HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-04 ccm
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION
BOZEMAN. MONTANA
December 4. 1995
*****************************
. The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission
Room. Municipal Building, December 4, 1995, at 3:00 p.m.
Present were Mayor Vincent,
Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner
Frost, City
Manager Wysocki, City Attorney Luwe and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan.
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence.
None of the Commissioners requested that any of the Consent Items be removed
for
discussion.
Minutes
Mayor Vincent deferred action on the minutes of the meetings of November
20 and
November 27, 1995, for a period of two weeks.
.
Decisions - Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit DeveloDment to develoD
147.2 acres with
141 single-family
residential units and 6.18 acres with neighborhood service uses: and
Preliminary Plat to subdivide 72.85 acres into 67 lots for single-familY
residential. 6.18 acres
into two neighborhood service lots. and ODen SDace - Dortion of tract located
in NE%. Section
25. T2S. R5E. and NWy... Section 30. T2S. R6E. MPM (northeast corner of
intersection of
South Third Avenue and Goldenstein lane) (Z-95125 and P-9539)
This was the time and place set for the decisions requested by Don Hannah
for
Sourdough Creek Properties, on a 147 .2~acre tract located in the northeast
one~quarter of
Section 25, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, and the northwest one-quarter
of Section 30,
Township 2 South Range 6 East, Montana Principal Meridian, as follows:
(1) a Conditional Use
Permit for Planned Unit Development, under Application No. Z~95125, to
develop 141 single~
family residential units and 6.18 acres with neighborhood service uses;
and (2) preliminary plat,
. under Application No. P-9339, to subdivide 72.85 acres into 67 lots for single-family residential
development, 6.18 acres into two neighborhood service lots, and the remainder
in common
space and open space. The subject property is more commonly located at
the northeast corner
of the intersection of South Third Avenue and Goldenstein Lane.
12-04-95
-------.-
- 2 -
City Manager Wysocki noted that, included in the Commissioners' packets, was a
memo from Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell, forwarding responses to many of the
questions which have been asked. He noted that several letters were also included
in the
packets; however, he cautioned that those were received after the public hearing was closed
. and, therefore, may not be considered during the decision~making process.
Responding to Mayor Vincent, Assistant Planning Director Arkell stated that, in this
instance, the Planned Unit Development application pertains to both the zoning and the
subdivision. She noted that since the subject property is zoned "R-S", Residential--Suburban
Country Estates, a zoning PUD is needed to allow development on lots smaller than the
minimum size allowed under code, and a subdivision PUD is being sought to allow for relaxation
of the City street standards.
Further responding to Mayor Vincent, the Assistant Planning Director stated that
when considering an application for development of vacant land, staff reviews the application
in comparison to the minimum standards allowed by code. She cautioned that if a proposal for
development were compared to its existing status as raw land, no development proposal would
. ever meet the criteria. She stated that in this instance, the proposal was compared to a typical
"R-S" subdivision of one dwelling unit per acre, served by County-standard streets. She noted
that in a typical residential subdivision, one-ninth of the area must be dedicated to parkland;
under the PUD section, 30 percent of the entire area must be maintained in open space, not
counting required setbacks.
City Attorney Luwe stated that the Commission must first approve the zoning PUD
before it may consider the subdivision. He cautioned that if the
Commission approves the
subdivision without approving the zoning PUD, the project will be out of compliance with the
1990 Bozeman Area Master Plan Update.
Responding to Commissioner Frost, the Assistant Planning Director suggested that
Section 12.7 of the covenants be revised by adding a paragraph which states that light fixtures
. shall be arranged to deflect light down and away from streets and adjacent properties, through
the use of cut-off shields, and requires that they be compatible with the site and architectural
design.
Responding to Commissioner Youngman, the Assistant Planning Director indicated
that the proposed language which she forwarded could be incorporated into all sections of the
12-04-95
~ 3 ~
covenants, to ensure that it pertains to all lighting within the development, including those
lights on houses and commercial buildings. She reminded the Commission that the lighting in
the commercial area will be reviewed during the site plan review process.
Commissioner Frost noted that the Fire Marshal has suggested that sprinkler systems
. should be required if a new fire station is not in place when development occurs, due to the
response time from either existing fire station. He asked if that requirement should be included
in the conditions for approval.
The Assistant Planning Director indicated it would be possible to add such a condition;
however, she cautioned that care must be taken to ensure that such a condition is added to
all future projects which are located beyond a certain distance from the fire stations.
City Manager Wysocki cautioned that fire protection may be provided in another
manner, such as through an agreement with the Sourdough Volunteer Fire Department.
Responding to Commissioner Frost, the Assistant Planning Director suggested that
two different management plans could be created for the open spaces, with one of the types
being for wildlife, and left in its natural state, and the other being for human interaction, and
. being maintained. She suggested that, through appropriate
mowing of the open space near
homes, the
potential of wildfires could
be greatly red uced .
She then showed the
Commissioners a map depicting the two different types of open space, as proposed by the
applicant.
Further responding to Commissioner Frost, the Assistant Planning Director stated that
under the conditions of approval, as recommended, building sites must be located a minimum
of 50 feet from adjacent parkland. She recognized that this may require some adjustments to
lots in the southeast corner of the site.
Responding to Mayor Vincent, the Assistant Planning Director stated that only the
trails through the development would be accessible and usable by the general public, while the
open space would be open to the residents of the subdivision and their guests. She noted that
. the homeowners' association would own the open space and be responsible for enforcement
of its rules.
Commissioner Frost expressed concern about the proposed trail alignment in the
northeast corner of the site, suggesting that an alternative path might be appropriate to
alleviate people cutting through prime wildlife habitat.
12-04-95
- 4 .
Following discussion, the Commissioners concurred that the trail alignment and its
construction should be subject to review and approval by the Recreation and Parks Advisory
Board.
Commissioner Frost stated his concurrence with Commissioner Stiff's suggestion that
. wells be required in the northeast corner of the site. He suggested, however, that the condition
include the requirement that those wells be of low visual impact. He then questioned whether
these wells might have negative impacts on wells in the Gardner Park subdivision.
Commissioner Youngman addressed the issue of groundwater, expressing her concern
about the water levels on some of the proposed lots. She suggested that, since the applicant
has indicated a willingness to do more groundwater testing, the Commission should require it,
particularly in the west and southwest portions of the site.
After discussion, the Assistant Planning Director reminded the Commission that staff
has information on the types of soils found on the site and the groundwater depths.
She
further reminded the Commission that, under existing regulations, homes may
not be
constructed less than two feet above the groundwater table. She cautioned
that the exact
. groundwater depth in a specific location may not be known until digging is begun.
She
reminded the Commission that, if that occurs, the situation must be mitigated under existing
regulations.
The City Manager cautioned against restricting building in specific locations on the
site, particularly if the same types of soils are found elsewhere in the community.
Commissioner Stueck noted that the water table on this site is typically not any higher
than it is where the new Human Resources Development Council housing project is constructed
on North 24th Avenue. He then stated that the note on the plat that no basements are allowed
should be adequate to caution potential purchasers of the groundwater level.
Responding to questions from Mayor Vincent, Planning Director Epple stated that, if
the Commission wishes, it could require the applicant to establish monitoring wells on each of
. the homesites. He noted that this might provide better data upon which to base the design and
construction of the foundation for each of the homes constructed within this subdivision.
Responding to questions, the Planning Director stated that the proposed covenants
and architectural guidelines address the potential of groundwater problems.
12-04-95
- 5 -
Responding to Commissioner Frost, the Assistant Planning Director stated
that under
the planned unit development, one residential unit per acre is required. She recognized that,
after the lots are created, the City, or anyone else, could choose to purchase some of them and
not build on them. She noted that, unless a variance is requested and granted, 141 residential
. lots must be created.
Responding to Commissioner Frost, City Attorney Luwe stated it might be
possible
to add a condition that gives the City first right of refusal on purchase of the southeast corner
of the property. He reminded the Commission that, with the number of additional conditions
being proposed, it is important to obtain the applicant's comments before taking action.
Responding to Commissioner Youngman, the Assistant Planning Director confirmed
that the proposed open space in the northeast corner of the property is slightly over 17 acres,
or approximately the size of the Recreation Complex.
Commissioner Youngman suggested that the conditions be amended to require
an
enhanced plan for the wetlands, including the requirement for one pond to be a minimum of
an acre in size. The Assistant Planning Director responded that could be accommodated with
. a change to Condition No. 27.
Responding to additional concerns voiced by Commissioner Youngman, the
Assistant
Planning Director noted that a permit must be obtained prior to work done within the floodplain.
She suggested that this should help to alleviate the concerns which have been registered. She
also noted that, given the conditions recommended for approval, no run-off will be allowed to
leave the subject 147 acres, thus avoiding impacts to properties downstream.
Responding to a request for permission to address the Commission from Ms.
Carol
Dietrich, City Attorney Luwe cautioned that the public hearing has been closed.
Responding to Commissioner Youngman, Assistant Planning Director Arkell
stated that
the borrow pits should not be filled because they serve as part of the water detention/retention
fac i lities.
. Commissioner Stueck stated that, after measuring the asphalt widths of
Goldenstein
Lane and the streets in Gardner Park, he feels the proposed 24-foot-wide streets in this
subdivision are appropriate.
Commissioner Stiff stated he would prefer 28-foot-wide streets, but he
can support
the 24-foot width in light of the information just forwarded.
12-04-95
.---------
- 6 -
Responding to Commissioner Frost, the Assistant Planning Director stated that under
the recommended conditions for approval, Graf Street would retain its name through the
subdivision to Morning Sun.
Responding to Mayor Vincent, City Attorney Luwe recognized an issue was raised by
. the Citizens to Save Open Space regarding jurisdiction authority. He reminded the Commission,
however, that the subject property has now been annexed, stating that the City Commission
has the authority to act on the applications before them at this time.
Responding to Mayor Vincent, the Assistant Planning Director stated that under the
subdivision planned unit development, the Commission may relax the street standards, as
requested.
At City Attorney Luwe's suggestion, each of the Commissioners reviewed the
proposed conditions for approval, forwarding their comments on those to which they would like
to see changes.
Mr. Joe Sabol, attorney representing the applicant, noted that they have tracked the
Commission discussion and understand the conditions as proposed.
He indicated that they
. have no problem with any of the conditions proposed, subject to seeing the language of those
conditions in the Findings of Fact. He noted that the applicant
has recognized the need to
provide better data on the groundwater in some areas of the site, and has indicated his intent
to drill more monitoring wells.
Responding to Mayor Vincent, City Attorney Luwe stated that if the Commission
approves the preliminary plat with conditions, staff will bring back Findings of Fact for
Commission action. He indicated that the applicant will have an
opportunity to review the
conditions contained in those Findings and, if the applicant disagrees with some of those
conditions, then additional consideration may be necessary.
Commissioner Stueck stated his support for this application, noting that it reflects
how a better design can result from working together.
. Commissioner Frost stated that he had many problems with the previous application,
and he does have some concerns with this application. He noted that this application is better
than the previous one, although he would still prefer to see more open space and higher density
in some areas. He recognized the sensitivity of the land involved, recognizing
that the
availability of City services will help to alleviate some of the potential problems.
He then
12-04-95
--.- .-.----
-
7 -
indicated his support for narrower streets and borrow pits, noting they will help in on-site water
detention.
Commissioner Youngman thanked the applicant for the changes to the proposal
and
thanked the neighbors for their input, noting that they have helped the Commissioners to better
. understand the sensitivity of the site. She suggested that the conditions under consideration
will mitigate the impacts which have been identified. She indicated that her preference would
be to not approve this application; however, she has been unable to find sufficient reasons to
do so. She stated that this application provides open space, protects the
wetlands and
provides public access to the trails. She also noted that the protection
of wetlands in the
northeast corner will be an enhancement to the area, particularly since it abuts Mcleod Park
and provides access to the Sourdough Trail. She noted that, since the City is a partner to the
covenants, they cannot be changed without City approval, which she feels is important. She
concluded by encouraging the community to make every effort to purchase some of the
sensitive area, to protect some of the open space which it currently enjoys.
