for legitimate tractor trailer movement on the site and would allow for more landscaping along that street frontage. He stated that suggestion was forwarded to the .apPlicant during reviews before the DRC and the DRB; however, it has not been incorporated into any of Mr. Ellis' applications. Responding to Mr. Ellis, Senior Planner Skelton stated the Director of Public Service is the only individual who can approve an alternative to continuous concrete curbing as a landscaping protection device. He then noted the Director's position that he cannot support any alternative, as contained in the record from the DRC meetings. Mr. Paul Ellis forwarded his position that the existing fencing is actually superior to continuous concrete curbing. He stated it defines and protects the landscaped areas well, and is visible when he is plowing snow. He then stated he has letters from the previous business owner of 12 % years and a police officer who has served for 19 years, both indicating that there has never been an accident at the westernmost curb cut on this site. . Mr. Ellis then addressed the issue of signage, noting that it was approved to cover 27.5 percent of the wall. He stated that he was unaware of the changes in the sign code that seem to be impacting this application. He indicated that he had planned to install the freestanding sign only two feet from the sidewalk; but he was required to install it ten feet from the sidewalk to meet the code requirements. He noted this has made it more difficult for the sign to be seen and for his business to be identified. Commissioner Stiff forwarded his concerns about two items; (1) the curb cuts from West Short Street and (2) the issue of continuous concrete curbing versus fencing. A brief discussion revealed that two of the Commissioners present preferred to continue the public hearing to next Monday, when four Commissioners will be present. Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent continued the public hearing to 3;30 p.m. on Monday, .ovember 8. Public hearing - Conditional Use Permit - SteDhanie H. Volz - allow a bed and breakfast with multiDle deviations on the West 120 feet of the N % of Lot 2. and the West 120 feet of Lot 1. Block B. Lindlev and Guvs Addition (202 Lindlev Place) This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit 11-01-93 -_.....--::-------;;;;;;;;;;: .-.-.-.--.----,-..-. .---::-----.--.-.--------.---.--. - --..-..--- - 13 - requested by Stephanie H. Volz, under Application No. Z-93127, to allow a bed and breakfast, with multiple deviations, on the west 120 feet of the north one-half of Lot 2 and the west 120 feet of Lot 1, Block B, Lindley and Guys Addition. The subject site is more commonly located at 202 Lindley Place, which is at the southeast corner of the intersection of East Olive Street and Lindley .Place. Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent opened the pUblic hearing. Planning Director Andy Epple presented the staff report. He noted that, included in the Commissioners' packets, was a copy of the written staff report, as prepared by Assistant Planner Dave Grigsby. He reminded the Commission that this application is to allow conversion of an historic single-family residence into a bed and breakfast with four units. He stated the applicant is currently in the process of remodeling the interior of the structure to accommodate the conversion. He stated that in conjunction with this application, the applicant is seeking approval for several exterior alterations and modifications, as follows: 1. To construct a new gable roof over the front entry steps facing Lindley Place, which would increase the distance the structure encroaches into the front yard setback; . 2. To add a fourth skylight in the existing roof; 3. To add decorative railings at the top of the existing bay windows and around the top of the existing flat roofed addition at the southeast corner of the structure; 4. To add a 19-foot by 17-foot deck with a decorative railing matching those referred to above, including a diagonal set of stairs to access the yard; 5. To construct a 7-foot-high wood privacy fence. The fence is to be set back 30 feet from the front property line, run south from the house to within one foot of the south property line, extend east to the rear property line, the north to approximately 11 feet from the north corner side property line; 6. To install four additional required parking spaces for the bed and breakfast; 7. To ratify several items which were installed prior to submittal of the application, generally involving window replacements with new . windows or doors; and 8. To install a six-sQuare-foot projecting wood sign, to be highlighted with spot lights. The Planning Director stated that the applicant is also seeking the following deviations: 1. From Section 18.18.050, to allow the new covered porch entry and steps to encroach a total of 14 feet into the required 25-foot front yard setback; 11-01-93 -. ~ '-.--- --... - 14 - 2. From Section 18.50.110.C., to allow the access drive aisle to be 16 feet wide rather than the 24-foot minimum width for two-way drive aisles; 3. From Section 18.50.120.B., to allow the backup maneuverability aisle to be 23 feet wide rather than the 26-foot minimum width set by code; and . 4. From Section 18.50.120.F.1., to allow the applicant to provide five off- street parking spaces rather than the required six parking spaces under the code requirements (replacing the applicant's requested deviation to allow a parking space to encroach 10 feet into the required 1 5-foot corner side yard setback along the north property line). Planning Director Epple expanded on each of the above-listed items, using the site plan to show where the various exterior improvements and changes are proposed. The Planning Director then stated that the City-County Planning Board conducted its public hearing on this application at its meeting of October 19, in light of the criteria and general standards set for review of a conditional use. He stated that, following consideration of the staff report and public input, the Planning Board forwarded its recommendation for approval of the conditional use permit. He stated they also forwarded a recommendation that the first three deviations be approved but that the parking space