Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-04 " 4-~ ..~ - -. , .- MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONT ANA September 4, 1990 ************************ The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, September 4, 1990, at 3:30 p.m. Present were Mayor Hawks, Commissioner Goehrung (arrived at 3: 35 p. m.), Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Knapp, City Manager Wysocki, .-etty-,4.ttnrn""y Bprkpr-., and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan. Com- missioner Swanson 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 - August 20 and August 27, 1990 It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, that the minutes of the regular meetings of August 20 and August 27, 1990, be approved as amend- ed. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Com- missioner Frost, Commissioner Knapp, and Mayor Hawks; those voting No, none. I ntroduction of newly-promoted pol ice officers City Manager Wysocki stated the Chief of Police has two introductions which he wishes to make at this time. Chief of Pol ice Dick Boyer introduced Lieutenant Bob Furu, a 17-year veteran of the Bozeman Police Department. He noted that Lt. Furu served as Sergeant for seven years, the past two and one-half years in the detective division. The Chief of Police then introduced Sergeant Bill Kayser, a 13-year veteran of the Bozeman Police Department. He noted that Sgt. Kayser is a well-rounded officer, having served on the street as well as in the detective division. He stated that this promotion will move Sgt. Kayser from working days in the detective division to working the 5: 00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. shift in the patrol division. The Commi ssioners shook hands with the newly-promoted officers, congratulating them on their new positions. Commissioner Goehrun9 arrived at 3:35 p.m. Continued discussion - provisions of sidewalk policy as set forth in Commission Resolution No. 2728 City Manager Wysocki reminded the Commission that at last week's meeting they de- ferred this discussion for a period of one week. 09-04-90 .' - < - ,....~ . . ^' - 2 - Mayor Hawks reminded the Commission that he had previously submitted a memo, dated August 20, 1990, setting forth some proposed revisions. He then suggested that the Commission systematically review the policy, considering his concerns as well as concerns expressed by any of the other Commissioners along the way. He noted that during his review of this policy, in light of the recommendations submitted by the Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee, it became apparent that some changes would be required in the policy to accommodate the Committee1s recommendations. The Mayor then led the discussion, based on his memo, as follows. That a new section be added which stipulates: "Except for PLI-zoned prop- erties, areas may be excepted from sidewalk installation for up to ten years by formal agreement, when it meets provisions as presented under 'selection criteria' of the sidewalk policy. These areas though will be expected to fi- nancially participate in at-large publicly funded sidewalk improvement costs, based on a pro-rated annual cost of sidewalks as though installed and main- tained on their frontage over the average expected life of such sidewalks. Similar allowances will be made for areas deemed to show need for sidewalks on only one side, as determined and based on the 'selection criteria' and ap- proved bv the City Commission." ;;., Following discussion, the Commissioners concurred that this proposal could prove /7 ~--e )O~Ufl'\'9rl<;;lb .--- They further noted that the "selection criteria" should be revised as neces- sary to provide the types of limitations that may be determined appropriate and yet pro- vide some latitude for deferring installation of sidewalks on a specific type of street or in a specific area. Mayor Hawks suggested that the general statement on Page 1 be revised to state IlConstruction and materials used shall be in accordance with standards de- veloped and maintained by the City Engineer, unless excepted by the City Commission. " City Manager Wysocki suggested this phrase would be more appropriately included under the "selection criteria" rather than under this general statement. He further sug- gested that the statement could be expanded to provide that IlFollowing presentation of a sta ff report, the Commission may wish to provide an exception from the above selection criteria. " Mayor Hawks asked if the selection criteria need to be more comprehensive. Director of Public Service Forbes responded that if all of the criteria which the Commission wishes considered are listed, there is no reason to revise them; however, if other factors are to be considered in the decision-making process, they should be included in the listed criteria. Commissioner Knapp stated she feels that mature trees located within the usual placement of a sidewalk should be protected, possibly more than currently provided within the sidewalk policy. She then suggested that another category be established under the selection criteria, just below the "public safety" section which could include environmental concerns, such as trees. She noted that the Commission has recently created a tree main- 09-04-90 . . 11. -.... "> ~ . .-- --' --. - 3 - /-- tenance district to protect the community's trees; and she feels that to remove mature trees for the installation of sidewalks could be counter-productive. Commissioner Goehrung noted that policy currently provides that sidewalks shall not be screened from the street. He then expressed concern that to install a curvi linear side- walk around existing mature vegetation would be in violation of that provision. Mayor Hawks then returned to his memo, suggesting that under "implementation pol- icy," No. 2 be revised to eliminate all but the first sentence and that an addition be made to that sentence. He noted that the first sentence would then read, "Sidewalks are required on both sides of the street, unless excepted by the City Commission; II however, the remainder of that policy statement allows for the installation of sidewalks along one side only when 100% of the property owners agree. He stated it is impractical to expect ~ J)- '. tM -- . c;::::=-that everyone would agree; and he feels It could create conflict-among neighborhoods. He then suggested that installation of sidewalks along only one side of the street could