Commissioner Stiff stated his support for the proposed project.
. Mayor Vincent stated his opposition to the proposed development. He noted
that the
subject property is within the urban growth area. He
stated that, after reviewing the criteria
in the Subdivision and Platting Act and the criteria for planned unit developments, he does not
believe that this application meets them. He stated there is
a significant amount that is not
known about the subject property, and he feels that approval of the application without that
information would be inappropriate. He noted that the subject property
is the best of the
remaining open space in the community, and he feels that development of this area is not
appropriate. He stated that the entire community appreciates and enjoys the current openness
of this subject 147 acres, not just those who live in the area, and allowing development to
occur will irreversibly change its character. He cited open areas in larger cities, including the
Boston Common and Central Park in New York City, as examples of recognizing the importance
. of green spaces in populated areas, stating that this property could provide the same type of
amenity for Bozeman.
Mayor Vincent noted statistics reveal that 50 percent of real estate sales
in the
County were made to residents of Bozeman, by their choice. He recognized many people argue
12-04-95
_...._n....__.. ._n..._ _..._ ---.---
-.---...----
~ 8 ~
that Bozeman is a great place to live, however, he noted that argument could be used until
there is no more land available for development.
The Mayor addressed several of the criteria under which this application must be
reviewed, stating he does not feel the proposal is compatible with the neighborhood; the
. development will negatively impact the transportation system and other public facilities
services; the development will negatively impact police and fire services; and the development
will diminish the natural environment, possibly degrading it and definitely not enhancing it. He
stated that this proposal will have negative impacts on agricultural land, on the natural
environment, and on wildlife and wildlife habitat, none of which can be adequately mitigated.
Mayor Vincent noted that open space has been identified as one of the primary
attributes of this project; however, he noted that, except for the trails through the open space,
it is open to residents only. He recognized that the open
space will be a nice and enjoyable
amenity for those within the development, but not for the entire community.
It was moved by Commissioner Youngman, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the
Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, as requested
'. by Don Hannah for Sourdough Creek Properties, under Application No. Z-95125, to develop
141 single-family residential units and 6.18 acres with neighborhood service uses, on a 147.2-
acre tract located in the northeast one-quarter of Section 25, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
and the northwest one-quarter of Section 30, Township 2 South Range 6 East, Montana
Principal Meridian, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Preliminary plan/plat approval does not exempt the developer from
impact fees which may be established at a later date which are
based on final plat approval or building permit approval. Final
plan/plat approval shall be subject to any impact fees which may
be implemented
prior to
said final plan/plat
approval.
Development of individual lots shall be subject to any impact fees
applicable to building permit applications implemented with any
impact fee policy prior to building permit approval.
2. Seven copies of the final site plan for the Zoning Planned Unit
. Development which contains all of the conditions, corrections,
and modifications approved by the City Commission which are
applicable to it shall be approved by the Planning Director within
three years following the approval of the preliminary plan by the
Bozeman City Commission. Upon application and for good cause,
the Planning Director may administratively extend the period for
filing a final site plan for two successive six-month periods. Any
additional six-month extensions must be approved, if at all, only
by the Planning Board.
The final site plan shall comply with
Section 18.54.060 of the zoning ordinance, as printed in the 9-93
codification of the
Bozeman Municipal Code,
and shall
be
12-04-95
.----
- 9 -
adequately
dimensioned. The final site plan must be approved
prior
to final subdivision plat approval.
The
applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement with
the
City to
guarantee the installation
of required on-site
improvements
at the time of final site plan submittal. These
improvements
will include those identified with each subdivision
phase,
including sidewalks fronting parks, open space, rear yard
. frontages,
or other non-lot frontages, and landscape and trail
improvements. Detailed cost estimates,
construction plans, and
methods of security for on-site improvements
shall be made a part
of
that Agreement.
All required infrastructure
and site
improvements
for Phase 1 shall be completed within two years
after
final approval.
3. Preliminary
subdivision plat approval must be granted for each
phase
of the development, with the final plat filed prior to the sale
of
any homesites within each phase. A building permit will not be
issued
for any new construction within each phase until the final
plat
is filed and infrastructure improvements are completed and
accepted.
4. The
final subdivision plat shall conform to the Uniform Standards
for
Final Subdivision Plats, contain all appropriate certificates,
page
titles, and be accompanied by all appropriate documents,
including
a Platting Certificate. A digital copy of the final plat, on
a
double-sided, high-density
3%-inch floppy disk,
shall be
submitted
with the final plat application. The final subdivision plat
must
be approved within three years from the date of preliminary
. plat
approval by the Bozeman City Commission. Prior to the
expiration date, the subdivider may
submit a letter of request to
the Planning Director for a one year
extension. Thereafter, the
City
Commission may approve an extension for not more than one
additional
calendar year.
The
final subdivision plat may not be filed until the final site plan
is
approved. If it is the developer's intent to file the final
subdivision
plat prior to the completion of all required subdivision
improvements,
which includes, but is not limited to, interior
streets,
curb, gutter, water and sewer, pedestrian conveyance
along
South Third and Goldenstein, sidewalks fronting parks, open
space,
rear yard frontage, or other non-lot frontages, and storm
water
infrastructure, a Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall
be
entered into with the City of Bozeman guaranteeing the
completion
of all required Phase 1 improvements in accordance
with
the preliminary plat submittal information and conditions of
approval.
If the final subdivision plat is filed
prior to the
installation
of all improvements, the developer shall supply the
City
of Bozeman with an acceptable method of security equal to
150%
of the cost of the remaining improvements. Under no
. circumstances
will building permits be issued prior to acceptance
of subdivision infrastructure improvements
(Le. water, sewer,
streets).
The
final subdivision plat submittal must include a separate open
space
landscape plan for Phase 1 which details the location and
species
of vegetative plantings and trail improvements for review
and
approval by the Planning Office prior to final plat approval.
The
plan must show that all street intersection sight triangles will
be
free of plantings which at mature growth will obscure vision
within
the sight triangle.
12-04-95
- 10 -
5. Approval
of the final subdivision plat from the Subdivision
Program
of the Montana Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences
Water Quality
Bureau must
occur prior to
final
subdivision
plat approval, pursuant to Section 16.16.101 through
16.16.805,
ARM. Notification
of that
approval must be
submitted
with the final plat.
6. A
Stormwater Drainage/Treatment Plan for a system designed to
. remove
solids, silts, oils, grease, and other pollutants must be
provided
to and
approved by the
City Engineer prior
to
infrastructure construction. The plan
must demonstrate adequate
site
drainage (including sufficient spot elevations), the hydraulic
and
drainage treatment properties of the proposed vegetated
roadway
swales, storm water detention/retention basin details
(including
basin sizing and discharge calculations, and discharge
structure
details) , and
storm water
discharge destination.
Sufficient
storm water systems shall be designed and constructed
to
support each phase of development.
A
stormwater drainage/treatment facilities plan must be prepared
and
submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The plan must
include
the following provisions: description of maintenance
operations,
frequency of inspections and maintenance, responsible
parties,
and record keeping methodology. It will ultimately be the
responsibility
of the Homeowners' Association to ensure that the
maintenance
plan is
consistently enforced.
It is further
recommended
that implementation of the plan be included in the
covenants
and therefore, a condition of plat approval.
. 7. A
site grading plan shall be prepared as a supplement to the
project improvement drawings, which
includes, at a minimum,
existing contours, contours after the
street is constructed but
before
development grading, spot elevations and flow directional
arrows.
The plan must demonstrate adequate drainage to an
acceptable
discharge device, and should be used to establish
street
and building foundation grades. If the grading design
discloses
any adverse impact to off-site properties, necessary
design
alterations and/or drainage
conveyance devices and
easements
must be provided.
8. Plans
and specifications for all water, sewer, and storm sewer
main
extensions, as well as public and private streets (including
curb,
gutter, and sidewalks/pedestrian conveyances) prepared by
a
Professional Engineer (PE) licensed in the state of Montana shall
be
provided to and approved by the City Engineer and, where
applicable,
the County Road Superintendent. Water and sewer
plans
shall also be approved by the Montana Department of
Environmental
Quality. The applicant shall provide professional
engineering
services for construction inspection, post-construction
certification,
and preparation of mylar record drawings. Specific
. comments
regarding the existing and proposed infrastructure shall
be provided at that time.
Construction shall not be initiated on
the
public infrastructure
improvements until
the plans,
specifications
and shop drawings have been approved and a
preconstruction
conference has been cond ucted.
Any
proposed sewer lift stations or water booster stations, as well
as
the location of existing and proposed water and sewer mains
and
fire hydrants shall be shown on the final site plan. Proposed
main
extensions shall be noted as such.
12-04-95
---.--..---..
- 11 -
Proposed
water mains on South Third and Goldenstein Lane shall
be
installed and accepted by the City of Bozeman as part of the
first
phase to satisfy the requirement of a looped water system.
Additional,
required, internal water main looping will be addressed
during
the water and sewer plan reviews. Project infrastructure
phasing,
including all utility phasing, shall be clearly shown during
plan
and specification review to ensure adequate water looping
requirements.
. No
sewer or water stubs shall be installed on the sewer and water
mains in Goldenstein Lane except those
necessary to serve the
Sundance
Springs development and those necessary at or near the
intersection
of South Third Avenue and Goldenstein Lane.
To
impede ground water migration along public utility trenches,
clay
or concrete cutoff walls shall be installed along all sanitary
sewer
lines and water lines within the development and along the
extension
of the sewer line connecting with the existing sewer in
Graf
Street through Graf's Fourth Addition. The location of the
cutoff
walls shall be subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
9. All
infrastructure improvements including 1) water and sewer main
extensions,
and 2)
public and
private streets, curb/gutter,
sidewalks
fronting parks, open space, rear yard frontage, or other
non-lot
frontages, and
related storm drainage infrastructure
improvements
shall be constructed for each phase prior to final
plat
approval of each phase. No building permits will be issued
prior
to acceptance of subdivision infrastructure improvements.
. City
standard residential sidewalks (including a concrete sidewalk
section through all private drive approaches)
shall be constructed
on
all public and private street frontages of a property prior to
occupancy
of any structure on the property. Upon the third
anniversary
of the
plat recordation of
any phase of the
subdivision,
any lot owner who has not constructed said sidewalk
shall,
without further notice, construct within 30 days said
sidewalk
for their
lot(s), regardless of
whether other
improvements
have been made upon the lot. This condition shall
be
included on the face of the final subdivision plat and in the
covenants.
10. Easements
for the water and sewer main extensions, where
needed,
shall be a minimum of 30 feet in width, with the utility
located
in the center of the easement or standard locations, with
the
possible exception of the water mains on South Third and
Goldenstein
Lane. All existing and
proposed utility easements
shall
be shown on the final subdivision plat and the final site plan,
and
utility easements shall be in the location required by the
subdivision
regulations unless
a utility
company requests
. otherwise.
A blanket utility note may not be used; each lot must
show all utility easements.
11. The
final plat shall show all public access easements for the trails.
Public
access easements for all trails in the entire PUD shall be
filed
prior to final plan approval.
12. With
regard to Ditch Relocation:
a.
The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
shall be contacted
by the applicant regarding any
12-04-95
...- ...--------
----- -----..---------
- 12 -
proposed ditch/stream
relocation and any
required
permits (Le. /
310/ 404/ Turbidity exemption, etc.)
obtained prior to final improvement plan approval.
b.
The applicant shall obtain written permission from the
ditch owner for any proposed relocation or creation of
any ponds therefrom.
. 13. With
regard to floodplain:
A Floodplain Development Permit must be obtained from
a.
the City Engineer prior to approval of any work within
the floodplain.
b.
The 100 year floodplain boundary and flood elevations
must be depicted on the final improvement plan.
c.