proposed under Deviation NO.4 be eliminated .and replaced with landscaping, as noted in the listing of deviations to be considered above. Responding to Commissioner Frost, Planning Director Epple stated that the Planning Board eliminated Condition No. 10 from the recommended conditions forwarded by the Design Review Board. He noted the DRB had recommended the inclusion of this condition, which reflected their concerns about the unauthorized work that has occurred on the exterior of the structure. He stated, however, the Planning Board felt that the Building Code requirements must be met; and that those requirements adequately address the concerns forwarded. Responding to Commissioner Stiff, the Planning Director stated that the requested roof extension would encroach into the front yard setback only far enough to cover the existing steps. Ms. Stephanie Volz, applicant, stated she is the owner/occupant of the subject house. She then indicated that Mr. Keith Swenson will serve as her representative in this presentation. . Mr. Keith Swenson, 603 South Willson Avenue, stated Ms. Volz has asked him to represent her before the Planning Board and the City Commission on this application. He noted that four years ago, when he first viewed this house, it was very substandard and actually dangerous. He noted the restoration work that has been completed to date, and the transformation in the structure. He stated approval of this application for a bed and breakfast will result in restoration, 11-01-93 - 15 - rehabilitation and re-use of an historic structure that will benefit the community. He noted that a review of other bed and breakfast facilities in the community, such as the Voss Inn and the Torch and Toes, reflects that they are an asset to the area in which they are located. Mr. Swenson noted he had made an extensive presentation before the Planning Board; .however, he stated that he will concentrate on the central issues in this presentation. He first . addressed the change of use issue. He stated that under this application, a residence is to be converted to a bed and breakfast, with a maximum of four units. He noted that this should not create any traffic problems, as evidenced by a review of the two bed and breakfasts mentioned above. He recognized the natural apprehensiveness of the neighbors because this proposal represents something new; however, he suggested it can be a positive change. He also reminded the Commission that under a conditional use permit, only a single, specific use is allowed on the subject property. He further noted that a bed and breakfast is not considered a commercial use. Mr. Swenson then addressed the issue of design. He noted that a number of conditions pertaining to design elements were forwarded to the Planning Board; and those conditions are acceptable to the applicant with a few exceptions. He stated some concerns had been raised about .the height of the fence, due in large part to its close proximity to the house immediately to the south. He stated that the proposed fence is to be a solid wood fence at a maximum height of six feet in the front yard and along a portion of the side yard. The fence is to be six inches off the ground, with a 4%-foot solid wood fence topped by a 1-foot-high open pattern. This configuration is to begin at the southwest corner of the house, approximately 30 feet from the front property , line, extend south to the property line, then eastward along the south property line to a point at the back of the house to the south. He stated that at that point, the fence is to be raised to seven feet tall, with a 5 %-foot solid wood center; and that configuration is to continue to the rear lot line and along the rear lot line to the north side of the property. He suggested that lowering the fence along the front portion of the lot will minimize the visual impacts for the neighbor, yet provide the desired privacy. . Mr. Swenson stated the applicant does not wish to install curbing around the entire parking lot, noting that such requirements are not compatible with the residential character of the site. He stated that, while he recognizes the need for curbing along the access to the site, he feels that to not require curbing around the parking lot would be in everyone's best interests. He then indicated that the parking lot is to be crowned to provide for water run-off, with all of the run-off 11-01-93 - 16 - being directed toward the detention area along West Olive Street. He stated that presently there is a concrete pad in the Olive side yard, where the sixth parking space was initially proposed. He noted that parking pad is to be removed and will be the location of the detention area. He stated that area will also serve as the snow storage area. . Mr. Keith Swenson stated that a deviation has been sought to the driving aisle width because there is only a certain amount of space between the house and the garage. He further noted that with the low number of vehicles that will be gaining access to the parking lot at the rear of the lot, he does not feel that the requested deviation is inappropriate. Mr. Swenson stated that from an historic preservation standpoint, the requested changes to the windows and doors are acceptable because they are located on the sides away from the street frontages. He stated that the proposed changes do meet the Department of Interior guidelines because of that; and they are sensitive to the structure and to the neighboring developments and they are minor in nature. Responding to Commissioner Frost, Mr. Swenson stated that the drawings on the board do not include the two small windows that have been replaced, reviewing where those windows .are located. He then reiterated his position that the changes to the doors and windows are acceptable in an historic renovation project because of their locations and their minor nature, even though they were not forwarded for approval prior to being done. He stated that they have done little to change the appearance of the exterior of the structure with the improvements made to date, Mr. Myron Huntsman, 303 East Olive Street, stated he has lived directly across the street from the subject property since 1956. He has followed in the footsteps of his grandfather and father, in the construction business. He noted that the area upgraded through the years, with some of the old houses being torn down and others being improved. He stated that the property and the house at 202 Lindley Place have been constantly improved since Ms. Volz acquired it, noting that these improvements serve to raise the values of surrounding properties. . Mr. Huntsman noted the deteriorated condition of the house when Ms. Volz purchased it. He stated support for the renovation that has taken place to date, noting that restoration of an historic structure is preferable to demolition. He noted that the proposed use of this historic house as a bed and breakfast will not create substantial traffic, but might serve to slow some of the existing traffic a little bit. He then encouraged Commission approval of this application. 