Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-11 ccmWORK .- - MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION/AGENDA MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA December 11, 1995 ****************** *********** . The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in work session and agenda meeting in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, December 11, 1995, at 3:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Frost, City Manager Wysocki, City Attorney Luwe and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan. Mayor Vincent 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. Aaenda Meetina . for reaular meeting and public hearinas to be held on December 18. 1995 Since this is an agenda meeting, only those issues requiring staff action are contained in the minutes. City Manager Wysocki briefly reviewed the background information which was . included in the Commissioners' packets. (4) The City Manager stated that a telephone call to the City of Billings revealed that their water impact fee is $1,075, their wastewater impact fee is $850, and they have no impact fee for streets or fire. Responding to questions from the Commission, the City Attorney stated that the impact fees were the subject of a Court action. He noted that while the Supreme Court decision in that case was based on self-government powers, State statutes give the authority to implement development fees for water systems to all local governments. (5) Assistant Planning Director Arkell stated that she has calculated the signage along the north side of the Main Mall at 504 square feet plus 460 square feet on the east and . west ends combined. She noted that the Commission has indicated concern about signage on those sides of the building not visible from US Highway 191; however, she suggested that some signage should be allowed over the back doors of the businesses and the corridors to notify people where they are entering the building. She suggested that the amount of signage needed to accomplish that could be minimal. 12-11-95 - 2 - Responding to questions from the Commission, the Assistant Planning Director stated that the existing signage is not in compliance with the sign code; and the requested variance is designed to allow the signage to remain. She then indicated that if the Commission wishes, it could table action on this application until after the zone code amendment pertaining to . signage for malls has been processed. She cautioned that, typically, the City does not control on which the side of the building signage is displayed. City Attorney Luwe cautioned that if the Commission tables action on this application, it should be to a time specific. Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck requested that Assistant Planning Director Arkell submit an anticipated timeline for adoption of a zone code amendment pertaining to signage for malls, prior to next week's meeting, along with possible language for a motion to table action. (29) Senior Planner Dave Skelton reviewed the application for multiple variances, noting that staff has recommended denial. He cautioned the Commission to consider the life safety issues involved with the existing pole sign, which is located in the sight triangle. (30) Historic Preservation Planner Strahn stated that, after the Design Review . Board, it appeared the applicant and the City had reached a consensus that would allow approval of the application, even though staff had originally recommended denial. He noted that the compromise included lowering the freestanding sign by three feet and removing the signage on the west and south elevations of the building. He noted that conversations with the President of Frontier Pies late last week revealed that the compromise position is not acceptable. He cautioned that the existing freestanding sign exceeds the height allowed; and the total amount of signage on the site exceeds the amount allowed under the code. Discussion - FYI Items City Manager Wysocki presented to the Commission the following "For Your Information" items. . (1 ) Copy of a memo from Planning Intern Chris Williams to Planning Director Epple, dated November 28, with pictures of unpermitted signs along North 7th Avenue which have been removed in the past week. (2) Letter from the State Historic Preservation Office, dated December 5, announcing that nomination of the Northern Pacific/Story Mill Historic District has been 12-11-95 - 3 - approved and forwarded to the Keeper of the Register in Washington, DC for final review. (3) Letter from the Community Food Co-op, dated November 21, encouraging the Commission to continue seeking compliance with the sign code. (4) Memo forwarding comments received in a telephone call from Bob Hannon, . 506 North Tracy Avenue. (5) Copy of a letter to Greg Beardslee from Director of Public Service Phill Forbes, dated December 6, regarding closure of Perkins Place. (6) Copy of the December update on transportation plan projects. (7) Agenda for the Development Review Committee meeting to be held at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, December 12, in the Commission Room. (8) Agenda for the Design Review Board meeting to be held at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, in the Commission Room. (9) Agenda for the County Commission meeting to be held at 1 :30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, at the Courthouse. (10) Minutes from the Montana Transportation Committee meeting held on . October 11 and 12 and the telephone meeting held on November 20, 1995. (11 ) Copy of a letter from Carol Dietrich, dated December 4, along with a copy of the City Manager's response, dated December 6. The City Manager stated that Ms. Dietrich has asked to be placed on next week's agenda, so she can discuss this issue with the Commission. He cautioned that since she wishes to discuss a sewer line on the south side of town, close to a sewer line which is the subject of a current claim, he does not believe it would be appropriate. City Attorney Luwe cautioned that if an issue is in litigation or a claim is being processed, it is not appropriate to discuss the item. He noted that if the Commission wishes to accept a presentation, it can do so; however, he noted that the Commissioners should make no comments to avoid any potential of compromising the City's position in the claim evaluation . or litigation. Following discussion, the Commissioners asked that this item be placed on an agenda in January. They recognized that at that time, if the claim has not been resolved, they will be unable to discuss the matter. 