be better addressed under the exception process, with the Commission making the final deci- sion. Commissioner Frost noted that some objective criteria will be necessary if the Com- mission is to make such decisions. He suggested that eventually, sidewalks should be in- stalled along both sides of many of the streets in the community. Director of Public Service Forbes reminded the Commission that the Pedestrian/ Traffic Safety Committee recommendation is that sidewalks be installed everywhere there are paved streets. Following extensive discussion, the Commissioners concurred in the Mayor's pro- posed revision. Mayor Hawks suggested that in No.4, the words "primarily" and IIsecondarily" be removed, since it weights the categories contained under the selection criteria. Following a brief discussion, the Commissioners concurred that those words should remain in the statement. Mayor Hawks then suggested that No. 4.c., be revised to read IIno present need apparent, triggering exception guidelines. II The City Manager suggested that the addition be revised to read "according to the selection criteriall instead; the Commission concurred. Mayor Hawks suggested that No. 5 be deleted, indicating it would be difficult to enforce. The City Manager reminded the Commissioners that the homebuilders had expressed disapproval of this item at the time it was included in the policy, since it would require that many of the sidewalks installed would need to be replaced after a home was construct- ed on the vacant lot across which the sidewalk had been required. 09-04-90 . . .... ..... ~ ~ - - 4 - The Director stated that he does not feel that the last home in a subdivision with no other sidewalks should be required to install sidewalks immediately. He noted, howev- er, that in newly-developing areas, such as Brentwood and Valley Unit, sidewalks are be- ing required. He noted that No. 5 has established the idea that sidewalks are part of a network; and having discontinued sidewalks is like having discontinued streets. He fur- ther noted that it sets forth in this policy some of the specific conditions which are being attached to the approval of subdivisions. The City Manager noted that if sidewalks are required at the time the home is con- structed, the developer can pass those costs along to the purchaser. He further noted that those costs can be funded over a twenty to thirty year period. He then suggested that the requirement for sidewalk installation should possibly be included in an ordinance on subdivisions and development. He noted that this would help to create a more consis- tent requirement, which would not be so easily changed as a policy can be. Following discussion, the Commission concurred that the first sentence of No. 5 should remain; however, the second sentence should be deleted. Mayor Hawks suggested that the percentage in the first sentence should be re- viewed and possibly revised. Mayor Hawks suggested that on No. 7, the phrase "for a distance of over three feetll be added. He noted this would allow for bushes in the boulevard area; however, he noted that the distance between those bushes must be determined. Commissioner Frost noted that sight triangles must be considered under such a pro- posal, both at intersections and driveways. He then expressed concern about the possibil- ity of children playing around such bushes and not being visible to drivers. He stated that he is opposed to allowing vegetation between the sidewalk and the curb because of those potential dangers. Following discussion of the possibility of allowing small bushes, it was determined that to establish criteria for allowing such vegetation in the boulevard area would be im- practical and unworkable; therefore, this item should remain unchanged. The Mayor then suggested that under the IIpracticality of construction II section of the selection criteria, the second sentence in the second paragraph be revised to read "In the instance of an ordered sidewalk district, any costs over and above twice the normal costs of construction for an individual parcel shall be borne by the City of Bozeman if an exception is not granted." City Manager Wysocki questioned why an individual should be required to pay twice the normal costs of installation of a sidewalk where extraordinary expenses are incurred. He then stated he feels that an individual should be required to pay only the customary expenses, with the City picking up all additional costs if no exception is granted. 09-04-90 . . - . - , - 5 - The Commission concurred with the revised statement, as suggested by the City Manager. Mayor Hawks then suggested that a paragraph be added stating "Exception may be granted to sidewalk construction standards where there is a lack of curb and gutter, dif- ficult drainage or other practical considerations, upon City Engineer review and City Commission approval. II The Mayor cited the asphalt walkway which has been constructed along West Tamarack Street between North Third Avenue and North Fifth Avenue, where the street has been temporari Iy constructed without curb and gutter. He suggested that such an installation might be a temporary solution along North 17th Avenue, which also does not have curb and gutter. The Director of Public Service noted that asphalt walkways require more mainte- nance on an immediate basis; however, he does not have a strong opinion that concrete sidewalks are necessary along streets without curb and gutter. He noted that it is im- practical to require construction of a concrete sidewalk along such a street, particularly since no grade has been established, and such an installation could create drainage prob- lems. He then concurred that an asphalt walkway is better than nothing at all. The City Manager suggested that a statement be added which stipulates that this type of exception wi" be considered on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Frost suggested that curbs, gutters and sidewalks could all be in- stalled at one time under a special improvement district. The City Manager reminded the Commission that an SI D may be killed by a protest of 50 percent or more of the property owners; however, the Commission may unilaterally require the installation if sidewalks. City Manager Wysocki then reminded the Commission of the gravel walkway installed along the north side of Durston Road between North 20th Avenue and North 23rd Avenue, noting that the former Commission had required that installation