11-01-93 -...- -.----..-. - 17 - Ms. Irene Decker, 219 East Olive Street, stated concurrence with Mr. Huntsman's comments. She then noted the proposed fence, stating she and her neighbors have discussed installing a similar fence between their properties for privacy. She stated support for the proposed use of this site as a bed and breakfast, and for the improvements that have been made on the _roperty to date. Mr. Dave Lockie, 317 Lindley Place, stated he has resided there since 1976, and operates a pottery business from that location. He stated that this area is residential, with a high number of apartments fronting on Lindley Place. He stated that a five-plex and a six-plex are located immediately across the street from him; and there are two apartment complexes on East Koch Street. He also noted that a number of the houses in the immediate area have rentals in them. Mr. Lockie noted that he owned and operated a motel on East Main Street for thirteen years; and he worked hard to get an annual occupancy rate of 64 percent. He suggested that the occupancy rate for a bed and breakfast might be even lower than that, noting that the impacts on the area would be less than those from an apartment complex. He stated that he walks from his home to the Western Cafe early in the morning, and few cars are parked along the east side of .Lindley Place. He then forwarded his support for the work that has been done on this house to date and for the proposal before the Commission at this time. Ms. Ruth Sampson, 227 East Olive Street, stated she lives across the street from Ms. Volz. She noted that she has watched the subject property since moving into her home in 1989. She noted the improvements that are now being made to the residence, stating the work has been wonderful. She then stated that bed and breakfasts seem to be real assets to the neighborhoods in which they are located; and they don't seem to cause too much traffic. She then encouraged Commission approval of this application, with appropriate conditions. Ms. Cindy Owings, 211 Lindley Place, stated her support for the application. She noted she bdught her tiny home in 1980. She noted that the proposed bed and breakfast will have much less impact on the neighborhood than having" 18 people of questionable repute" residing there. ehe noted that Ms. Volz has done a nice job of restoring the old home and making it an asset to the community. Mrs. Kathy Carey, 307 East Olive Street, stated concurrence with what previous speakers had said. She noted that the house is a beautiful old building, and it is nice to see the home being 11-01-93 -- ---------------- ---... - 18 - renovated. She stated that she does not believe the proposed bed and breakfast will cause any parking or traffic problems in the area, and encouraged approval of the application. Mr. Mike Carey, 307 East Olive Street, stated he is in favor of the application. He stated that the applicant has transformed the house from something that was virtually ready to fall down _nto something of which the neighborhood can be proud. He stated that a bed and breakfast is preferable to some of the other options for use of that house, even though some people view it as a commercial type of use. Mr. Darrel Behrent, 208 Lindley Place, stated he lives immediately to the south of the subject site. He stated he is not concerned with the bed and breakfast aspect of the application; but he is concerned about traffic safety and other issues. He stated the regulations are established as the minimum requirements to ensure the public health, safety and welfare; and under this application, the Commission is being asked to approve something less than those minimums. He further noted that the reviews before the advisory bodies and the City Commission are designed to ensure that the proposed project does not negatively impact the neighborhood. He also noted the process is to be completed before the applicant incurs a large expenditure of monies. He stated .that in this instance, the project is essentially complete except for some of the exterior work, with the full knowledge of the Planning Department and the Building Inspection Department and without any permits or any enforcement actions. He cited other instances over the past few years when zoning violations have occurred, in which enforcement followed quickly. Mr. Behrent stated there is one access to the proposed parking area; and that access is only 16 feet wide. He also expressed concern about the proposed 4-foot-high fence along the north property line, and how it will impair the view of a driver trying to access the street. He noted that pedestrians on the sidewalk would also be shielded from the driver's view, which could result in a tragic accident. Mr. Behrent cited traffic impacts as the biggest problem with this proposed use. He noted the house is a large one, located on a small site; and the applicant is trying to add more .evelopment on the site. He noted there is not enough space to provide the required driving aisle or the appropriate amount of space for backing and maneuvering from a parking space. He also questioned whether the dimensions shown on the site plan are actually correct. He stated that he has raised this issue before three bodies to date, yet the plan has not been updated. 