Culvert sizing design calculations shall be provided for
the stream crossing.
d.
All buildings must be flood-proofed to at least two feet
above the
100 year flood
elevation. Elevation
certificates must be provided for each building following
completion of construction.
14. The
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality
Bureau,
shall be contacted by the applicant to determine if a
Storm
Water Discharge Permit is necessary. Written notification
of
the need or no need for the permit shall be submitted with the
. construction
drawings. If a permit is required by the State, the
developer shall demonstrate to the City
full permit compliance.
15. The
developer's Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of
Montana,
shall be required to prepare a comprehensive design
report
evaluating existing capacity of water and sewer utilities.
The
report must include detailed hydraulic evaluations of each
utility
for both existing and post-development demands for each
phase
of development. The report findings must demonstrate
adequate
capacity to serve the full development.
If
adequate water and/or sewer capacity is not available for full
development,
the report must identify necessary water system
and
sewer system improvements required for full development.
The
developer shall be responsible to complete the necessary
system
improvements to serve the full development.
The
design report shall also include a roadway design section.
The
report must include an analysis of the on-site and future
public
right~of~way soil
conditions, special
grading
recommendations,
roadway bearing capacities, the impacts of
. groundwater
on the design, projected traffic loadings, and street
section(s) design. The design must incorporate
the findings of an
independent on-site soils investigations,
existing groundwater
monitoring
investigations, and the findings of the April 27/ 1995
SCS
study.
The
developer shall be responsible to increase the capacity of the
12-inch
sewer extending between the intersections of Tracy/
Hoffman
and Mason/South Willson, in addition to one section of
8~inch
sewer in Fairway Drive, south of Kagy Boulevard, which
will
be over capacity with the first phase of the subdivision. It
12-04-95
----", ---
- 13 -
will
be the responsibility of the developer to increase the capacity
of
the described pipelines to adequately convey sewage effluent
from
the total future development, Le., all phases combined.
The
developer shall
be responsible to have
designed and
constructed
a booster system to provide adequate pressure and
volumes
to the lots in the westerly portion of the project that may
be
impacted by potential inadequate water pressure in the City's
. water
system. The system shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer and shall
be adequately addressed
in the design report.
16. The
developer shall provide the City of Bozeman a minimum 30-
foot-wide
sewer easement extending along Graf Street from the
north
terminus of Phase 1 to the northerly property boundary of
the
development. The easement shall follow the future alignment
of
Graf Street. The developer shall also cause to be provided to
the
City of Bozeman a minimum 30-foot-wide sewer easement
extending
along the future alignment of Graf Street from the
northerly
property boundary to the existing sewer main in existing
Graf
Street, north of the project.
17. A
50-foot-wide right-of-way shall be dedicated for the realignment
of
the intersection of South Third Avenue and Goldenstein Lane.
A
full 100-foot right-ot-way shall be dedicated in the area where
the
future road falls entirely within the project site. A 45-foot-
wide
right-of-way dedication for Goldenstein Lane shall also be
provided
along the section of Goldenstein Lane adjoining Phase 1.
A
20-foot-wide right-of-way shall be dedicated along South Third
. Avenue
for the entire length ot the development (except where
additional right-of-way is required).
The widths of the right-of-
way dedications for South Third Avenue
and Goldenstein Lane
shall
be clearly indicated on the final plat.
18. The
realignment of the roadway and intersection of South Third
Avenue
and Goldenstein Lane shall be funded and constructed by
the
developer, at standards approved
by the County Road
Superintendent.
Improvements consistent with the City's G.O.
Bond
Issue project for South Third Avenue shall be constructed by
the
developer for that portion of South Third Avenue to be
realigned
near Goldenstein Lane, at standards approved by the
City
Engineer and
County Road Superintendent.
These
improvements
shall be constructed prior to final plat approval of
Phase
1, unless
included in a
Subdivision Improvements
Agreement.
Building permits for the project will not be issued for
any
lots within Phase 1 even if included in an Improvements
Agreement.
These improvements must be completed prior to
home
or commercial construction in Phase 1. The developer shall
obtain
any wetland permits required concerning the realignment
and
road improvements.
. 19. Provisions
for pedestrian conveyance along South Third Avenue
and Goldenstein Lane shall be provided
by the developer. These
provisions
must meet
with the County
Road Supervisor's
approval,
and shall be completed prior to final plat approval of
Phase
1. These improvements may be financially guaranteed
through
an Improvements Agreement, and if so guaranteed, will
not
impede the issuance of building permits within the project.
However,
the improvements must be completed within the time
period
allowed in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement.
12-04-95
- --
--.---.---
- 14 -
20. Internal
streets within the subdivision shall be contained within 70
foot
wide rights-of-way and shall be constructed to the 24-foot
standard
proposed in the submittal.
21. Graf
Street shall continue through the project and not change
names
at the intersection with Peace Pipe Drive (Le., eliminate
reference
to Wind Flower Drive), and shall terminate at Morning
Sun
Drive. The "South" designation shall be dropped from Graf
. Street
references.
22. There shall be no centerline offset
at the intersection of Wind
Flower
Drive and Peace Pipe Drive.
23. The
word "future" shall be deleted from the "future sewer
easement"
between lots 4 and 5, Block 8, on the final plat.
24. Encroachment
permits shall be obtained from the County Road
Office
for all development streets existing onto South Third
Avenue
and Goldenstein lane prior to construction of the streets.
Street
name and stop signs shall
be provided at all road
intersections.
25. A
waiver of right to protest the creation of Rural Improvement
Districts
and the possible installation of a future signal light at the
intersection
of Goldenstein and South Third Avenue shall be
recorded
with the final plat.
26. The
property owner shall provide and file with the final subdivision
plat
an executed waiver of right to protest creation of special
. improvement
districts for improvements to South Third Avenue,
between
Kagy Boulevard
and Goldenstein lane,
and for
improvements
to the
South Third/Willson/Kagy Boulevard
intersection
(to include signalization), unless the document is
already
on file with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office.
The waiver shall specify that in the event SIDs are not
utilized
for the completion of these projects, the owner shall agree
to
participate in an alternate financing method for completion of
said
improvements on a fair share,
proportionate basis as
determined
by the square footage of the property, linear front
footage
of the property, taxable valuation of the property, or
combination
thereof. Said waiver shall be a covenant running
with
the land and shall not expire.
27. A
1 OO-foot-wide linear park, from the northwest corner of Gardner
Park,
west along the north property boundary for a distance of
500
feet, then reduce the width to 50 feet and continue west
along
the north property boundary to Graf Street, shall be
dedicated
with Phase 1. This linear park shall become an
extension
of Gardner Park.
A
50-foot-wide linear park from the southeast corner of Mcleod
. Park
north along the east boundary of Mcleod Park to the end of
Sundance Drive, then east along the
north property boundary to
the
property corner, then north to the northwest property corner
and
finally east along the north property boundary to Graf Street
shall
be dedicated with Phase 1. This dedication shall include the
50
feet of Graf Street to connect the extension of Gardner Park,
and
will become an extension of Mcleod Park.
The
final zoning PUD and final subdivision designs shall provide a
minimum
of 50 feet of open space, owned and controlled by the
12-04-95
- 15 -
homeowners
association, between
all residential
lots and
dedicated
linear parks.
The
developer's wetland consultant shall consult with the
Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks during the design
of
the wetland enhancement plan. At least one pond shall be a
minimum
of one acre in size.
. The
developer shall not be required to construct the trail(s)
through Mcleod Park, but shall contact
and work with the Gallatin
County Commission regarding the possibility
of the installation of
a
trial(s) through McLeod Park. This contact will then provide an
opportunity
for volunteer groups to construct the trail network.
If
the Gallatin County Commission will not grant approval for the
construction
of a trail(s) through Mcleod Park, the developer, in
the
appropriate phase, shall construct a trail through the open
space
north of Peace Pipe Drive to connect Mcleod Park to South
Third
Avenue, with a connection to Good Medicine Way and a
second
connection to Peace Pipe Drive between Blocks 8 and 10.
The
Recreation and Parks Advisory Board shall be contacted by
the
developer with regard to a linear trail, with a permanent public
trail
easement, to be constructed by the developer, on the west
side
of the existing trees in the northeast open space area to
provide
an alternate trail from the Sourdough Trail to the trail on
the
north boundary of the subdivision.
The location and
construction
of the trail shall be approved by the Recreation and
Parks
Advisory Board. This trail shall be developed when that
phase
of the property develops. If the Recreation and Parks
. Advisory
Board finds that this trail is not wanted or needed as
part of the linear trail system, the
developer shall not be required
to install it.
28. The
developer shall participate in resolving any identified vertical
alignment
problems on Goldenstein Lane to the satisfaction of the
County
Road Superintendent and City of Bozeman.
29. A
documented market study shall be provided prior to submittal
of
the final site plan for the zoning PUD that shows the proposed
uses
within the neighborhood service area (Blocks 10 and 11) will
be
supported by the area residents. If the study does not
conclude
that 50% of the business will be generated from this
area,
development of the neighborhood service lots will not be
allowed.
Uses permitted on these lots include professional offices
and
other permitted uses listed in the B-1 neighborhood service
district
chapter of the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance. Full site plan
review
and/or subdivision
review will be
required for all
development
within Blocks 1 Q and 11, Phase 1 subdivision. If not
allowed,
a maximum of six additional single-family residential lots
could
be created within these two blocks via further subdivision
review
and approval.
. All
commercial structures shall be fully protected
with an
approved
fire sprinkler system, unless waived by the Fire Chief in
the
event a fire station is constructed closer to the site which will
provide
adequately improved response times.
The
need for mitigation of the long fire department response times
which
are probable prior to the time new fire station facilities may
be
constructed nearer to this area, such as, but not limited to,
12-04-95
__. - n. _... _. _".___._._._._ ... _ .____. ..____
- 16 -
sprinkle
ring of residential dwelling structures, shall be left to the
discretion
of the Fire Chief.
The
hours of business for all uses within the neighborhood service
lots
shall be limited to 7 a.m. through 9 p.m.
30. The
final subdivision plat shall contain the following:
. a)
A note stating: Due to the relatively high groundwater
table within the subdivision, it is not recommended that
structures with
full or daylight
basements be
constructed.
b)
Clarification of the "landowner" and "floodplain" notes
shown on the preliminary plat.
c)
A "no
access" note prohibiting
direct access to
Goldenstein Lane and South Third Avenue for all lots
fronting those streets.
d)
The correct site statistics for Phase 1.
31. The
County Weed Control Officer shall approve a Weed Control
Plan
for the subdivision, and a signed copy of the Plan shall be
submitted
to the Planning Office prior to final subdivision plat
approval.
Any mitigations required in the plan shall be completed
by
the developer, and approved by the County Weed Control
Officer
in writing, prior to final plat approval.
. 32. A
10-foot-wide maintenance easement shall be provided on both
sides of all irrigation ditches.
33. The
Covenants and Design Guidelines shall be amended as
follows.
a)
The Covenants shall be amended to indicate that the
City of Bozeman is a party to the Covenants, and any
covenant contained therein as a condition of preliminary
plan or
plat approval and
required by the City
Commission may not be amended or revoked without
the mutual consent of the owners in accordance with
the amendment procedures listed in the covenants, and
by the City of Bozeman.
SECTION I. RESIDENTIAL LOTS
b)
Clarify Article IX, Section 9.4, Mowing Practices, to
state that the Fire Chief shall be contacted by the
Homeowners' Association regarding the need to mow in
Type 1 Management Areas for fire prevention.
If not
necessary, Type 1 Management Areas shall be left in a
.
natural, unmowed state.
c)
Add a statement to Article IX, Section 9.15 of the
Covenants that requires the right-of-way (barrow pits) to
be mowed and maintained by the homeowners and/or
Homeowners' Association, and that specifically states
that the barrow ditches may not be filled.
d)
Article IX, Section 9.15. Because
an alternative street
standard was accepted, add a section which specifically
12-04-95
-.----.---..--
-..--
- 17 -
discusses
the maintenance of the interior roadways (e.g.
sidewalk
snow removal along open spaces, driveway
and
street intersection culverts, weed mowing, pothole
patching,
etc.).
e) Page
28, Section 9.15. Correct the spelling of "except"
to
"accept".