as a temporary measure until Durston Road is improved. Commissioner Goehrung asked who would be responsible for paying the additional costs for installing a handicapped curb cut at some of the corners. The City Manager responded that the cost would be split among all of the property owners within the district. Responding to another question from Commissioner Goehrung, the Director stated that at the present time, the State has established standards for handicapped access. He noted that a local government may establish more stringent standards if it feels the State standards are inadequate. Commissioner Frost asked when the Commission will be able to address the rec- ommendations submitted by the Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee and serve notice to the 09-04-90 . . .' ~ . " - - 7 - Assistant Planner Debbie Arkell presented the staff report. She stated that the subject parcel is owned by Mr. Tim Barnard; however, a portion of the tract is currently under lease to Mr. Bill Reier. She noted that Tract 39A is a 29-plus-acre tract; as-acre portion of which is zoned B-2, Community Highway Business District. She stated that the 5-acre parcel at the southern boundary Is commonly known as "Beacon Hill" and is the site upon which several towers and two bui Idings have been constructed. She stated that under this application, a 12-foot by 24-foot prefabricated equipment building would be con- structed and two telephone poles would be erected. The Assistant Planner showed the Commission a set of pictures of the subject site, with the existing structures and fad I ities, as well as a picture of the typical building which Cellular Systems, Inc., proposes to construct. Assistant Planner Arkell stated that the subject parcel was zoned in 1974, when the entire 1790 acres in Story Hills was zoned. She noted at that time, it was anticipated that a restaurant and shops would be constructed on this tract. The Assistant Planner then stated that the subject parcel has not been surveyed; therefore, the exact boundaries are not known. She stated it appears, through review of topographical maps of the area, that the application is located within the B-2 zoning dis- trict. Assistant Planner Arkell stated that access to the subject site is through a dirt driveway from Big Gulch Road, which is a privately-owned roadway from the first hairpin turn. She indicated that the subject site is located approximately two miles past that hair- pin turn. She then noted that the interim zoning code requires that property front upon a dedicated roadway; and this privately-owned road does not qualify. She stated that this has created problems for others wishing to construct homes along the road; and they have also had to request a variance to that requirement of the code. The Assistant Planner stated that the appl icant is seeking variances to Section 18.50.090, Screening; 18.50.100, Landscaping; 18.50.120, Parking; and 18.50.140(A), Pub- lic Street Frontage in conjunction with this Conditional Use Permit. She indicated that, due to the location of the subject site and the minimum amount of traffic which will be generated by this application, the Planning staff has recommended that these variances be approved; and the City-County Planning Board has concurred. The Assistant Planner stated this site was selected because of its current usage, the limited residential development in that immediate area, and its height. Assistant Planner Arkell stated that the 1990 master plan designates the subject ar- ea as rural residential; therefore, the current zoning does not comply with the master plan. The Assistant Planner stated that staff has reviewed this application subject to the 09-04-90 , . , . .. - 8 - criteria set forth in the interim zoning ordinance, and has recommended approval subject to thirteen conditions. She noted that following its public hearing held on August 21, the City-County Planning Board concurred in that recommendation. The Assistant Planner then reminded the Commission that since variances are involved, under the interim zoning ordinance a minimum of four affirmative votes is needed for approval. Responding to Commissioner Knapp, the Assistant Planner stated that if this pro- posed use affects operation of equipment located across the property line, it will be han- dled as a zoning violation; and that process will be followed to terminate the cellular tele- phone usage. Responding to Commissioner Goehrung, the Assistant Planner stated there is no re- corded easement from Big Gulch Road to the subject site; therefore, access is either through private ownership or an unrecorded easement. She then stated she is not aware of any variances which have been denied by the Board of Adjustment for constructing of residences along Big Gulch Road, due to its private ownership status. Mayor Hawks asked what type of legal limbo is incurred if it is determined that the building is constructed on the adjacent lot, based on an actual physical survey of the ar- ea. The Assistant Planner responded that in this particular instance, Tract 39 has been surveyed; however, the City does not have the manpower to locate the pins. She stated that the applicant recognizes it is his responsibility to make sure that all improvements are placed upon Tract 39A. She then indicated that the Planning Board discussed the pos- sibility of requiring a survey; however, they did not include it as one of the conditions for approval. Mr. Lyman Turley, Director of Development for Cellular Systems, Inc. , in Englewood, Colorado, stated the firm has received one of two FCC licenses to operate in this area of Montana. He stated that, due to its physical features, Beacon Hill is an ex- tremely suitable site for the proposed installation. He stated that the firm has applied for this Conditional Use Permit to construct a 12-foot by 24-foot prefabricated building to house the computerized switching equipment; and those facilities will be visited on a limited basis to ensure they are working properly. He indicated that two telephone poles will be installed on either end of the building under this application. He stated those poles will not be more than 50 to 60 feet tall; and may be as low as 20 to 30 feet, depending on what is determined necessary, given the natural elevation. Mr. Turley then stated that the company has recently learned that the waiting peri- od for a 12-foot by 24-foot building may be two to two and one-half months; however, they could obtain a 12-foot by 30-foot building immediately. He then requested that the larger building be considered under this application, stating that the smaller building will 09-04-90 .