11-01-93 - --. ------- - 19 - Mr. Darrel Behrent noted the setback to the concrete stairs is 1 6 feet from the property line. He expressed concern that to allow the requested roof over those stairs will encroach substantially into the front setback. He further noted that the existing stairs are illegal because there is not a landing the same width as the exit at the top. . Mr. Behrent stated Mr. Swenson mentioned the fact that there are tighter controls on a conditional use than on a permitted use. He concurred that is probably correct, provided those requirements are enforced. He then raised the issue of storm drainage as proposed, counting the amount of impervious surfaces that will be located on the site if this application is approved. He suggested that the size of the proposed detention area will not be large enough to accommodate the run-off from those surfaces. Mr. Behrent concluded his testimony by stating he is not concerned about the architectural integrity of the windows and doors; he is concerned about the public health, safety and welfare. Mr. James Anderson, 212 Lindley Place, noted he has resided at this address since 1977. He stated that he is opposed to the project for a number of reasons. He characterized the bed and breakfast as a commercial establishment, expressing concerns that approval would result in further .encroachment of commercial uses into their neighborhood. He stated that use of the site as a bed and breakfast will create a hardship on the neighbors to the south. He noted that people will be starting their cars as early as 5:00 in the morning, particularly during the winter, which will be disruptive to the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson stated that this proposal will result in removing a residence from the housing market, when housing is already short. He noted it would be much preferable to have the house rented to "a big family with thirteen kids" than being used as a bed and breakfast, as proposed. He also expressed concern that the application does not meet the minimum standards in several areas, such as the driving aisle width. Mr. Anderson stated that several of the residents in the area have spoken in favor of the application. He then highlighted the testimony, stating that all of their comments included .omments about what a great job is being done with the house. He stated that, while he agrees that a nice job of restoration is occurring, he does not support this proposed use. He then raised the issue of signage, noting that item has not been discussed. Mr. James Anderson further stated that the Commission should not vote in favor of this application based on the work that has been done to date. He suggested, rather, this is part of the 11-01-93 -- .------- , - 20- responsibility of any responsible property owner. He then encouraged the Commission to require that this application follow the law, and that it have no adverse effect on the neighbors. Mr. Anderson suggested that the work done to date has been done in a calculated effort to exert pressure on the Commission in its decision-making process. He then asked that the .commission not be extraordinarily swayed by that work, but base its decision on the merits of the application and the impacts it may have on the neighborhood. Mr. Bill Moeckel, 305 Lindley Place, stated he recognizes the nice renovation of this old structure that has been accomplished. He then indicated that he also owns a 1 DO-year old home which he is fixing up as money is available. He stated that he has faithfully followed the City processes in any work he has done to date. He noted, however, that if the Commission allows the work on the subject property to continue without appropriate building permits, he may no longer go through the processes because the codes are not being uniformly applied. He then cited examples of recent Commission actions which seem to reflect that the codes are not being uniformly applied. Mr. Moeckel questioned what would happen if the bed and breakfast business were sold. .He stated that this could become a group home; and he is concerned that other uses might also be able to locate there under this conditional use permit. He then encouraged the Commission to not be swayed, but to consider the neighborhood and not approve this application. Mrs. Dora Anderson, 212 Lindley Place, stated the neighbors sought rezoning to R-3a several years ago, to ensure that they would not be impacted by commercial uses moving into the area. She also noted that they obtained a listing on the National Register of Historic Places. She stated that, with those steps taken, she felt the neighborhood was protected from this type of infiltration of commercial use. She recognized the beauty of the house as it is being renovated; however, she stated that approval of the requested conditional use permit would be a detriment to the neighborhood. Mrs. Anderson noted that no other house on either side of Lindley Place has a roof over .he front steps; and she feels that allowing a roof over the steps of this house would be inappropriate and an eyesore. She stated that the proposed fence is acceptable. She noted, however, that no mention has been made of a sign in the applicant's presentation, although a six- square-foot sign, illuminated by a spotlight, was suggested at some of the previous hearings. She also expressed concern about the anticipated future use of the basement, particularly in light of the 11-01-93 ------ . . - 21 - replacement of windows and putting a roof over the entrance. She then encouraged the Commission to not approve this application, particularly in light of the potential uses with which residents along that street would be required to live in the future. Mr. Keith Swenson responded to several of the issues raised during the testimony. He _tated that a small impoundment area can often accommodate the run-off from the amount of impervious surfaces that are located on this site. He noted the purpose is not to impound the water, but to allow the water to settle before entering the storm drain in the street. Mr. Swenson then addressed the issue of deviations, noting they do not represent "breaking the rules" but are designed to provide alternatives and flexibility. He stated this is important when considering the restoration and protection of historic areas, where it is difficult to meet today's standards. He noted that when preparing for a speech before a national group, he researched a random six-block sampling in Bozeman's