. f) Page
20, Section
10.4, Eliminate first
sentence
regarding
determining maximum
roof height, and
reference only a 34-foot maximum height.
g) Page
20, Section 10.6,
Foundation Design. Add
reference
to the lots bordering the open space in Block
4
west of the open space area, with regard to the
potential
for these lots having high groundwater.
h) Page
22, Correct spelling throughout Section 11 .2.d,
"eves"
to "eaves".
i) Page
24. Correct or eliminate drawing in Section 11.6.c
regarding
exposed concrete.
j) Page
27. Amend the reference to on-street parking in
Section
11.8 to delete the last sentence regarding the
acceptableness
of the parking of temporary visitors' cars
overnight
on the street.
k) Add
the following to Section 12.7, page 29: All light
. fixtures
shall be arranged to deflect light down and/or
away from adjoining properties and streets.
lighting
fixtures must incorporate cut-off shields
to direct light
downward.
Luminaires shall
not be
visible from
adjacent
streets or properties. Fixtures should be
compatible
with architectural and site design.
I) Page
32. Section 12.15, Signs.
Home occupation
signs
are limited to no more than two square feet per
the
Sign Code. Correct to comply.
m) Section
12.18, page 32.
Add a statement
that
recommends
the use of organic fertilizer instead of
chemical
fertilizer, and that the fertilizer be applied when
plants
are active.
n) Section
12.18, page 32. Add to third sentence from
end,
that native bushes and trees may be planted in the
rear
yard setbacks in addition to the fescue seed mixes.
0) Add
a section informing lot owners that an Elevation
. Certificate
must be provided to the City Engineer for
each building within the 100 year floodplain
following
completion of construction.
p) Page
39. Add a paragraph regarding installation of
sidewalks
per the City policy.
SECTION II, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
a) Page
19, Section 9.4 Eliminate first sentence regarding
12-04-95
--...
----.---...--..-
--- ._--,,- -.-----
- 18 .
determination
of building height, and reference only a
maximum
34-foot building height.
b) Page
23/ correct spelling throughout Section 10.2.d.,
"eavs"
to "eaves".
c) Page
26/ Section 1 0.8. Clarify section regarding on-
street
parking per the City Commission's decision on
. street
standards, to prohibit all parking of cars or other
vehicles on the streets.
d) Page
27, Section 11.6,
Exterior lighting. Add a
sentence
stating lights cannot be higher than the height
of
the building or 20 feet, whichever is less. Add the
following
statement: All light fixtures shall be arranged
to
deflect light down and/or away from adjoining
properties
and streets.
Lighting fixtures
must
incorporate
cut-off shields to direct light downward.
Luminaires
shall not be visible from adjacent streets or
properties.
Fixtures should
be compatible
with
architectural
and site design.
e) Section
11.14, page
29. Add a statement that
recommends
the use of organic fertilizer instead of
chemical
fertilizer, and that the fertilizer be applied when
plants
are active.
f) Add
a section regarding installation of sidewalks per the
City
policy.
. g) Clarify
Article XII, Section 12.4, Mowing Practices, to
state that the Fire Chief shall be contacted
regarding the
need
to mow in Type 1 Management Areas for fire
prevention.
If not necessary/Type 1
Management
Areas
shall be left in a natural, unmowed state.
h) Add
a statement to Article XII, Section 12.15 of the
Covenants
that requires the right.of.way (barrow pits) to
be
mowed and maintained by the homeowners and/or
Homeowners'
Association, and that specifically states
that
barrow ditches may not be filled.
i) Because
an alternative street standard was accepted,
add
a section
which specifically discusses
the
maintenance
of the interior roadways (e.g. sidewalk
snow
removal along open spaces, driveway and street
intersection
culverts, weed mowing, pothole patching,
etc.).
j) Include
a section which limits the hours of business for
. all
uses within the neighborhood service lots to 7 a.m.
through 9 p.m.
34. The owner shall sign a "Right of Entry" form, or other similar
document satisfactory to the City Attorney, granting the City of
Bozeman access to all Open Space areas of the subdivision, and
dedicating an easement(s) for public utility purposes, which would
be limited to drilling a well or wells for drinking water supply / on
the final plat of the subdivision. The "Right of Entry" form shall
designate that all wells shall be constructed so as to have a
minimal visual impact.
1 2~04-95
-
-..--.- -.-......-..-...--"..--.-
-
19 -
35. The
developer shall grant the City of Bozeman the first right of
refusal
for the purchase of all or any portion of the 21 lots
proposed
along Sweet Water Drive, at the time that phase of the
development
is finalized.
36. The
right to a use and occupancy permit for the Zoning PUD shall
be
contingent upon the fulfillment of all general and special
conditions
imposed on the Conditional Use Permit.
. 37. All
of the special conditions imposed by the City Commission shall
constitute restrictions running with
the land use and shall be
binding
upon the owner of the land, his successors or assigns.
38. All
of the special conditions required by the City Commission shall
be
consented to in writing by the applicant prior to final plan or
plat
approval.
39. The
Annexation Agreement for the property must be finally
accepted
by the City Commission and filed at the Clerk and
Recorder's
Office prior to the approval of a final plan or plat for
the
property.
40. Water
rights or a cash-in-lieu fee in an amount determined by the
Director
of Public Service shall be provided prior to final plat
approval.
The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being
Commissioner
Youngman, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Stueck and Commissioner Frost;
those voting
. No being Mayor Vincent.
It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Stueck, that
the
Commission approve the preliminary plat, requested by Don Hannah for Sourdough
Creek
Properties, under Application No. P-9339, to subdivide a 147 .2-acre tract
located in the
northeast one-quarter of Section 25, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, and
the northwest one-
quarter of Section 30, Township 2 South Range 6 East, Montana Principal
Meridian, as follows:
72.85 acres into 67 lots for single-family residential development, 6.18
acres into two
neighborhood service lots, and the remainder in common space and open space,
subject to the
conditions listed in the previous motion. The motion carried by the following
Aye and No vote:
those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner
Frost and
. Commissioner Youngman; those voting No being Mayor Vincent.
Decision - cable television franchising ad hoc committee recommendations
This was the time and place set for the Commission's decision on the cable
television
franchising ad hoc committee recommendations.
12-04-95
- 20 -
Mayor Vincent proposed that 25 percent of the revenues from a franchise
fee be
earmarked for parkland acquisition and development. leaving 75 percent
for direct access
television or community access television.
City Attorney Luwe indicated he must research that proposal, to determine
if it can
. be legally done. He then proposed that, if the Commission wishes, it may vote on that
proposal, subject to legal review.
Commissioner Youngman stated that, if the Commission wishes to consider
the
Mayor's proposal, Nos. 5 and 6 of the ad hoc committee's recommendations
must be revised.
Mayor Vincent stated his absolute preference would be to place whether
or not to
have cable television on the ballot, however, he recognizes that would
not be appropriate. He
noted that private fundraising can be used to generate the balance of monies
needed for a
successful public access television program.
He then recognized that not everyone in the
community wishes to participate in or watch community access television,
and his proposal to
set aside 25 percent for parking acquisition and development is an effort
to ensure that
everyone in the community benefits from the fee.
. Commissioner Youngman stated the ad hoc committee, on which she has served
as
liaison, has worked diligently for two years to develop the recommendations
which have been
forwarded to the Commission. She noted it has been a valuable process,
and it is interesting
to see the differences between this committee's report and the report submitted
in 1983. She
also noted that technology has been upgraded, and public access television
could be valuable
for future business development.
She stated that people want better access to government
and government information, and this would be one way to provide it.
She stated that this
proposal will not conflict with the plan to provide satellite access in
the schools, but provides
another avenue for educational opportunities.
Commissioner Stiff stated he does not support the committee's recommendations.
He stated that not many people are enthusiastic about watching the City
Commission on
. television, and he doesn't feel that spending over $100,000 annually for
public access
television is a good use of monies.
Commissioner Stueck stated that he talked to people at the recent National
League
of Cities Congress of Cities, and received a "mixed bag of comments".
He forwarded his
concern about levying a $1.00 assessment against city residents when county
residents will
12-04-95
------.-
-------.-------.-----
n_.__.._______
- 21 ~
be receiving the same programming at no additional cost. He also expressed concern about the
types of controversial programming that could be encountered on a public access channel. He
then stated
that, because he
can neither support
nor oppose the committee's
recommendations, he will abstain from voting.
. Mayor Vincent noted that public testimony, from all types of groups, was very
supportive of a franchise. He recognized the potential
benefit to the business community,
stating that providing the technology necessary for the community to compete for new high
tech businesses is important. He concurred with Commissioner Stiff's comment that probably
not many people will watch City Commission meetings on television, however, he feels other
benefits can be derived.
Commissioner Youngman noted that the City Commission will continue to be
involved
in the development of a franchise agreement, including defining of community standards and
making sure that the process moves forward in a comfortable manner.
It was moved by Commissioner Frost, that the Commission authorize and direct
staff
to pursue implementation of a cable television franchise fee, with 25 percent of that fee to be
. earmarked for City expenses and parkland acquisition and development and the remaining 75
percent to be used for public access television, subject to the following:
1. That
the City begin negotiations to grant a non~exclusive franchise
to
TCI Cablevision
of Montana, Inc.,
for the operation,
maintenance
and improvement of a cable television system for the
vicinity
of Bozeman. We further recommend that the City use a
professional
telecommunications negotiator
and that
citizen
involvement
be an integral part of the process.
2. That
the franchise grantor (the City) recover its costs related to
negotiating
the franchise agreement from the cable operator. This
includes
negotiations costs, lawyers' compensation and the like.
We
further recommend that the term of the franchise agreement
reflect
the extent of periodic evaluation of the community's needs
and
the cable systems' ability to meet those needs.
3. That
the City explore the feasibility of getting County cooperation
to
include the entire area adjoining the Bozeman city limits served
by
the cable provider.
. 4. That
a franchise fee not less than the maximum allowed by law
(currently
5 percent)
be assessed on
gross cable operator
revenues.
5. That
75 percent of the franchise fees collected go to public
access
telecommunications development, with actual costs being
paid
from the remaining 25 percent and the remainder being
earmarked
for acquisition and development of parkland.
12-04-95
- 22
-
6.
That 75 percent of the franchise fee revenues be placed in an
escrow or trust account until a public access telecommunications
plan is ready to be implemented.
7.
That in order
to establish a
Community Access
Telecommunications Center,
a committee
be appointed to
research and oversee the planning for such facility, concurrently
with franchise negotiations, to include community gateways to
.
the global information network and a cable television station with
provisions for Public, Educational and Government (P-E-G) access
channels.
8.
That the franchise agreement include an upgrade of the cable
operator's system for greater channel capacity and the option of
interactive services.
9.
That the cable operator provide the capability for multi-camera
feeds from
public buildings such as City Hall,
the County
Courthouse, the library and the high school for live broadcast of
public meetings and events.
10.
That the cable operator place its cable feed in all new service
areas according to rules established by the franchise agreement.
11.
That the City require compliance with the consumer protection
provisions of
the prevailing cable
acts and other federal
regulations.
Mayor Vincent yielded the gavel to Commissioner Stueck for purposes of
seconding
. the motion. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote:
those voting Aye being
Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Vincent and Commissioner Youngman; those
voting No
being Commissioner Stiff.
Commissioner Stueck abstained.
Commissioner Stueck returned the gavel to Mayor Vincent.
Presentation of recommendations for corrective measures at landfill
Included
in the Commissioners'
packets was a
copy of the
minutes and
responsiveness summary from the public meeting which was held on October
26, along with
a copy of the summary from the Corrective Measures Assessment, dated August
1995 as
prepared by Maxim Technologies, Inc.