~--,... . . - , . ~ r - 9 - be used if it becomes available by the time they undertake the installation. Mr. Bill Reier, lessee of the subject tract, stated he has sub-leased the tract to Cellular Systems, Inc. He then stated that the Highway Patrol has an easement dated back to the 1940's which provides access to the subject tract. Mr. Gordon Hudson stated he owns a majority of the property surrounding the sub- ject tract; however, he did not receive written notice of this hearing. He then stated that he and his wife are opposed to this application, since any further development will nega- tively impact the skyline. He noted that the application does not increase livability in the immediate area or of the Gallatin Valley, but benefits one firm only. Mr. Hudson stated he feels that Story Hills has already donated extensively to utilities and big companies. Mayor Hawks stated that the Commissioners have received a letter of opposition dat- ed August 29, 1990, from James R. and Lynda Brown, 13000 Big Gulch Road. Commissioner Goehrung suggested that the public hearing be continued to allow staff an opportunity to address the lack of a certificate of survey as well as the disputed land ownership in the immediate area. Mr. Hudson stated that his property has been surveyed. Responding to questions from the Commission, he indicated that he has been receiving tax bills on this property; however, he also noted that the subject properties have recently been involved in litiga- tion. The City Manager reminded the Commission that the applicant has requested a change in the size of building proposed. He indicated a desire to discuss this proposal with staff to determine if that change impacts the application. Commissioner Frost asked if approving construction of a building for which no ac- cess may be available will create any liability for the City. The City Manager responded that a condition could be added specifying that this decision creates no liability to the City. Mayor Hawks continued the public hearing to 3:30 p.m. on Monday, September 10. He noted a decision will be made following closure of the public hearing. Ice Cream Parlour with restaurant - This was the time and the place set for the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit requested by John Keserich for Frederick's Ice Cream Parlour and Restaurant, to allow on-premise sale of beer and wine in conjunction with the restaurant located on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, North 7th Addition. The subject site is more commonly located at 726 North 7th A venue. Mayor Hawks opened the public hearing. 09-04-90 . , - ~ ...... . . - 10 - -..---- Assistant Planner Debbie Arkell presented the staff report. She stated that the subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of North 7th Avenue and West Aspen Street. She noted the subject property is zoned B-2, Community Highway Business District; and the surrounding property is zoned and developed in the same man- ') ner, except for the vacant residential use immediately to the ~Of this site. She stat- ed that the applicant is requesting authorization to sell beer and wine in conjunction with , the existing restaurant operation; and the on-premise sale of beer and wine is a condition- al use in the B-2 zone. The Assistant Planner stated that the subject parcel is also located in the North 7th Avenue Entryway Overlay; therefore, the applicant is requesting a deviation from the sign code to allow continued use of the existing 29-foot-6-inch high free-standing sign. She stated that the Planning Board has recommended approval of the deviation in light of the additional landscaping which the applicant proposes, including a continuous hedge and five canopy trees along West Aspen Street; two low shrubs and a canopy tree along North 7th Avenue south of the driveway; and two small trees, a large shrub and four new shrubs at or near the base of the free-standing sign. She cautioned the Commission that approval of this requested deviation will remove the sign from the provisions of the amortization schedule when it becomes effective; and this sign will be allowed to remain as is. The Assistant Planner stated that this application could impact the residence imme- diately to the south; however, the large evergreen trees existing between the two struc- tures minimizes that potential impact. Assistant Planner Arkell stated that staff has reviewed this application in light of the criteria set forth in the interim zoning ordinance. She highlighted those findings, noting that staff has recommended approval of the application subject to eleven conditions. She stated that following its public hearing on this application at their August 21 meeting, the City-County Planning Board concurred in that recommendation. Responding to questions from Commissioner Goehrung, the Assistant Planner stated there seems to be adequate space for the trees proposed. She then noted that the types of trees to be installed are those recommended by the Park Department for boulevard ar- eas. Mr. John Keserich, applicant, stated that he has been working with the Planning staff to meet the requirements for approval of this application. Responding to a question from the Mayor, he indicated that he is willing to accept all of the conditions as recom- mended by the City-County Planning Board. Mr. Frank Eckes, 1675 Nelson Road, stated his business is located at 222 East Main Street. He stated opposition to the requested Conditional Use Permit, noting that as a businessman, he often takes his clients to lunch at this restaurant. He expressed concern 09-04-90 . - . . . ~-'~ p" . .. . ./' ./ - 11 - ...../ that to allow the sale and consumption of beer and wine will lead to additional negative changes in the restaurant. Mr. Eckes stated that at the present time, there is a triangle of establishments where alcoholic beverages are consumed in that immediate area; and expressed concern that to add this restaurant to that list could encourage people to cross a busy thoroughfare to get from one establ ishment to another. He noted this could create a hazardous situation for those crossing the street as well as cause additional enforcement problems for the po- lice officers. 