older area and found that not one single property could meet today's standards; and it is important to recognize and protect these areas. Mr. Swenson noted the concerns have been raised about the possibility this could become a group home. He reminded the Commission that under the current State statutes, a group home .may be located in any neighborhood in the city, without any special process being required. He further noted that approval of this application for a conditional use permit would not open the property to any type of commercial use. Planning Director Epple stated that a building permit was obtained for the work that was done on the north facade and the rear entry portion of the house. He stated the interior remodeling that has occurred to date has been consistent with a single-family residential structure, and would not be inappropriate if this conditional use permit application were denied. He then stated that Ms. Volz has applied for building permits for the entire scope of the project and the plans have been reviewed. He noted, however, that the Building Inspection Department has chosen not to issue any building permits until this process has been completed. He emphasized the fact that the interior work completed to date has been in accordance with the plans and has been done with the enOWledge of the Building Inspection Department. The Planning Director stated that, on a nation-wide basis, bed and breakfasts have provided a viable reuse of larger historic properties, particularly in historic districts. He noted that this option is often preferable to conversion of the large, old structures to apartments. He stated that details will need to be addressed; however, he suggested that with the number of units in this 11-01-93 ---..-----.- --...--.- -... --~-- .----..--.-.- - 22 - bed and breakfast being limited to four, plus the owner's living area, the proposed use would be appropriate. Planning Director Epple noted Mr. Behrent's concerns about whether the dimensions for the site are proper. He assured the Commission that the dimensions on the site will be verified .-etore any approvals are granted. The Planning Director stated that staff concurs with Mrs. Anderson's position that to allow an extension of the roof to cover the front steps would be inappropriate. He noted it would be a unique treatment in an historic neighborhood; and suggested an alternative might be a simple Piedmont roof, essentially flush with the existing roof, to define the entryway. Responding to Commissioner Frost, the Planning Director stated there is no fence proposed along the north property line on the revised site plan. He then stated it would be inappropriate to have a fence in that area that negatively impacted visibility. He then stated that any proposal for signage on the site must be submitted to the Design Review Board and receive a separate Certificate of Appropriateness. The Planning Director then responded to several questions from Mayor Pro Tempore . Vincent regarding the building permits. He stated that if he had it to do over again, he would probably direct staff to issue building permits for the work which was consistent with the single- family residential nature of the property, rather than holding them until this conditional use process is completed, because they are two separate processes. City Manager Wysocki entered into the record a letter of support from the Bozeman Area Chamber of Commerce, dated October 18; and a statement of objection from Joe and Mary McGuire, 116 South Rouse Avenue, received today. It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the public hearing be closed. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Frost and Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent; those voting No, none. Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent closed the public hearing. He then indicated that, because ewo Commissioners are absent from this meeting, the one-week waiting period for land use decisions will be observed. He noted that the decision will be made during the afternoon session of next week's meeting. 11-01-93 . - 23 - Break - 9:37 to 9:47 D.m. Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent declared a break from 9:37 p.m. to 9:47 p.m., in accordance with Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983. This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development requested by Doug Rand representing Boz, Inc., under Application No. Z-93125, to allow the 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 commonly located at 115 South 11 th Avenue. Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Kevin Wall presented the staff report. He highlighted the contents of the written staff report, noting that the application is to allow the construction of two twelve-unit .partment buildings on approximately two acres located at 115 South 11 th Avenue. He noted this property is located along the west side of South 11 th Avenue, one property south of its intersection with West Babcock Street. He stated the subject site is zoned "R-3A"; and under the zone code, twenty units could be constructed on the site without a density bonus. He noted that the applicant is seeking a density bonus to allow the additional four units he is requesting. The Associate Planner stated the applicant is proposing that the appearance of each twelve-unit building be broken into what appears to be three pods of four units; and the buildings are to be set back 49 % feet from the front property line. He stated that at the back of the building, there is to be a small courtyard for each four-unit pod in the building. The Planner stated that a substantial amount of landscaping, including 2 % -foot-high berms and a large number of conifers, is proposed between the sidewalk and the buildings. He stated a eingle curb cut, aligned with the "T" intersection of West Olive Street and South 11 th Avenue, to a parking lot located along the backs of the buildings. He stated the subject site is connected to an existing alley off East Curtiss Street which is one lot long. He indicated that the existing structure on the site is to be converted to an activity center for the complex. 11-01-93 --.-- ---... ...