City Engineer Craig Brawner provided a brief synopsis of the process involved
to date.
. He noted that in 1993, the new landfill rules were implemented, and the
City entered into a
contract with Chen-Northern, Inc., which is now Maxim Technologies, for
an assessment of
the landfill and a proposal for monitoring its methane gas levels. He stated
that the monitoring
wells were installed and have been monitored.
He noted that the existing landfill, which is
12-04-95
-.------..----..--.- .-- ------.
- 23 -
nearing preparation for closure, and the new expansion, which was just
completed, must both
be monitored.
The City Engineer stated that monitoring of Bozeman's landfill, like many
other
landfills, has revealed a problem with methane gas in the groundwater.
He characterized the
. methane gas as being at explosive levels, noting that measures must be initiated to control and
remediate that problem, in compliance with the State's rules and regulations.
He stated that,
as a result of identifying the problem, City staff negotiated with Maxim
Technologies to prepare
recommendations for corrective measures for the groundwater, noting that
to date in excess
of $414,000 has been expended on the project. 'He indicated that the report
was prepared in
August, which was then reviewed and slightly revised.
A public meeting on the report was
conducted on October 26, at which the public was informed of the corrective
measures
assessment, the alternatives identified and the recommended method of correction.
He noted
that the Commission must now look at the assessment and determine whether
the proposed
alternative or another method of corrective action is to be adopted, after
which the corrective
action is to be submitted to the State for approval, then designed and
constructed.
. Commissioner Stiff left the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
Mr. Pat Dunlavy, Maxim Technologies, stated that the existing landfill
was started in
the late 19605, noting there was no licensing of landfills until 1978,
and there were no
regulations until the late 1980s.
He stated that in the early 1980s, a couple of monitoring
wells were drilled by the Soil Conservation Service, and in the mid 1980s
concern about metals
in the groundwater was identified,
He noted that, as a result of those concerns, the firm for
which he worked was hired, and he began to monitor the groundwater, finding
nothing to
trigger concerns.
He stated that in 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency adopted the
Sub- Title D regulations, which established minimum criteria for operating
landfills, and those
regulations became effective in October 1993. At that time, sampling of
groundwater became
required, with those samples being analyzed for specific compounds,
. Mr. Pat Dunlavy provided a detailed review of the types of compounds monitored,
noting that they include PCE, TCE and vinyl chloride, and the levels of
compounds which are
determined acceptable.
He noted that additional monitoring wells have been drilled to
determine the boundaries of any problem levels, stressing the importance
of keeping any
problems within the property boundaries.
12-04-95
- 24 -
Mr.
Dunlavy noted that, as plastics break down, they generate a gas and heat. He
noted that, to alleviate potential problems in the future, the gas and
pressure must be
add ressed.
Mr.
Dunlavy stated that in their assessment of options for corrective measures at the
. Bozeman landfill, five options and consultant responses were identified, as follows:
A.
No action. Under this proposal, baseline information must be
established, and
the groundwater at
the landfill must be
continually monitored for thirty years, and the landfill must be
capped and revegetated. This option is unacceptable to either the
consultant or the State.
B.
Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging.
Concerns about the
explosive nature of the gases and the potential spontaneous
combustion do not make this a desirable option.
C.
Groundwater and Soil Vapor Extraction. This method, commonly
referred to as "pump and treat", would treat the results but not
the source of the problem.
D.
Passive Gas Extraction. This method is more attractive than the
first three, although there is some concern about the passive
release of gases into the atmosphere. It is estimated that through
this option, 25 tons of air would be released annually.
. E.
Active Gas Extraction. This is the
preferred alternative, since it
will address the source of the problem. He recognized that, while
the initial capital costs may be quite high, it is estimated that in
five to ten years, the identified groundwater problems will be
remedied, thus lowering the operations and maintenance cost
estimates, which are based on thirty years. He noted that, since
there are no well drillers of this type in the region, someone from
outside the region must be brought in to
drill the needed
extraction wells.
Mr.
Dunlavy noted that an active gas extraction system has been approved for the
landfill at Missoula and. in fact, was installed during the summer and
started about a month
ago. He
stated that, until the last two years, the connection between groundwater
contamination and gases was not recognized.
At
the City Engineer's request, Mr. Dunlavy reviewed the association between gases
and groundwater, and how each proposed alternative would address the existing
gas problem
. at the landfill.
Responding
to Commissioner Stueck, Mr. Dunlavy characterized "blowing the landfill
up" as an interesting thought, noting it would readily address the problem
with gases; however,
he cautioned that it would be extremely difficult to control the results
of such an action. He
then cited a recent incident at the landfill in Helena, which resulted
from spontaneous
12-04-95
------.--- ------
- 25 ~
combustion. He further cautioned that once burning begins underground, it is not possible to
put the fire out.
Responding to Commissioner Youngman, Mr. Dunlavy confirmed that Alternative E
may resolve the gas problems in five to ten years, rather than the thirty years identified in the
. report. He cautioned, however, that gases will continue to be the result of the breakdown of
materials buried in the landfill so, while the problem will be reduced, it will not be eliminated
in the next few years. He then stated that once this cell of the landfill has been closed, a cap
of less permeable dirt is to be spread over the cell, and that should help to reduce problems.
He noted that, unless regulations change, the new cell will be covered with a plastic cap.
City Engineer Brawner thanked Mr. Dunlavy for his presentation, characterizing it as
a very abbreviated overview of a very technical issue.
He recognized that the preferred
alternative will cost the City in excess of $500,000 for capital improvements alone. He noted
that the State has reviewed the corrective measures assessment and indicated they have
forwarded no comments on it to date. He stated that the next step in the process
is for the
City Commission to approve the corrective measures assessment, as prepared by Maxim
. Technologies, Inc., identifying the preferred alternative for remediation. He noted that once the
Commission has made a commitment, his staff will negotiate with the State on a corrective
action schedule and begin construction of the facilities.
Responding to Commissioner Stueck, the City Engineer stated that the State has been
asking City staff for a schedule and formal commitment regarding remediation, and asked that
the Commission take action as soon as possible. He indicated that
construction of the
remediation alternative selected will probably be undertaken next construction season.
Mr. Dunlavy noted that the most pressing item in the corrective measures assessment
is addressing the explosive gases. He cautioned that if Alternative E is selected, an air quality
permit must be obtained from the State, which could take a little time to accomplish.
The Commission thanked City Engineer Brawner and Mr. Dunlavy for the overview
. of the report.
Recess - 6:28 c.m.
Mayor Vincent declared a break at 6:28 p.m., to reconvene at 7:00 p.m., for the
purpose of conducting the scheduled public hearings and completing the routine business items.
12-04-95
--
----
- 26 -
Reconvene - 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Vincent declared a break at 7:00 p.m., for the purpose of conducting
the
scheduled public hearings and completing the routine business items.
. Public hearina - variance from Section 18.65.170 of the Bozeman Municipal Code - Brutaer
Eauities. Inc.. dba Davs Inn - allow a two-year extension to meet adoPted
sian code
reauirements because of pendina Oak Street improvements - Lot 6. Block
1. and Lot 2. Block
2. Tanae's Addition (1321 North 7th Avenue) (C-9510)
This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the variance
from Section
18.65.170 of the Bozeman Municipal Code, as requested by Brutger Equities,
Inc., under
Application No. C-951 0, to allow a two-year extension of the deadline
to meet the adopted sign
code, for Lot 6, Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 2, Tange's Addition. The request
is for the Days Inn,
which is located at 1321 North 7th Avenue.
Mayor Vincent opened the public hearing.
Associate Planner/Urban Designer Dean Patterson presented the staff report.
He
stated that the sign code requires all existing signs to be brought into
compliance with the sign
. code by October 1, 1995. The subject property is located at the intersection of West Oak
Street and North 7th Avenue, and its accesses are currently from North
7th Avenue, via a
narrow access strip and via a driveway off the existing stub of West Oak
Street. He indicated
that the main sign is located on North 7th Avenue and it is rather prominent
since the business
cannot be easily seen from the street, particularly in light of recent
development along this
portion of North 7th Avenue. He stated that, while the applicant recognizes
the sign does not
conform with the existing sign code, he is concerned about removing the
signage before West
Oak Street is completed.
The Associate Planner noted that the westward extension of West Oak Street,
from
North 7th Avenue to North 19th Avenue, is scheduled for next year. When
that roadway is
completed, the applicant proposes to install a new main entrance from West
Oak Street and
. new signage for the entire site.
He noted that the applicant has requested a two-year
extension for the existing sign, forwarding staff's suggestion that a one-year
extension, with
a possible six months additional time upon request, be considered in recognition
of the
possibility that the extension of West Oak Street will not be completed
during the 1996
construction season.
12-04-95
--".
-....-
- 27 -
Associate Planner Patterson stated that staff has reviewed this application in light of
the three criteria for consideration of variances, as established by the Montana Supreme Court,
and the comprehensive findings are contained in the written staff report, which was distributed
in the Commissioners' packets. He reviewed these findings, forwarding staff's finding that the
. application complies with those criteria and a recommendation for approval, subject to two
conditions. He then forwarded a suggested amendment to the first condition, which would
state that if the West Oak Street extension is not completed within one year of the approval
of this variance, the Planning Director may grant a six-month extension.
Ms. Ellen Saputo, Manager of the local Days Inn, stated the sign is between the car
wash and the gas station, at the access to the motel. She noted that
at one time, a sign in
that location would have been very visible from North 7th Avenue, but new construction has
limited that visibility. She noted that the wall sign on the motel was also visible from North 7th
Avenue, but now enjoys only limited visibility to those traveling south on that roadway. She
recognized that, with the new entrance from West Oak Street, a change in the orientation of
the lobby area for the motel and a new signage package will be important.
She stated that,
. because the impacts of the new roadway are not yet known, however, it is difficult to develop
that package at this time. She then asked that the Commission consider their
request for a
two-year extension of the deadline to meet sign code requirements at this location.
No one was present to speak in opposition to the requested variance.
Commissioner Youngman asked if it would be possible to write the proposed
Condition No.1 so that the time for completion of the new signage is a specified length of time
after completion of the West Oak Street extension.
Associate Planner Patterson responded that it would be possible to reword the
condition to require that the signage be brought into compliance within six months after
completion of the West Oak Street alignment.
Commissioner Stiff suggested that the Commission consider approving the request
. for a two~year extension of the deadline, recognizing that the applicant will probably bring the
signage into compliance as quickly as possible.
Commissioner Stueck stated he is not optimistic that the extension of West Oak
Street will be completed next summer, particularly since major trunk lines must be laid in that
roadway first. He then indicated that he could support the proposal for a two-year extension
12-04-95
__m_..____ ... --.-- ----------
...-
.---- ..---
-
28 -
or changing the language to require the signage to be brought into compliance
within six
months after completion of the road.
Commissioner Frost forwarded his support for requiring the signage to be
brought into
compliance within six months after the road has been completed.
. Commissioner Youngman raised her concerns about revising the condition
to require
compliance within six months after West Oak Street is completed because of the potential that
the roadway might not be completed as quickly as anticipated. She recognized,
however, that
there is a recognizable linkage between completion of that roadway and
changing of the
signage for this property.
Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Vincent closed the public
hearing.
There were no Commissioner objections to waiving the customary one-week
waiting
period for land use decisions, so the Commission proceeded to the motion
and vote.
It was moved by Commissioner Youngman, seconded by Commissioner Stiff,
that the
Commission approve the variance from Section 18.65.170 of the Bozeman Municipal
Code,
. as requested by Brutger Equities, Inc., under Application No. C-9510, to allow a two-year
extension of the deadline to meet the adopted sign code, for Lot 6, Block
1, and Lot 2, Block
2, Tange's Addition, subject to the following conditions:
1. That
the applicant shall bring all signs on the property into
conformance
with the Bozeman Sign Code within six months of
completion
of the West Oak Street extension; and
2. That
the applicant shall obtain all permits that may be required
(building,
sign, COAl prior to installation of the new signage.