0 11 Mr. Eckes stated that this restaurant ~ an excellent place to eat without alcohol , being available; and he feels it should remain as is. He then encouraged Commission dis- approval of this application. Commissioner Goehrung stated that he discussed the request to retain the existing free-standing sign with members of the former ad hoc sign committee, particularly about the fact that approval of the deviation would exempt the sign from the amortization sched- ule. He stated those former members expressed concern and distress that it appears the height requirements of the sign ordinance, particularly in the entryway overlay districts, are not being enforced; and no changes in signage are being made. The Commissioner then advocated lowering of this particular sign to let the community know that the Commis- sion is serious about enforcing the provisions of the ordinance. Commissioner Frost responded that both the Design Review Board and the City-County Planning -Board recommended approval based on the additional landscaping which the applicant is proposing along West Aspen Street. He noted that the screening will limit views of the parking lot when traveling south along North 7th Avenue; and that wi" improve the entryway corridor. He also noted that planting trees and shrubs around the base of the sign will visually lower the height of the sign. Commissioner Knapp noted that the Planning Board also considered the height of the evergreen trees along the southern boundary when recommending approval of the request to retain the existing free-standing sign. Mayor Hawks stated that the sign code, which is contained in the interim zoning ordinance, does have a standard 8-fo.ot height limitation on signs; however, it also has a design review process which applicants may follow to provide a variety of signs in the community. He then stated that after listening to concerns expressed at the City-County Planning Board, it has become evident that no signs will be greater than thirty feet in height. Assistant Planner Arkell noted that several comments were made about the sign at the public hearing before the City-County Planning Board. She noted that the speed limit is 35 miles per hour along North 7th Avenue; and the proposed trees will grow to 30 to 45 09-04-90 ," , " - 12 - feet in height. She then stated that under the present code requirements, which allow for increased height as the sign is moved further from the street, if the subject sign were lo- cated at the corner of the building, it would be at a permissible height. The Assistant Planner then stated that Mr. Riney Bennett, the Planning Board member who had opposed a thirty-foot sign under a recently considered application, voted for approval of this sign because of the existing large trees and the proposed additional landscaping around the sign. Mayor Hawks closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Goehrung, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the Commission waive the one-week waiting period. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Goehrung, Commissioner Frost, Com- missioner Knapp and Mayor Hawks; those voting No, none. Commissioner Goehrung stated that he will vote against approval of the deviation to allow the existing 29-foot-6-inch high free-standing sign to remain because it is located in an entryway corridor and because the Commission must let the community know that it is interested in limiting the height of signs. It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, that the Commission approve the deviation to Section 18.65.030 of the interim zoning ordinance to allow the continued use of an existing 29-foot-6-inch high free-standing sign and approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by John Keserich for Frederick's Ice Cream Parlour and Restaurant, to allow on-premise sale of beer and wine in conjunction with the restau- rant located on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, North 7th Addition, subject to the following con- ditions as recommended by the City-County Planning Board: 1. That all landscape improvements and all parking lot improvements, in- cluding wheel stops and striping, be installed as per the site plan; 2. That all concrete bollards within the public right-of-way be removed; 3. That the applicant sign a "Waiver of Right to Protest the Creation of SI DIl or other appropriate waiver for the installation of a City stan- dard sidewalk within a dedicated public sidewalk easement on the ap- plicant's property along North 7th Avenue; 4. That the right to a use and occupancy permit shall be contingent up- on the fulfillment of all general and special conditions imposed by the Conditional Use Permit procedure; 5. 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; 6. That all conditions specifically stated under any Conditional Use listed in the Zoning Ordinance shall apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land, successors or assigns; 7. That all of the special conditions shall be consented to in writing by the applicant; 8. That three copies of the final site plan, containing all the conditions, corrections and modifications approved by the City Commission, shall 09-04-90 . . . - 13 - be submitted for review and approved by the Planning Director within six months of the date of City Commission approval. One signed copy shall be retained by the Planning Department, one signed copy shall be retained by the Building Department, and one signed copy shall be retained by the applicant; 9. That if improvements are not installed prior to final site plan ap- proval, the applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement with the City. Detailed cost estimates, construction plans, and methods of security shall be made a part of that Agreement; 10. That if occupancy of the structure or commencement of the use is to occur prior to the installation of improvements, the 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 improvements; and 11. That all on-site improvements shall be completed within 18 months of approval of the final site plan. The Conditional Use Permit shall be valid only for a period of 18 months following approval of the final site plan. Prior to the permanent renewal of the permit at the end of that period, the applicant must satisfy all the conditions in the grant- ing of the permit. An on-site inspection will be made and a report made to the City Commission for their action. If all required con- ditions have been satisfied, the permit will be permanently granted. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commission- er Frost, Commissioner Knapp and Mayor Hawks; those voting No, being Commissioner Goehrung. This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the variance to Sections 18.26.050, 18.50.100.D.5.a., and 18.50.100.D.6. of the interim zoning ordinance requested by Michael Hall, to allow construction of a 6, 837-square-foot professional building on Lot 1 , Block 2, University Square Subdivision. The subject site is more commonly located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South 20th Avenue and West Dickerson Street. Mayor Hawks opened the public hearing. City Manager Wysocki submitted to the Commission a letter from the Southbrook Con- dominium Owners' Association, 2200 West Dickerson Street, stating opposition to the re- quested variances. Planning Director Andy Epple presented the staff report. He also submitted to the Commission a letter from Jerry Locati, architect, dated August 17, 1990, setting forth jus- tifications for the requested variances. The Planning DI rector stated that the applicant, Mr. Michael Hall, has requested variances to Section 18.26.050, Front Yard Setback; Section 18.50.100.D.5.a., Landscape Buffer Strip; and Section 18.50.100.D.6., Landscape Performance Standards. This appli- cation would allow the construction of a 6,837-square-foot professional office building, which would encroach 12 feet into the required 25-foot front yard setback. Also, the ten- foot landscaped buffer strips on the south and west property boundaries would be waived 09-04-90 ._~-"-'- . .,. jo. ~,1: .. . ~ ~ . .. - 14 - as well as the requirement to achieve 30 points of landscape performance standards. The Planning Director stated that this site was the subject of variance proceedings before the Board of Adjustment on January 4, 1990; and those variances, which were ap- proved, allow for the parking lot to encroach 10 feet into the front yard setback on South 20th Avenue and 2 feet into the stream corridor setback, subject to four conditions. The Planning Director then stated that on July 31, the Development Review Commit- tee approved the minor site plan with a number of conditions. He noted that during that review, the Water and Sewer Superintendent indicated that adequate on-site access must be provided to the sewer manhole along the south edge of the property, which then shifted the building twelve feet into the front yard setback. The Planning Director then stated that a stream runs north to south through the subject parcel. He reminded the Commis- sion that a 35-foot setback from the high water mark must be observed on both sides; and that results in an undevelopable 85-foot strip basically in the center of the lot. He fur- ther indicated that a 30-foot utility easement also runs through the site, a substantial portion of which is located within the streambank setback requirements. He noted, how- ever, that the easement does run along the west edge of the building as shown on the site plan. The Planning Director stated that, due to the unique topographical features of the site, the parking lot will be split, with a portion of it being located on the east side of the stream, in accordance with the variances previously granted by the Board of Adjust- ment. Also, a footbridge is to be constructed across the stream under a 310 Permit, which has been approved by the Soil Conservation District, to provide access to the struc- ture from the parking lot. Due to the limited amount of developable property on this site, the applicant has requested a variance to the screening requirements along the western portion of the lot, which would leave that parking lot unscreened to the adjacent residen- tial development. Planning Director Epple stated that, due to the unique physical constraints and the setback and easement requirements, only 36.5 percent of the subject parcel is developable. He stated that under the R-O, Residential--Office District, regulations, 40 percent of the lot may be developed for residential uses, or 60 percent for office use. He stated that under this application, a 20-percent lot coverage is proposed. The Planning Director stated that the applicant proposes to leave the streambank corridor in its natural vegetative state. He noted that, given the physical limitations of the site, the applicant is unable to meet the required 30 landscaping points, since he can- not use the natural vegetation in compiling those points. Planning Director Epple stated that staff has reviewed this application in accordance with the three criteria establ ished by the Supreme Court as well as the four criteria 09-04-90 I:,,~'" JI. "... JI. , .., I .. . - 15 - established under the interim zoning ordinance. Following. that review, staff has recom- mended approval of the requested variances, subject to six conditions which he reviewed. Responding to Commissioner F ros t, the Planning Di rector stated that sc reen i ng along the west boundary line may be provided either by construction of a solid wooden fence, by vegetation, or a combination of both. He stated that the applicant does nbt wish to construct a sol id fence because of the aesthetics. The Planning Director then stated that a two-foot-wide planting row could possibly be utilized along the property line; however, that would require another variance to allow a 24-foot-wide driving aisle in the parking lot rather than the required 26-foot aisle. He then cautioned the Commission that is an option that has not yet been considered by the Development Review Committee. Responding to another question from Commissioner Frost, the Planning Director stated that the interim zoning ordinance requires that large canopy trees be planted in the public right-of-way, one tree for every 50 feet of frontage. He noted that the five trees along West Dickerson Street and the two trees on South 20th Avenue meet those require- ments. Mr. Van Bryan, Associate with Jerry Locati Architects, stated the proposed build- ing is considered a one-level structure because the second level area is accommodated through the use of dormers. Mr. Ed Koudelka, President of the Southbrook Condominium Owners' Association, read the letter of opposition dated September 4, which the Commissioners have received. He noted that one proposal submitted to the Association was that the applicant be allowed to provide a bermed landscaped area on the South brook property. He noted that under that