---- ---- , - 24- Associate Planner Wall stated that the City-County Planning Board considered this application at its regular meeting of October 19. He stated that, following a review of the staff report and public comment, the Board voted to recommend conditional approval of the application. He noted that the Board revised Condition No. 19, as recommended by staff to include the 4IeQUirement for a breakaway barrier across the alley. He then distributed to the Commission copies of memos from Street/Sanitation Superintendent Sicz, dated October 28, and Acting Fire Marshal Hougland, dated October 29, stating their opposition to this requirement. He characterized the 35 conditions recommended for approval of the application as "nuts and bolts" in nature. Commissioner Stiff asked if there was any discussion about the possibility of some portion of these units being low-income units. He suggested that if a few low-income units can be designated in this type of project, it will help to address some of the housing problems that exist in the community. Associate Planner Kevin Wall responded that issue was the focus of substantial discussion before the Planning Board, along with compatibility with the neighborhood. He stated that during review of the application, staff carefully considered the additional criteria that needed to be eddressed because of the requested density bonus. He stated that as a result of that review, staff recommended that the additional units be maintained as affordable, under the Department of Housing and Urban Development guidelines, with the Human Resource Development Council being the agency responsible for the monitoring of those units. He noted that the Planning Board removed that suggestion when forwarding its recommendation to the Commission. Responding to Commissioner Frost, the Associate Planner stated that the Commission must make the determination as to whether it wishes to require a breakaway barrier. He noted that the Street/Sanitation Superintendent is concerned about maintenance of the barrier and about the potential of the snow being plowed against it; and the Acting Fire Marshal is concerned because barriers impede access. He stated that some type of barrier was proposed during the concept review before the Development Review Committee; however, it was not included in the final .roposal because of the concerns that had been raised during the concept review. He noted the applicants had proposed the barrier as a way to address the area residents' concerns, particularly since there is a home located only eight feet from the alley right-of-way at East Curtiss Street. Commissioner Frost asked about the possibility of adding a condition to require the applicant to provide fencing along the alley adjacent to that neighbor's house, to mitigate the 11-01-93 . - 25 - impacts from lights, noise and dust resulting from this development; the Associate Planner responded that is an issue to which the City Attorney must respond since someone else's private property would be involved. Commissioner Frost then questioned why a boulevard has not been added between the _treet and the sidewalk along this property frontage. noting that would make the sidewalk more pedestrian friendly. He suggested that since this is a planned unit development as opposed to conventional development, it would be possible to impose such a requirement. Associate Planner Kevin Wall cautioned the Commission that the canal which runs along the front of the High School is piped along this portion of South 11 th Avenue. He noted that moving the sidewalk to the west could result in it being located on top of the piped waterway. Mr. Doug Rand, architect representing the applicant, stated when they first began this project a year and a half ago, they approached the neighbors within sight of this property, distributing a letter which described the proposed project. He also noted that they conducted an afternoon meeting to discuss the project with residents of the Chequamegon Village development; and the response from those in attendance was quite positive. . Mr. Rand characterized South 11 th Avenue as a busy street with lots of noise, noting it is not a comfortable location in which to reside. He noted that, because of this, he has doubled the setback from the street, provided berming and a heavy row of evergreen trees to minimize the noise impacts from the street; and that will also serve to mitigate the visual impacts of the project from the street. He stated the parking is to be located in the rear, out of sight from the street. He also indicated that screening is being proposed along the west property line, thus buffering the parking lot from the Chequamegon Village. Mr. Rand stated that prior proposals before the Commission for development of the subject property have involved six to eight duplexes on the site, with parking in the front. He suggested that the proposal before the Commission, with two large buildings centered on the lot with substantial screening along the property lines, will provide a more visually pleasing project. .e noted the proposed buildings are two-story buildings, approximately the same height as Dr. Hawks' office building across the street. Mr. Doug Rand stated that under this proposal, the building footprint has been kept as small as possible, covering only 23 percent of the site, with the height being kept within the code 11-01-93 ......--- , - 26 - requirements. He noted the site contains 30 percent open space, which does not include the setback requirements. Mr. Rand stated the proposed development includes 12 two-bedroom units, which will be fully handicapped accessible; and the 12 upper units are three-bedroom units. He indicated these _nits satisfy the Habitat for Humanity requirements and, including the site improvement costs, each nit is estimated to cost $70,000. He stated that a community garden is to be provided between the building and the landscaping along South 11 th Avenue; and each tenant will have the option of maintaining a small garden. He further noted that the courtyard for each four-unit pod is designed to develop good relations among the neighbors and a sense of community. Mr. Rand stated that issues discussed during the City-County Planning Board's public hearing included the alley, and its close proximity to the Arpin house, which is south of the subject