The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being
Commissioner
Youngman, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Frost and
Mayor Vincent;
those voting No, none.
. Public hearing - variance from Table 18.65.050.8. - Daum Industries for
Main Mall - allow no
more than 266 sauare feet of sianaae per tenant to be visible from one vantage point, as well
as a 75-sauare-foot low profile sign at the center entry location - 39.46-acre
tract known as
Main Mall Annexation (2825 West Main Street)
(C-9512)
This was the time and place set for the public hearing on variances from
Table
18.65.050.B. of the Bozeman Municipal Code, as requested by Daum Industries
for Main Mall
under Application No. C-9512, to allow not more than 266 square feet of
signage per tenant
12-04-95
--- - .--.
- 29 ~
to be visible from one vantage point, and to allow a 75-square-foot low profile sign at the
center entry location on the 39.46-acre tract known as the Main Mall Annexation. The subject
property is more commonly located at 2825 West Main Street.
Mayor Vincent opened the public hearing.
. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell presented the staff report. She stated that
this application would essentially allow the existing signs on the Main Mall structure to remain.
Also, it will allow a 31 Y2-square-foot sign area on a 5-foot high by 15-foot long low profile
monument sign to be erected essentially at the location of the tall, pole-mounted sign which
has been removed with the widening of US Highway 191. She stated
that under this
application, the major tenants would be allowed to calculate their signage as if they were
freestanding structures rather than part of an interior pedestrian complex. She noted that, for
a store with 300,000 square feet of floor area, the permitted signage would total 400 square
feet, which is the same as for an 8,000-square-foot freestanding structure. She indicated that
under this application, signage would be limited to 266 square feet per major tenant, which
means that up to 808 square feet of signage would be visible from West Main Street.
She
. stated that under this application, the total signage for the Main Mall would not exceed 1,507
square feet, which is 130 square feet more than the total existing signage, not counting The
Bon sign on the west end of the mall.
The Assistant Planning Director stated that under the code, a 28-square-foot
monument sign is allowed. She noted that the proposed sign, which
the applicant has
calculated at 75 square feet, actually contains 31 Y2 square feet of sign area. On this basis,
the applicant is seeking a sign which is 13 percent larger than allowed under code, which could
have been addressed under the 20-percent deviation allowed in entryway corridors.
Assistant Planning Director reviewed the intent and purpose of the sign code, noting
it is intended to provide a reasonable balance between the right of an individual to identify the
business and the right of the public to be protected from the visual discord of an unrestricted
. proliferation of signs. She noted that in July 1995, the applicant sought
a zone code
amendment to specifically address signage in multi-tenant shopping centers. She noted that,
while staff recognized that flexibility should be considered for large shopping centers, the
proposed amendment would have permitted 3,390 square feet of building sign area in addition
to a 200-square-foot freestanding sign, which staff felt was not appropriate. Staff's counter-
12-04-95
- .~~.._...- -..---
- 30 -
proposal for a base of 400 square feet of signage plus 140 square feet
for each major anchor
tenant and small freestanding signs at the entrances was not acceptable
to the applicant, and,
following its public hearing, the Planning Board directed staff to work
with the applicant in an
effort to develop a proposal that would be acceptable to both. To date,
that issue has not been
. resolved.
The Assistant Planning Director stated that staff has reviewed this application in light
of the three criteria established by the Montana Supreme Court for considering
variances, and
the comprehensive staff findings are contained in the written staff report
which has been
distributed to the Commission. She briefly highlighted those findings.
She stated that the Main
Mall structure is located quite a distance from West Main Street, ranging
from 760 feet on the
west end to 320 feet on the east end.
With the development of the out-parcels located
between the main structure and the street, visibility is becoming limited.
She noted that the
development of the out-parcels is also serving to reduce the visual impact
of the large parking
lot which is located between the main structure and the street.
She noted that the existing
signage does not obstruct the view and is no greater than would be permitted
if each major
. tenant were in a building of its own. She stated that, while staff recognizes that the code does
not address this type of multi-tenant shopping center, it does question
the amount of signage
requested under this variance, particularly in light of the three criteria.
Assistant Planning Director Arkell stated that this application does not propose the
elimination of any of the signs on the property, although it is not in
compliance with the current
sign code.
She indicated that, while staff could support a variance, the proposed variance
would allow 1,107 square feet more signage than is allowed under the sign
code. She
suggested that, as the Commission reviews this application, it should consider
the size of the
structure, and recognize it as a type of signage in itself.
She then indicated that staff does
support the low profile monument sign, noting it seems more appropriate
for a building of this
. size than a sign which meets code requirements. She suggested, however,
that the sign be
placed on a berm to raise the base closer to the level of the curb, thus making it a more
effective sign. She further suggested that a larger sign than what has
been requested might
be appropriate, noting that a 58-square-foot sign, including the border,
has been offered as an
alternative.
12-04-95
- 31 -
The Assistant Planning Director stated that the Commission may consider the two
variances jointly or independently. She then suggested that, if the Commission wishes to
approve the variance for the low profile sign, it may wish to consider a condition to allow a sign
up to 58 square feet in addition to a condition pertaining to review of the plan for the sign and
. obtaining the appropriate permits. She then reminded the Commission that a concurring vote
of four Commissioners is necessary to approve the requested variances.
Responding to Commissioner Frost, the Assistant Planning Director stated that the
signs on the roof are not considered roof signs.
Mayor Vincent asked what percent over current code allowance the 1,107 square feet
of signage represents.
Commissioner Youngman stated that, in addition to The Bon sign on the west end of
the building, the Penney sign under the canopy on the north side of the building has not been
included in the calculations for total square feet of signage.
Mr. Van Bryan, Apogee Architects, representing the applicant, reviewed the written
variance request, a copy of which had been included in the Commissioners' packets. He noted
. that signage may be calculated under three options and, under the sign code, the lesser of the
options is the allowable sign area. He also reviewed the allowable sign area for each of the
four major anchor tenants if they were located in freestanding buildings, indicating that the
total is 1,507 square feet. He then reviewed the amount of signage on the building at the
present time and how much is visible from each vantage point. He noted there is a total of
1,498 square feet of signage on the mall currently, 929 square feet of which is visible from the
west end, 802 square feet from the east end, 214 square feet from the northeast corner and
476 square feet from the northwest corner.
Commissioner Youngman noted that the Penney sign, located under the canopy on
the north side of the building, is missing from these calculations.
Mr. Bryan stated that, with the improvements to US Highway 191 and the continuing
. development of the outlyi ng parcels, the mali's visibility is becoming somewhat limited. He also
noted that the east entrance to the facility will become an entrance only and the center
entrance will be improved to accommodate the traffic. He stressed the importance of allowing
the existing amount of signage to remain, so that people can recognize what is available at this
facility.ó
12-04-95
--.-.-.---.-.-...-.-.
- 32 -
Mr. Dan Muzquiz, Property Manager for the Main Mall, stated that with completion
of the improvements to US Highway 191, traffic will increase, along with speeds.
He
expressed concern that if the four anchor tenants are required to reduce the size of their signs,
they will not be seen by passing motorists, and it is important to draw traffic to the mall. He
. stated that the proposed low profile sign at the entrance will replace the 40-foot-high pole sign
which was recently removed for the highway construction, and he feels the new sign is
appropriate in that location. He asked, however, that the
four anchor tenants be allowed to
retain their signage. He then estimated the missing Penney sign at 3 square feet in size.
Ms. Joanne Nelson, Property Manager for University Square Shopping Center,
reminded the Commission that two months ago, she sought a variance for the freestanding sign
at their location. She noted that, given the signage limitations
for malls, the anchor tenants
do not have the opportunity for signage that they might have if they were freestanding. She
then stressed that the tenants should be allowed adequate signage, even when they are in a
mall, and encouraged the Commission to approve this application.
Responding to questions from the Commission, the Assistant Planning Director
stated
. that, under the code, the mall is allowed 400 square feet of signage and, with a 20-percent
deviation based on design and improvements, the mall would be allowed 480 square feet of
signage. She then indicated that, with the new information provided during public comment,
the existing signage totals 1501 square feet, and the application is to allow up to 1,507 square
feet. She further reminded the Commission that the freestanding low profile
sign at the
entrance may be 28 square feet under the code, and the applicant has requested a 31 %-
square-foot sign, which is 13 percent larger.
Responding to Commissioner Frost, the Assistant Planning Director stated
that the
code provides for a common signage plan for an area where there is more than one tenant;
however, she indicated that internal shopping complexes are somewhat different. She noted
that, while the major anchor tenants have exterior signage, most of the stores do not have
. exterior entrances, and the sign age for those stores is oriented toward the interior pedestrian
way.
Responding to Commissioner Frost, the Assistant Planning Director stated
the
applicant's argument is based on the fact that the anchor tenant stores in an internal mall
should not be penalized on the amount of signage allowed just because they are not
12-04-95
_. .n. .._" __ .__.____._.._._ _______.______".____....__. .________._.._.
- 33 -
freesta nd i n g structu res. She stated that staff recognizes
the code is unfair to multi-tenant
complexes, but they have not completed their work with this applicant to develop a proposal
that is acceptable to both the applicant and the staff.
Mayor Vincent asked if taking action on this application would result in
the setting
. of policy for future amendments to the sign code.
The Assistant Planning Director responded that it could.
She then cautioned that
definition of a major anchor tenant is important. She noted that at the Main Mall, that is quite
easily identified; however, in other shopping centers like the Buttrey's Shopping Center, it
becomes a little more difficult.
Further responding to the Mayor, the Assistant Planning Director stated
there is no
direct connection between the signage on the building and the lights in the parking lot.
She
indicated that as the lights burn out, however, the applicant has indicated an intent to bring the
light heads into compliance with the zone code.
Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Vincent closed the public
hearing.
. Commissioner Stueck recognized the fairness issue involved, indicating
his support
for both variances.
Commissioner Frost stated he believes the low profile sign at the entrance
is
appropriate. He recognized the fairness issue for the signage on
the building; however, he
stated that he does not believe this application meets the criteria under which variances must
be reviewed.
Commissioner Youngman stated her concurrence with Commissioner Frost's
position.
She recognized the merits of the applicant's argument; however, she does not believe the
application meets the criteria for a variance and she is concerned about the amount of signage
requested.
There were no Commissioner objections to waiving the customary one-week
waiting
. period for land use decisions, so the Commission proceeded to the motion and vote.
It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Stueck, that
the
Commission approve the variance from Table 18.65.050.B. of the Bozeman Municipal Code,
as requested by Daum Industries for Main Mall under Application No. C-9512, to allow a 75-
12-04-95
- 34 -
square-foot low profile sign at the center entry location on the 39.46-acre
tract known as the
Main Mall Annexation, subject to the following conditions:
1. That
the low profile "sign area" shall be limited to a maximum of
58
square feet, which shall include all borders around the letters;
and
. 2. That
the applicant shall obtain all permits that may be required for
all signs within six months of approval.
The application shall be
reviewed
as a minor alteration (by ADR staff) and will address
location,
landscaping and entryway overlay design objective plan
guidelines.
The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being
Commissioner
Stiff, Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman and
Mayor Vincent;
those voting No, none.
It was moved by Commissioner Stueck, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that
the
Commission approve the variance from Table 18.65.050.B. of the Bozeman
Municipal Code,
as requested by Daum Industries for Main Mall under Application No. C~9512,
to allow not
more than 266 square feet of signage per tenant to be visible from one
vantage point, on the
39.46-acre tract known as the Main Mall Annexation, subject to the following
conditions:
. 1. That
the low profile "sign area" shall be limited to a maximum of
58 square feet, which shall include
all borders around the letters;
and
2. That
the applicant shall obtain all permits that may be required for
all
signs, which includes building, sign and a Certificate of
Appropriateness,
within six months of approval. The Certificate
of
Appropriateness application shall be reviewed as a minor
alteration
(by ADR staff) and will address location, landscaping
and
entryway overlay design objective plan guidelines.