proposal, Mr. Hall would bear the costs of installing the landscaping; however, the Association would be required to maintain that landscaping in perpetuity. He stated oppo- sition to that proposal, noting that the applicant should be required to install the neces- sary landscaping on his own property. Mr. Koudelka stated that a two-member committee has carefully reviewed this proposed development; and they have recommended that the variances be denied. He stat- ed that the Association has concurred in that position, noting that any construction on the subject site should conform with applicable zoning regulations. Mr. Koudelka also expressed concern about the trash dumpster being located at the southern boundary of the property, which is contiguous to the Southbrook development. He suggested a much more suitable location could be found than immediately adjacent to an existing residential development. Mr. Koudelka then reminded the Commission that the Association represents 88 res- idential units, with a total investment of $5 million. He indicated that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on their property values, mainly because it 09-04-90 ... #o-~ ... ~ ." . .. ; - 16 - would detract dramatically from the beautiful entrance to that development which currently exists. Mr. Ed. Koudelka stated that the Association is strongly opposed to the con- struction of a solid wooden fence to screen the parking lot from the adjacent residential development, noting it would destroy the openness which is significant to the Southbrook un i ts . He suggested, rather, a minimum eight-foot-wide vegetative strip should be required along the west side, and a minimum six-foot-wide vegetative buffer strip on the south side. He then encouraged the Commission to disapprove the requested variances. Mr. Bruce Mecklenburg, resident of Southbrook and former owner of Mecklenburg Realty, stated he and his partner owned and developed the University Square Residential Office Subdivision. He noted that existing office development blends with the Southbrook development; however, he stated he does not believe the huge 32-foot-high building proposed for this site would blend. He then encouraged the Commission to not approve the requested variances, suggesting that development on that site should be done within its constraints rather than through variances. Mr. Jerry Marchel, resident of Southbrook, stated that Mr. Ken leClair, developer of the Southbrook project, is definitely opposed to the proposed office building and atten- dant variances. He noted that Southbrook has been constructed within the zoning regu- lations; and he feels surrounding development should be required to do so as well. Mr. Marchel stated that he has been in the building industry for thirty years; and he has found that as long as a site can be built upon, no hardship exists. He indicated that the proposed plan represents a desire to overbuild the site, rather than a physical hardship as has been portrayed. Mr. Marchel then stated that the 32-foot-high structure will be the height of a two-story structure, rather than one-story as suggested by the applicant's representative. He noted that the proposed parking lot along the west property line will create a sea of asphalt, particularly with its close proximity to the paved guest parking lot for Southbrook. He stated that he feels this application does not consider the people living in that area, and encouraged denial of the variances requested. Mr. Van Bryan, representing the applicant, concurred with the residents of Southbrook that a solid wooden fence is undesirable. He reminded the Commission that under this application, only 20.7 percent of the site would be covered by a building, which is substantially less, than what is allowed under the interim zoning ordinance. He then addressed the location of the dumpster, noting that is the only place which is acces- sible for the garbage truck. He further reminded the Commission that the dumpster wi" be screened from view. Father Robert J. Beaulieu, Holy Rosary Church, stated he acquired his Southbrook 09-04-90 . ... .. ,J ~.I., . , . - 17 - ---- .....-- ..-' unit on August 11, noting his unit is in the building located closest to the subject site. He noted that he purchased that unit because it is a quiet residential area; and knowledge of this impending proposal would have influenced his decision. He then encouraged disap- proval of the requested variances. Commissioner Knapp asked the residents of Southbrook if there are any portions of "P the proposed project that are acceptable. or if they~ any advantages. Mr. Mecklenburg responded that there are many advantages in the proposal, includ- ing the split parking lot and the proposed trees along the front of the site; however, he does not support the requested variances. He suggested that a smaller office building could be constructed on the site while retaining the rema inder of the proposa I; and it would be an attractive project that would enhance that immediate area. Mr. Marchel stated he feels the dumpster must be relocated. He expressed concern about the size and scale of the proposed project; however, he feels the proposed plans are wel I done. He suggested that to propose a structure which would allow meeting the land- scaping requirements on the subject site would be more acceptable. Mr. Mecklenburg suggested that the Commission continue this public hearing for two to four weeks, and allow the residents of Southbrook to work with the applicant to see if a project acceptable to both parties can be created. Mr. Van Bryan clarified the variances being requested, as well as a brief history of the project. He noted that the applicant has worked closely with the Planning staff in creating this proposal; and they have attempted to comply with the zoning regulations as much as possible. Responding to Mayor Hawks, the Planning Director stated that 19 parking spaces are needed; and 21 spaces would be provided under this application. The Commissioners briefly discussed possible revisions to the site plan which could possibly accommodate the concerns registered by the residents of Southbrook. Commissioner Goehrung then suggested that, since this is a variance request and requires a minimum of four affirmative votes, it may be best to continue this public hear- ing for one week, when a full Commission is present. Mayor Hawks continued the public hearing to 3:30 p.m. on Monday, September 10. Discussion - FYI Items The City Manager presented to the Commission the following "For Your Information" items. (1 ) Letter of resignation from the Transportation Coordinating Committee dated August 20, 1990, as submitted by Richard J. McConnen. (2) Copy of the letter from City Attorney Becker to the Department of Health 09-04-90 . . .' .' ..