site. He noted there was also substantial discussion about traffic impacts from this development, particularly along the subject alley. Mr. Rand then stated that, because of the costs of this project, the units cannot be rented for less than $600 to $700 per month; and he anticipates the rents will actually be set between .soo and $1,000 per month. He noted this project has never been characterized as an inexpensive project, particularly with the amount of open space and landscaping being provided. He expressed concern that requiring even four of the units to be designated as low-income housing could create a financial hardship. He reviewed the rental figures set for low income rentals, as follows: $315 for a two-bedroom unit, including utilities, and $354 for a three-bedroom unit, including utilities. He stated that if some type of program were available to subsidize the rental rates or to assist with the costs of development, such a requirement might be possible. Mr. Rand stated his client would like to work with the City on an affordable housing project. He noted, however, he does not believe that to require four of the units in this complex to be low-income rentals, particularly at this stage of the development process, would be appropriate. . Mr. Bob Arpin, 1115 West Curtiss Street, stated he lived at that address for 38 years. He noted that his home was "in the country" when it was built; and now it is downtown. He stated that he had submitted a petition of opposition at the Planning Board's public hearing on this application. He noted that most of the residents in the immediate area were eager to sign the petition, including residents of Chequamegon Village, indicating their strong opposition to the 11-01-93 ---.-----.-. -- . - 27 - proposed apartment complex. He characterized the neighborhood as an area of family dwellings, stating a large 30-foot-high building of apartments would cause many of them to lose their view and would not be compatible with existing structures. Mr. Arpin stated the City-County Planning Board also received a number of letters in _PPosition to this proposed development, with the height of the building being cited as the primary ssue. Mr. Arpin estimated that the residents of the apartment complex would have 64 cars, not counting those of friends and guests. He stated that many of those residents would be starting their vehicles early in the morning, which would be disruptive to the retired residents who tend to sleep in, including himself. Mr. Arpin stated he feels the single-family residential character of the neighborhood should be retained and not congested with this type of development. He noted the negative impacts stemming from allowing a high-density development of this type to be constructed at this location, particularly because of the strong potential that a number of the occupants would be using the unpaved alley adjacent to their home. He stated his wife has a respiratory problem that would be .ramaticallY impacted by the dust, possibly to the point they would be required to move from their home, if this application is approved. Ms. Carolyn Walks, 1105 West Curtiss Street, stated she lives immediately south of the subject site. She noted that when she purchased her home four years ago, she was assured by the realtor that the subject parcel was zoned for residential development. She stated the proposed development is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, mainly because of the bulk of the proposed buildings and the density of the dwelling units. She expressed concern that the rental rates of $800 to $1,000 will attract five to six students per unit. She also raised concerns about privacy, security and lighting. Ms. Pat Graham, resident of Chequamegon Village, stated that no one contacted her about this project. She then stated that she is not really opposed to housing being developed on the eUbject site; however, she is concerned about the number of vehicles that would be parked at the back of the lot under this proposal. She then asked if the snow removal area will be along the back property line and asked if the dumpsters will also be located in that area. She noted the west property line of this site is eight feet from her window; and she is concerned about the impacts those items may have on her home. She stated that there are 32 dwelling units in Chequamegon 11-01-93 .____.___._____u__..._.____ ..__.. _ -. ..--.--.-.-------- -. ----.-.-- ---- , \ I - 28 - Village, with five of those being occupied by two people and the remainder having single residents. She stated they are retired senior citizens who like their privacy and quiet; and they are concerned about the parties, motorcycles and junky vehicles that this type of development may attract. She voiced her opposition to this specific proposal. . Mr. Jeff Rupp, Director of the Human Resource Development Council, asked the Commission to accept the recommendation forwarded by staff and the Development Review Committee to include the condition which reads, "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 affordability, 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." He noted this condition was included in the staff report but was deleted by the Planning Board prior to adoption of its resolution recommending approval. He reminded the Commission that the issue of affordable housing is of paramount importance. He ~urther noted the slow progress which is being made in this area, and the importance of adding as '". many affordable units to the housing market as possible. He stated that neither the City nor any private organization or individual can address this problem alone. Mr. Rupp stated that this request does not impose a special requirement on this applicant, but is in direct response to the request for a density bonus. He forwarded his support for requiring that the four additional units that would be allowed under the requested density bonus be designated as affordable for a period of twenty years, indicating that his office would be willing to administer those units at no cost to the City for that time. He stated the applicant will submit the typical response that "the numbers don't crunch"; however, he asked that the Commission help to address the problem of affordable housing at every opportunity. Mr. Doug Rand stated that an 8-foot strip of heavily landscaped area, including a number eOf evergreen trees, is to be installed along the west property line, thus buffering the parking area from the Chequamegon Village. He also indicated there will be vegetative screening between the subject project and the residence to the south. He stated the City staff has asked that similar vegetative screening be provided along the north property line; and the applicant has agreed to do so. 11-01-93 ..'