Following
discussion, it was
moved by Commissioner
Frost, seconded by
Commissioner Youngman, that the vote on the above motion be tabled for
a period of two
weeks, to allow staff an opportunity to work with applicant on the proposed
signage package
for the Main Mall building. The motion carried by the following Aye and
No vote: those voting
Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff,
Commissioner
. Stueck and Mayor Vincent; those voting No, none.
Public hearing - Commission Resolution No. 3089 - implementation of impact
fees. as proposed
bv consultant. for City streets. fire. water and wastewater services
This was the time and place set for the public hearing, set under Commission
Resolution No. 3089, as approved by the City Attorney, entitled:
12-04-95
-
35 -
COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONT ANA, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE IMPLEMENT A TION OF
STREET, FIRE, WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES.
Mayor Vincent opened the public hearing.
. Planning Director Andy Epple noted that approximately six to eight months
ago, the
City joined in the contract which the County had with James Duncan and
Associates to
develop impact fees. As a result, impact fee studies for the City's water,
wastewater, streets
and fire and the County's roads and fire have been completed and are the
subjects of public
hearings this week.
Mr. James Duncan, consultant, reviewed the three components of an impact
fee. He
noted there are the technical issues, which are contained in the study
he has prepared; the legal
issues, which Don Elliott, Clarion and Associates, has addressed in the
draft ordinance he has
prepared; and the policy issues, which the Commission must address.
Mr. Duncan reviewed the basis for each of the four components of the City's
impact
fee studies. He stated that the water and wastewater studies are based
on water flows. He
. noted that the facilities plan updates for those services, the draft of which is dated May 1995,
provided accurate up-to-date data upon which to base the impact study.
He stated that the
street impact fee study is based on the information in the 1993 Transportation
Plan Update,
which includes a computer model that is not typically available. He noted
that street capacities
and vehicle miles traveled are some of the issues taken into consideration
when developing
those fees. He then stated that the fire impact fee has been based on fire
flow capacity, rather
than one of the typical approaches used. He noted that the costs of existing
fire stations and
equipment are also incorporated into the studies.
Mr. Duncan stated that, based on the methods of calculation outlined, the
net costs
for a single-family detached residence are:
. Water
$ 2,100
Wastewater
2,700
Streets
1,769
Fire
181
Mr. Duncan stressed the importance of recognizing that these are the maximum
amounts that may be set for impact fees, since they have been identified
as the costs to each
of the services.
He also emphasized the fact that care must be taken to ensure that a
12-04-95
- ...-....- --.--.-.----..
- 36 -
developer is not required to pay an impact fee and then provide additional improvements to the
off-site major network.
Mr. Don Elliott, Clarion and Associates, stated that the draft ordinance is designed to
protect the City against future challenges. He noted that its provisions include the requirement
. that separate accounts be maintained for each of the impact fees, and that the monies
collected for each be appropriately deposited. He further noted that the revenues generated
from this source of funding must be spent within a specified period of time or refunded to the
property owner. He noted that the ordinance also prohibits double charging of improvements,
and provides for determining credits against impact fees for improvements already made.
Mr. Bob Hunter, business owner in Bozeman, submitted a written statement, which
he briefly highlighted. He noted that he has been involved with growth management for several
years, and has been involved in technological development over the past several years. He
encouraged the Commission to adopt impact fees as soon as possible. He recognized that this
will have short-term adverse impacts on people who own undeveloped land; however, he feels
that the long-term benefits outweigh those impacts. He noted that many people involved in
. high tech firms have moved to Bozeman because of the quality of life. He noted that it will be
necessary to relocate his business to a small building in Bozeman, and impact fees could
increase those costs. He stated, however, that payroll will continue to be the bulk of his costs,
and the costs of housing the business will continue to be a very small percent of the costs
involved.
Mr. Hunter noted that significant deficits exist in the infrastructure for each of these
four services, and it is important to avoid adding to those deficits. He stated that he does not
support delaying implementation of impact fees, although he recognizes that it may be a
necessary political decision. He also stated he does not support charging impact fees for
residential uses only, noting that many of the high tech firms in Bozeman have started in
garages. He concluded by encouraging the Commission to adopt the impact fees as proposed.
. Mr. John Pearson, resident of Bozeman for just over a year, stated he feels that if the
City and the County felt this was an issue worth spending money to study, it should seriously
consider implementing the fees as recommended. He noted that the differential between the
impact fees proposed for the City and the County is due to the fact that the County does not
provide water and sewer services. He recognized that the property does incur the costs of
Y
12-04-95
... _._.__. __.__ ..._.. m.... ...._..._._..
- 37 -
maintaining the well and septic system which, over a few years, could be
equal to the costs
of the City's impact fees for those services.
He then asked what the current population of
Bozeman is, stating there seems to be a substantial amount of development
occurring. He
concluded by asking the Commission to support the impact fees.
. Mr. Scott Heck, representing the Gallatin Development Corporation, forwarded
their
statement regarding impact fees, noting that the GDC is very concerned about the difference
in the proposed fees for the City and the County. He encouraged the Commission
to delay a
decision on the fees until it has coordinated the City fees with the County
fees. He noted that
at tomorrow's hearing, he plans to ask the County Commission to identify
a way to implement
a permit system on the 10,600 existing lots in the County, which will never
pay impact fees
unless such a mechanism is developed. He suggested that if the City sets
its impact fees at
30 percent of the identified net cost, a balance would be reached between
the City and County
impact fees. He
stated it appears that no plans are being made to fund the deficits that
currently exist, particularly in the older parts of the community which
are close to downtown.
He concluded
the Gallatin Development Corporation
presentation by encouraging the
. Commission to carefully consider the impacts that the implementation of impact fees might
have on affordable housing and on attracting new businesses with high-paying
jobs to
Bozeman.
Mr. Heck then forwarded his personal testimony.
He noted that he has built a new
home and a new office building in recent years, and he will probably not
construct any more
new buildings. He noted that probably many of those who testify feel the
same way; however,
he encouraged the Commission to carefully consider their testimony because
they are
concerned about the welfare of the community. He reviewed the costs of
his monthly water
bills for his business and his residence, noting that his last water bill
for his business was for
4.6 units, at a unit cost of $4.30, for a total of $19.79; and his last
water bill for his home
. was 8 units, at a unit cost of $3.49, for a total of $27.91.
He questioned the correlation
between those figures and the impact fees that he would encounter under the proposal, which
would be $4,835 for a new residence and $12,088 for a new business.
Mr. Heck encouraged the Commission to remember that he is speaking in the
"for"
category on this issue, even though he is concerned about the proposed
fees, and the letter
from the Gallatin Development Corporation is in support of the fees.
He noted that, while it
12-04-95
on _.___.__.___
- 38 -
is one way in which to solve some of the community's infrastructure problems in the future,
he feels that other methods should also be considered or pursued.
He also cautioned the
Commissioners to consider the potential of increased housing costs as a result of impact fees.
Ms. Carol Dietrich, 120 East Story Street, asked that, if this is determined to be a
. controversial issue, the public hearing remain open to allow additional input after this evening's
meeting. She suggested that an impact fee for open space be considered, in addition to those
which have been proposed. She noted that the sewer mains in the
heart of Bozeman are
experiencing problems in servicing the residents, and she feels it is important that those
problems be addressed. She encouraged the Commission to set the impact fees
for new
development as high as possible, to ensure that adequate monies are available to address the
impacts on existing infrastructure. She urged the Commission
to view this as a matter of
public health, safety and welfare, and address it in that manner.
Mr. Tim Snyder noted that over the past five months, he has been involved in many
public debates on impact fees. He stated that, as a
result of reviewing the studies, he
recognizes that the costs are very real and must be paid in the future.
He noted that if the
. costs are not paid, then City services must be reduced from the current standards. He stated
that if the costs identified in the impact fee studies are not covered by impact fees, then they
must be covered through property taxes.
Mr. Snyder questioned whether a trip from a residence to a business is charged
against both the home and the business.
Mr. Snyder then noted that the impact fees which would have been charged for the
Wal-Mart building, which cost an estimated $5 million, are estimated at $730,000.
He noted
that, based on an estimated annual property tax of $25,000, it would take 26 years to
generate that same amount of revenue. He emphasized the point that property taxes are not
designed to pay for capital improvements, rather they are designed to cover costs of
operations. He cautioned that any reduction in the impact fees levied will result in continuing
. to negatively impact the property taxpayer.
Mr. Snyder stated that, since location is a critical part of most business decisions on
where to build or lease, he does not believe the fear that impact fees will drive development
into the county will be realized. He recognized that businesses
with large ticket items, such
as car sales, may choose to move outside city limits; however, he noted they are already doing
12-04-95
-.. -.". - ..-- .-. - - -
~ 39 ~
that, anyway. He concluded by encouraging the Commission to adopt the impact
fees as
proposed. He noted that if a new mechanism for funding of capital improvements is identified,
the amount of impact fees assessed could be reduced at some time in the future.
Mr. Russ Squire stated his support for the implementation of impact fees, although
. he does have some concerns. He noted that conversations with those in the development
community have revealed that, even if they testify against the impact fees, there are not really
against the concept. He noted, rather, the main concerns revolve around the proposed fees,
particularly on commercial development. He stated that questions have been raised about how
many businesses may not build in Bozeman because of the impact fees and, as a result, how
much would be lost in revenues, including spin-off revenues.
He emphasized the fact that
location is important for some commercial activities; however, he cautioned that location is not
as important for the types of business which Bozeman wishes to attract, including high
technology and light manufacturing, so they could easily locate outside city limits.
Mr. Squire noted that staff, in light of the impact fee studies, has estimated the
impact fees that would have been assessed against seven or eight commercial projects.
He
. encouraged the Commissioners to ask those businesses if they would have built in Bozeman
under the proposed impact fees, or if they would have gone elsewhere. He suggested that if
half or more of the businesses indicated they would not have built in Bozeman, then the
proposed fees should be closely reviewed.
Mr. Squire stated he believes that development should pay its fair share.
He
cautioned that to think the impact fees will be paid by the seller, however, is inaccurate in the
current market situation. He noted that if supply were greater than demand, then perhaps the
seller would bear most if not all of the impact fees; however, that is not currently the case,
particularly in the more affordable price range.
Mr. Roger Craft, 715 West Koch Streett addressed the need for impact fees.
He
stated that the implementation of impact fees would help to create a level playing field. He
. noted that the examples prepared by staff include Stonegate Subdivision and Painted Hills
Subdivision, both of which are located outside city limits. He noted
that Stonegate is served
by Springhill Road, and the developer was not required to make any improvements to that
roadway. On the other hand, the developer of Painted Hills Subdivision was required to make
substantial improvements to Kagy Boulevard, which provides access to the subdivision.
He
12-04-95
------
~ 40 -
expressed some concerns about the impact fees proposed for the transportation
system. He
cautioned that there is no way to buy oneself out of congestion, noting
that if that were
possible, Los Angeles wouldn't face the traffic congestion problems that
it does. He suggested
that transportation alternatives must be considered when looking at specific
proposals for
. development. He cited two improvements for enhancement of the transportation system along
the west side of the community, noting that the alternative identified
in the transportation plan
would cost an estimated #3.3 million while the alternative suggested in
the master plan would
cost $ 300/000.
Mr. Craft turned his attention to the water and wastewater fees, expressing
concern
that applying them as proposed could result in significant inequities.
He suggested that the
fees would be substantially higher for a 12,000-square-foot commercial
building that is
condominiumized than for a 12/000-square-foot commercial building that
has a single tenant.
He also suggested that property owners should be encouraged to install
the largest service line
that might be needed to accommodate the businesses in a commercial building;
however, the
impact fees as proposed could discourage that.