~... . " . 6 - 18 - and Environmental Sciences, dated August 31, 1990, regarding the discovery of asbestos in the vicinity of the Old Milwaukee Depot on East Main Street. (3) Letter from Big Sky Association for the Arts dated August 30, 1990, thank- ing the City Manager for signing their application for grant monies. The City Manager noted that he has signed applications for several organizations recently so they may seek grant funds for their operations. (4) Notice of a special City-County Planning Board meeting on the interim zoning ordinance, which began at 6:00 p.m. this evening. (5) Announcement that Sue Harkin has received professional certification by the Montana Recreation and Park Association. (6) Agenda and packet for the City-County Planning Board meeting to be held on Wednesday, September 5, at 7:00 p.m. in the Commission Room. ( 7) Notice from the Chamber of Commerce Business Support Committee announc- ing a seminar entitled "Keys to Economic Diversity in the Gallatin Valley: Opportunities & Challenges," to be held at the Holiday I nn on Wednesday, September 12, at 5:30 p.m. The City Manager noted that reservations must be made by Monday, September 10. (8) The City Manager submitted his weekly report, as follows. (1) Met with Bill Carpenter, Director of the Youth Program, which just received the grant to address drug and substance abuse. (2) Met with Gallatin Development Corporat ion, Commissioners Knapp and Swanson, and people from Butte regarding their incubator program. He noted that Butte has had 32 incubator operations, two of which are no longer operating in Butte. He stated the meeting was to help Bozeman learn about the successful and unsuccessful elements of the operation in anticipation of creating a similar set-up at the Old Haynes Building. (3) Met with Comm iss ioner Swanson, Administrative Services Director Miral Gamradt, attorney Bob Planalp and Roger Craft to discuss past activities surrounding Val- ley Unit and to brainstorm on different approaches. Additional meetings will be necessary before any firm ideas are developed. (4) Met with the Executive Committee for the UCT regarding renovation of the Old Elk's Country Club. He noted that the UCT will allow the City to begin improvements to the exterior of the structure before the building reverts back to City possession; however, they have not authorized any work within the structure at this time. (5) Has met with Zac Zakovi three times since last week's Commission meet- ing. He noted that Zac will coordinate the needed improvements to the Old Elk's Country Club structure. (6) The City's tree trimming program is in progress, with work being done along South Willson Avenue, in Lindley Park and in other locations around the com- munity where it is determined hazardous conditions exist. ( 7) The swimming pool at Bogert Park is now closed for the year; and the Swim Center has been reopened after its annual summer maintenance. 09-04-90 .' . ..~~ ... .. . Ji' - 19 - (9) Commissioner Goehrung submitted the following. (1) Last week he met with two individuals from Costa Rica, one of whom represented Turrialba. He noted that pro- grams to encourage additional communication between the two countries and communities, possibly including teacher exchanges or student exchanges, were discussed. He noted that a "Discovery of the Americas" celebration is scheduled for 1992, the 500-year anni- versary of Columbus' discovery; and he anticipates that Central America will pay more at- tention to North America during that year. (2) Met with Director of Public Service Phill Forbes and Assistant to the City Manager Ron Brey last week regarding solid waste is- sues. (3) Took old siding from his house to the landfill--and paid $9.90 to dump it. He noted that conversation with the operators at the landfill revealed that people are changing their disposal practices due to the new gate fee structure. (10) Commissioner Frost submitted the following. (1) Attended the DRB meeting on Tuesday. He noted that with architects becoming involved early in the review process, appl ications seem to be better. He noted that the DRB is attempting to streamline the process because too much review time is being spent on some projects. (2) Suggested that the City get some "tree maintenance" signs to post when tree trimming activities are un- derway rather than utilizing the "street maintenance" signs. He noted this will help tax- payers recognize that their special assessment dollars are at work. He then noted that the trimmed areas look great. (11 ) Commissioner Knapp submitted the following. (1) Attended the second of four meetings of the task force on aging. She noted that after the fourth meeting, the task force is to make recommendations to the County Commission on how they perceive ser- vices are being rendered to the aging. She then stated that the City received kudos for the support which it gives to the Senior Center, noting that in some ways it seems to be unique. (12 ) Mayor Hawks submitted the following. (1) Briefly reviewed the appointments which he made to the committee to review the Perkins Place issue, as follows: Commission- ers Frost and Swanson; multi-family dwelling owners - Doug Polette, Bob Davies. Martha Drysdale; single-family dwelling owners - Rudy Svehla and Greg Beardslee; Salvation Army - Captain Bowman; City staff - Ron Brey. The first meeting for the committee is scheduled for next week. (2) Met with the Planning Board at 6:00 p.m. tonight, at which time he expressed concerns about some of the issues set forth in the July 13 memo from Planning Director Epple and Assistant to the City Manager Brey. (3) Met with represen- tatives from Patagonia this week concerning possible expansion of their facilities and oper- ation in Bozeman. 09-04-90 ~----~_..~-----_.__. - -- -----~_._-~---- ---~,- ._---~~._---------------_.- '"'" ~ ... .. .;.-.' . . Iii' ".. - 20 - Adjournment - 9:35 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, that the meeting be ad- journed. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Goehrung and Mayor Hawks; those voting No, none. 09-04-90 --,' ---------- ~