~ , I - 29 - Mr. Rand then indicated that wheeled garbage cans are proposed for each individual unit; however, if a garbage dumpster is required, it will be located at the northwest corner of the site, where the turn around is indicated. Mr. Rand noted this proposed apartment project is two blocks from Main Street, on a _irect route to the University. He noted the ease of walking from this site to work, to churches, .~ 0 shopping and to restaurants. He stated this could easily reduce the amount of vehicular traffic as a result of the project. He also noted the ease with which water and sewer services can be extended to the site, since adequately sized mains are located close to the property. Responding to Commissioner Frost, Mr. Rand stated the parking lot will be paved; and it will be buffered from the surrounding properties by heavy landscaping which will be sprinkled. He stated that the alley from the parking lot to East Curtiss Street is the only area that will not be paved. He then stated that any lighting on the site must comply with City standards, noting one of those requirements is that it not shine onto neighboring properties. Responding to Commissioner Stiff, Mr. Rand stated there have been many reviews of the site by people in various disciplines, including engineers. He stated no concern has been voiced .v those individuals regarding the pipe which houses the creek, noting it is a concrete pipe located four feet below the surface. He noted that the type of trees proposed do not have tap roots, which should also lessen any potential for problems. He then stated that, if necessary, the row of trees could possibly be moved a few feet. Commissioner Frost noted that the sidewalk along this portion of South 11 th Avenue is heavily used. He suggested that to provide a boulevard between the street and the sidewalk along this project could be very beneficial. He noted it would make the sidewalk more pedestrian friendly and would provide an area for snow storage. He stated this could be accomplished without compromising the project, and could help to offset the trees from the underground pipe. Planning Director Epple noted that the Commission could approve this application, and staff could still address the issue of planting trees over the pipe. He noted that the pipe is einforced concrete pipe, as opposed to clay tile or perforated tile; and he does not believe that tree roots would create a problem. He noted, however, that since Commissioners have raised a concern about the issue, staff will carefully address it to ensure that potential problems are avoided. City Manager Wysocki entered into the record a letter of opposition from Barbara Arpin, 1115 East Curtiss Street, along with attachments. 11-01-93 - .--- - --..- . . . - 30- It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the public hearing be closed. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent; those voting No, none. Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent closed the public hearing. He then stated that, because two _ommiSSioners are absent from this meeting, he will defer action on this application until 3:30 p.m. on Monday, November 8. Public hearing - aDDlication for transDortation enhancement money (bicvcle and Dedestrian facilitv alona the west side of Hiahland Boulevard between East Main Street and Kagv Boulevard) This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the application for transportation enhancement monies to fund a portion of the costs of installing a bicycle and pedestrian facility along the west side of Highland Boulevard between East Main Street and Kagy Boulevard. Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent opened the public hearing. Neighborhood Coordinator/Grantsperson James Goehrung presented the staff report. He stated that a copy of the application was included in the Commissioners' packets. He then noted that copies of the minutes from the Transportation Coordinating Committee meeting of October 20 .ere also included in the packet. He noted those minutes contain some proposed revisions to the application as forwarded by the TCC, indicating those changes will be incorporated into the final application, prior to submission to the Montana Department of Transportation. He stated that the County Commission has also offered a portion of their enhancement monies to supplement this program, which is not reflected in the budget portion of the application; and that change will also be incorporated into the final documents. The Coordinator reminded the Commission that a public hearing is required on any application for transportation enhancement monies, although the process has been very open to date. No one was present to speak in support of or in opposition to the proposed application. . City Manager Wysocki entered into the record a letter of support from Amanda Cater, Former Chair of the Parks, Open Space and Trails Committee, dated November 1, 1993. Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the Commission approve the application for enhancement monies to fund a portion of the costs of 11-01-93 -- , , ., . - 31 - installing a bicycle and pedestrian facility along the west side of Highland Boulevard between East Main Street and Kagy Boulevard, as revised to reflect the changes in the budget to include County monies and to reflect the revisions forwarded by the Transportation Coordinating Committee. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, .ommiSSioner Frost and Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent; those voting No, none. Adjournment - 10:47 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 and Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent; those voting No, none. ~ ATTEST: .~~J~ ROBIN L. SULLIVAN Clerk of the Commission- . 11-01-93