12-11-95 .4- (12) Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck noted that copies of a letter of congratulations which he plans to forward to Coach Don Read of the U of M Grizzlies has been distributed. He then asked if any Commissioners object to mailing of the letter; none of the Commissioners objected. . Work Session - (A) re draft letter re Dotential rea~irement to install sidewalks: and (B) with County Commissioners - ( 1) Discussion re imDact fees and (2) Discussion re growth issues (A) re draft letter re potential requirement to install sidewalks City Engineer Craig Brawner noted that, in response to Commission review of the initial draft letter in September, both he and the Clerk of the Commission had prepared revised drafts. Responding to Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck, the City Engineer stated he feels that staff could identify the property owners for the proposed 1996, 1997 and 1998 sidewalks programs and mail initial letters of notification in January 1996. Commissioner Frost noted that in the southern end of the University Subdivision, . there are several areas where hedges and small trees have recently been planted in the p~blic right-of-way. He also noted that in a number of places, trailers and recreational vehicles are parked in the right-of~way. He suggested that a reminder be included in the letter that a public right-of-way is located back of the curb, and encourage people to leave that area free of encroachments, particularly given the potential the sidewalks will be required in the near future. The City Engineer stated that such reminders are typically forwarded to owners of new homes in areas where sidewalks are not being immediately required, such as New Hyalite View. He agreed that reminding people of the public right-of-way strip in various ways is beneficial. Commissioner Youngman suggested that the last paragraph be slightly revised. She noted that requiring people to contact One Call seems arbitrary, and suggested that the . language be amended to state why that is required. She recognized that it is a safety issue designed to protect anyone digging, particularly in the public right-of-way. The Commission concurred with the proposed revisions, and agreed with the City Engineer's proposed timeline for sending letters to all affected property owners in January. 12-11-95 -.-------- -.--.---.----- - 5 - (8) with County Commissioners - (1) discussion re impact fees and (2) discussion re growth issues Those in attendance included: City Mayor Pro Tempore Don Stueck Commissioner Marcia Youngman . Commissioner AI Stiff Commissioner Joe Frost City Manager Jim Wysocki City Attorney Paul Luwe City-County Planning Director Andy Epple County Commission Chair Kris Dunn Commissioner Jane Jelinski Commissioner Phil Olson Planning Director Dale Beland Legislature Rep. Joe Barnett Rep. Rod Marshall Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck noted that neither the City nor the County can address many of the issues which have been raised during the public hearings on impact fees; rather, the City and the County need assistance from the State Legislature in creating alternative . methods of funding infrastructure needs. He also noted it is evident, from the public hearings, that neither the City nor the County lives in a vacuum, and their actions impact each other. County Commission Chair Kris Dunn noted that since the County has no police powers, it may assess impact fees only at filing of the final subdivision plat. She then reviewed the process which they must follow prior to adopting impact fees, noting that each of the Planning Boards in the County must first hold a public hearing on amendments to the subdivision regulations to accommodate impact fees; then the County Commission must conduct another public hearing. She noted that, optimistically, this process could be completed in January. Responding to Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck, City Attorney Luwe stated he has made a preliminary response to County Attorney Salvagni regarding the jurisdictional area. He . cautioned that the City's police powers are limited to the city limits. He noted that, through an interlocal agreement with the County, it may be possible for the City to collect the County's impact fees for roads and fire at the time a building permit is issued in the jurisdictional area. Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck stated that he discussed this issue with both City-County Planning Director Epple and City Manager Wysocki last week and, as a result of those 12-11-95 -- - 6 - discussions, he proposes that the City Commission consider implementing impact fees at 25 or 30 percent of the net costs identified in the impact fee studies, for the first year. He noted that this will allow the City time to monitor the legislative session and determine whether any alternatives for funding of infrastructure improvements might be approved. He noted that this . would take advantage of the offers from the Chamber of Commerce, the building industry, the Gallatin Development Corporation and the Downtown Bozeman Association to work with the City and the County in seeking legislative changes. Also, it would establish impact fees of approximately $2,000, which would be close to the County's impact fees. Responding to questions from the Mayor Pro Tempore, City Attorney Luwe stated that the percentage of impact fees assessed against residential and commercial properties must be the same. He noted that while different percentages of the net costs may be applied as the impact fees for streets, fire, water and wastewater, the percentage for each of those impact fees must be the same for both residential and commercial properties. He stated that if the Commission wishes, it may choose to set a cap on the amount assessed against commercial properties, recognizing that the difference between that cap and the actual assessment will be . borne by another funding source, such as the City's general fund. Commissioner Youngman asked about the possibility of excepting expansion of existing facilities from impact fees. Planning Director Epple characterized that as a political decision, noting that the Commission could determine a point at which impact fees could be triggered. He recognized the benefit of not assessing impact fees against expansion of existing business; however, he encouraged the Commission to consider the impacts that doubling the floor space of a large retail store might have on City services. Responding to Commissioner Frost, County Planning Director Beland stated that since County impact fees are triggered at the subdivision stage, there is no differential in the impact fees assessed for residential or commercial uses. . Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck stated that one of his main concerns is the potential of driving development outside of city limits, and thus negatively impacting the County. He noted that his concern particularly stems from the fact that there are an estimated 1 0,600 undeveloped lots in the County that will not face impact fees. 12-11-95 - 7 - County Commission Chair Kris Dunn stated that the County Commission is not sure of the number of undeveloped lots in the County, noting that the estimate of 10,600 lots has no basis. She acknowledged, however, that the County has a significant number of undeveloped lots. . Responding to Rep. Rod Marshall, Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck stated that decreasing the size of the City's extraterritorial area would not negatively impact the assessment of impact fees, since those may only be assessed inside city limits. Mr. Brian Leland asked if self-government powers for the County would help to alleviate some of the problems with assessing impact fees in the County. Commissioner Stiff suggested that it may be in the County's best interests to seek an Attorney General's opinion on the issue of when impact fees may be assessed. He then expressed concern about the potential that the City and the County may not implement impact fees at the same time, noting that every effort has been made to stay in tandem. Responding to Commissioner Frost, County Commissioner Jelinski stated that if the County were to implement a building permit system, the impact fees could be assessed at that . time. She then noted that assessing impact fees at final plat could negatively impact developers, particularly since impact fees for all of the lots would be assessed immediately rather than providing a lag time to allow for some cash flow to begin. County Commissioner Olson noted that under the current system, the County often requires that off~site and on-site improvements be installed prior to final plat; and the costs of those infrastructure improvements can exceed the costs of impact fees. Responding to Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck, County Commissioner Jelinski stated that County Road Superintendent Sam Gianfrancisco has recognized that, while impact fees may not generate the same amount of road improvements in the short term as exactions might, he realizes that in the long term, impact fees are the better mechanism for providing those improvements. . Responding to Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck, Planning Director Epple stated that institutional buildings, including schools and new structures at MSU, will be assessed at approximately 1/20th of the rate for commercial uses which generate high traffic volumes. Mr. Bob Lashaway, Director of Facilities Services at MSU, stated that he has carefully reviewed the impact fee studies. He noted that they contain an opportunity to provide an 12-11-95 ----- - 8 - independent study and ask that those results be taken into consideration when establishing the impact fees to be assessed. He also noted that other options for reducing the amount of impact fees paid are available; and he anticipates that MSU would take advantage of those options. . Planning Director Epple suggested that impact fees be implemented as quickly as possible. He then noted that the interlocal agreement for the City to collect impact fees in the jurisdictional area could be entered into at a later date. Responding to Commissioner Frost, County Commissioner Jelinski noted that the County is unable to meet the demands of growth at the present time. She then stated that people build in the County for a variety of reasons; and they incur costs not found within city limits, such as the drilling of wells and installation of septic systems. County Commissioner Jane Jelinski reminded the City Commissioners that City taxpayers are also County taxpayers; and positive economic benefits in the county have a positive effect on City taxpayers through reduced levies. Commissioner Frost noted that the Commission increased its budget by 51 percent . this year to address growth issues. He then emphasized the importance of identifying a different source of revenue to alleviate the impact on the taxpayers. Commissioner Youngman suggested that if impact fees are implemented, the market forces may dictate that slightly smaller homes are built or more multi-family units are constructed. Mr. Guy Graham noted that in Florida, impact fees are based on the size of the house. He suggested that another alternative might be to base the impact fees on the number of bathrooms and bedrooms in a home. Planning Director Epple forwarded Mr. Duncan's premise that a 1 ,200~square-foot home will generate as much traffic as a 4,800-square-foot home. He then noted that these questions have been raised a number of times, in a number of different ways; and the answer . has remained constant. Responding to questions from Mr. Dave Smith, Executive Director of the Bozeman Area Chamber of Commerce, County Commissioner Jelinski stated that by March 1997, the City and the County will have some idea about the Legislature's position on providing alternative revenue sources to local governments. She then cautioned that, given the 12-11-95 - 9 + Legislature's position in past years, she does not anticipate obtaining approval of local options will be easy. She noted that gathering accurate data to present to the Legislature is imperative; and it is also important to generate State-wide support for the idea rather than just Gallatin County support. . The City Commissioners thanked the County Commissioners for attending the joint work session. Commissioner Youngman suggested that an item be added to next week's agenda to develop a statement of intent pertaining to economic development and affordable housing in conjunction with adoption of the ordinance implementing impact fees. She suggested that such a statement could serve to address many of the comments and concerns raised during the public hearing. Planning Director Epple suggested that the proposed ordinance may. adequately address the issue, since it provides for alternative sources of funding for impact fees in certain situations. He then stated the Commission must determine whether it wishes to create a policy for using alternative sources of funding or consider each case on its own merits. . Adjournment - 5:29 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck; those voting No, none. Oen-r E A~ DON E. STUECK Mayor Pro Tempore ATTEST: . ~ oiL ROBIN L. SULLIVAN Clerk of the Commission 12-11-95