. Mr. Craft concluded by addressing the proposed fire impact fee, expressing
concern
that there is no provision for giving a credit if a fire suppression system
is installed. He
suggested that through encouraging fire suppression systems, the demands
on the City's
services are decreased and should be recognized.
Mr. Guy Graham, entry level builder, stated that he can accept only so
many expenses
and must be able to generate a certain amount of profit margin in his business.
He noted /
therefore, any impact fee that is assessed will be passed along to the
buyer. He then asked
if any attempt will be made to measure the impact that impact fees have
on development
within the community, after six months and after a year.
He recognized the need to improve
the existing infrastructure in the community; however, he questioned what
the best mechanism
. for accomplishing those improvements might be.
Mrs. Gloria Stueck stated that last week, she attended the National League of Cities
conference in Phoenix. She noted that at that conference, they questioned
the officials from
communities where impact fees have been implemented whenever possible.
She stated that
those who have implemented fees were very surprised at the level at which
the initial impact
fees are being proposed.
1 2~04-95
-
41 -
Mr.
Greg Vidmar, spokesperson for the Southwest Montana Building Industry
Association, stated that the development community is willing to pay its
fair share. He noted
that the SWMBIA represents 300 businesses with over 7,000 employees. He
cautioned that
impact fees will create higher housing costs.
He commended Mr. Duncan on the impact fee
. studies he has completed; however, he expressed concern that the studies are based on
. estimates. He stated that, based on the proposed fees, the SWMBIA is opposed to impact fees
for commercial development, because they feel it is not fair and equitable.
He noted they also
do not believe that the impact fees in the City should be more than the
impact fees in the
County, particularly since people will go where they can save a couple
thousand dollars.
Mr.
Vidmar cautioned that the builder will not absorb a $6,000 impact fee, particularly
on a $100,000 home, noting that this could take away some people's ability
to purchase
homes. He concluded by noting there are many unresolved Questions about
the proposed fees,
asking that the decision be postponed until after those questions have
been answered.
Mr.
Jerry Perkins, owner of Karst Stage, noted that nobody disagrees with the need
to take care of infrastructure costs. He noted, however, that the overall
economic impacts on
. Bozeman and the surrounding area must also be taken into consideration, cautioning that
business owners cannot be asked to underwrite the costs to the extent suggested
in the
studies.
He stated that 85 percent of the businesses in the United States employ less than
twenty people, and they represent a significant number of the jobs in Fortune
500 companies.
Mr.
Perkins encouraged the Commission to consider impact fees, however, he
encouraged them to consider fairness and equity issues as well. He stated
that research has
revealed Wal-Mart paid approximately $84,000 in taxes last year, and that
type of tax base is
very important to the community. He concluded by asking the Commission
to work with the
community in determining how impact fees should be implemented.
He cited the recent
process used in developing the urban renewal plan and the tax increment
financing district,
. noting that type of cooperative effort is beneficial and should be utilized
in this instance.
Mr. Bob White stated he is not opposed
to the proposed impact fees but feels there
are several questions which must first be answered. He forwarded his position
that impact fees
should not be charged or used for improvements to state and federal roads
in the city, and
those roads represent a significant amount of the City's major road network.
He stated that
the difference between the City and County impact fees is disturbing, particularly
when coupled
12-04-95
....-----..--.... ..--
- 42 -
with the difference in the number of mills levied for property taxes. He
also cautioned that the
implementation of impact fees could lead to losing some businesses and
jobs, noting that
businesses are already leaving the community because of better climates
in surrounding
communities.
. Mr. Tom Beausoleil stated he is a prospective new homeowner.
He noted that the
average price of a home is now $130,000, and the costs of impact fees will be added to that
price. He characterized this as not being friendly to the lower end of
the housing market. He
noted that the condition of the existing infrastructure is one of the major
concerns, and impact
fees could not be used to correct those deficiencies.
Commissioner Frost noted the importance of broadening the options for addressing
infrastructure needs. He
likened impact fees to a hammer, suggesting that the fees in the
studies could be considered a sledge hammer instead.
He then asked if those in attendance
would be willing to assist the City and the Montana League of Cities and
Towns in seeking
local option taxes during the next legislative session, noting that could
serve as another option
for funding of infrastructure needs.
. Mr. Beausoleil stated he has recently purchased a lot on Teton Avenue,
and the
streets, water and sewer services have already been extended to the site.
He questioned how
a $6,600 impact fee on that lot and a 1,200-square-foot house could be
justified. He
characterized impact fees as a tax, just with a different name.
He then encouraged the
Commission to consider other options.
Mr. Clair Daines, 45 Kagy Boulevard, noted that about ten years ago, the
Gallatin
Development Corporation did a survey, and 80 percent of the respondents
supported
development that provided better jobs. He stated that if impact fees are
implemented at the
$6,600 level, he anticipates a court challenge will follow.
He noted that the City of Billings
implemented a $2,000 impact fee, and that level of fees has seemed to work.
He indicated
that he has developed projects in Issaquah, Washington, where it took about
the same length
. of time to obtain approval as it does here, and the costs were significantly higher. He
suggested that taxpayers should not be asked to bear the costs of development;
rather, he
feels that implementing impact fees would be appropriate. He suggested
that, if impact fees
are implemented, it may be possible to better address infrastructure needs
as they occur, rather
than lagging behind.
12-04-95
__..._._.._n_
- 43 -
Mr. Daines stated that he did a quick review of the types of people who moved into
the different phases of Westfield Subdivision. He noted that in Phase II, 31 percent of the
people who purchased homes did not live in Bozeman, while 69 percent did live in Bozeman;
and in Phase III, 37 percent were new to Bozeman, while 63 percent were local.
. Mr. Daines stated that he also did a spreadsheet on his last subdivision, stating that
in Westfield IV, his margin per lot is $2,065, or approximately 6 percent, and the average price
per lot is $34,481. He questioned who would bear the $6,000 additional costs for impact
fees, cautioning that the bank will not loan monies for the increased costs because the
appraised value has not increased.
Mr. Daines stated that impact fees will be acceptable if the County Commission
implements impact fees as well. He noted that for every three single-family houses being built
in Bozeman, there are two in the County. He concluded by cautioning that a $6,000 impact
fee will be "a disaster".
Mr. Tony Wastcoat, RCI Realty, stated that impact fees will reduce the profit that
someone might realize from trying to develop raw land which they have owned for quite some
. time. He indicated that the proposed levels of impact fees are unacceptable, particularly if the
County does not implement impact fees or establishes lower fees.
Mr. Wastcoat stated he feels it is critical for everyone to cooperate in an effort to get
legislative changes which will allow for alternative funding sources for infrastructure needs.
He noted it is unfair for a resident of Gallatin County and a resident of Bozeman to drive on the
same roads every day and yet the Bozeman residents are the only ones to bear the costs of
constructing and maintaining those streets. He suggested that, with alternatives authorized
by the Legislature, a fairer funding mechanism could be provided.
Mr. Dale Gillespie expressed concern that implementing impact fees could result in
pushing growth into the County, while it is preferable to keep growth in or close to the City.
He indicated that he has held a real estate license in Montana for eighteen years. He
. characterized impact fees as an arbitrary tax, and suggested that rather than having a
consultant review impact fees only it would have been better to have someone look at the
overall situation and forward recommendations for different funding alternatives.
Mr. Gillespie encouraged the Commission to look at the costs of developing in the
county versus the city, cautioning that impact fees could dramatically slow development,
12-04-95
---
- 44 -
particularly multi-family development and commercial development in the city.
He indicated
that a study completed last week revealed that two to three times as many units were sold in
the county than in the city in the price range of $150,000 to $250,000.
He noted that more
total units were sold in the city than in the county, but they were comprised of houses costing
. less than $150,000. He cautioned that this information reflects a greater impact on lower
income families and lower priced homes.
Mr. Gillespie expressed concern that the proposed fees are arbitrary.
He also
questioned the feasibility,
the legal consequences and the
financial consequences of
implementing them.
Mr. Tim Dean, representing the Southwest Montana Building Industry Association,
stated he is not opposed to impact fees in general, but he is opposed to the $6,700 total fee
being proposed. He recognized that the industry should pay its own way, but he feels the fee
must also be fair and equitable, indicating that it is not.
He then stated that he is personally
not opposed to governmental action to protect the environment, reduce harmful pollution and
protect the general health, safety and welfare of the residents in the community.
He stated,
. however, that he does take exception to unreasonable efforts that negatively impact the
potential of home ownership.
Mr. Dean stated that the industry provides many benefits to the community, including
providing employment at a livable salary range. He encouraged the Commissioners to consider
the families who don't own homes and cannot afford a place to rent.
He also asked the
Commissioners to consider the number of jobs that could be negatively impacted by adoption
of impact fees at the level being considered.
He suggested, rather, that the Commission
consider a lower impact fee, similar to the $2,000 fee which has been implemented by the City
of Billings. He stated that fee is acceptable, and he does not believe it will
negatively impact
continued development within the community or the ability to provide affordable dwelling units.
He concluded by asking the Commission to carefully consider the negative impact that a
. $6,700 impact fee would have on affordable housing in the community.
Mr. Tom Clinton, Potter-Clinton Development, stated he has been involved in the
development of several lots, both in the city and the county, over the past five or six years.
He stated that, while he is not opposed to impact fees, he does have several concerns about
the impact fees under consideration: (1) the amount of the fees, (2) the application of the fees,
1 2-04~95
-------.---.,....-
- 45 -
(3) parity with the County, (4) transition, and (5) the level of the commercial fees. He stated
that, within a five-mile radius of the city, the average household income is $37,699 and the
median income is $26,973. He expressed concern that the proposed level of impact fees could
very negatively impact these people, particularly those trying to purchase new homes.
. Mr. Clinton concurred with Guy Graham's comment that there is not enough margin
in residential construction to absorb the proposed impact fees, therefore, as much of the impact
fees as possible must be passed through to the purchaser. He encouraged the Commissioners
to consider a lower fee, such as $2,000, noting that would be much more appropriate.
He
stated that growth in the Bozeman area is beginning to slow, noting that in 1990, 472 homes
were added and in 1994, 407 homes were added.
Mr. Clinton suggested that the Commission consider alternatives to a flat impact fee,
possibly a sliding scale based on square footage.
He also encouraged the Commissioners to
carefully consider a transition period, particularly in light of the significant changes that will
result from the implementation of impact fees. He also questioned how impact fees will impact
existing subdivisions, particularly those where water and sewer services have already been
. installed and off-site improvements completed.
He suggested that a three or four-year
transition period could help to alleviate the potential of double impacting existing subdivisions
and developments in process. He concluded by encouraging
the Commissioners to consider
alternatives to impact fees prior to making its final decision.
Ms. Candis Dorsch, President of the Board of Realtors, read into the record a letter
to the Commissioners, stating that the Board concurs with the positions previously stated by
the Bozeman Area Chamber of Commerce, Gallatin
Development Corporation and the
Southwest Montana Building Industry Association.
She encouraged the Commission to
carefully consider how impact fees will affect the community, particularly at the level proposed.
She suggested that the
Commission should seek
long-term solutions to ensure that
infrastructure needs are addressed as they occur, rather than trying to catch up later. She
. urged the Commission to delay any decision on impact fees until all options have been
explored.
Mr. Jim Syth, builder, stated he is very concerned about the impact that the proposed
impact fees will have on existing businesses in Bozeman, noting that prices of goods and
services are based on supply and demand; and the existing supply of commercial buildings is
12-04-95
-
46 -
limited. He cautioned that, as demand increases, building owners will raise
their rents, and
small businesses will be negatively impacted. Mr. Syth noted that a recent newspaper article
indicated impact fees will provide no more than one-fourth of the revenues needed to meet
infrastructure needs; the remainder must come from traditional sources.
He then asked if a
. small addition to or remodeling of an existing business will trigger impact fees on the entire
building. He cautioned that if the City makes it difficult for businesses to move to the
community or expand within it, they will go elsewhere.
Mr.
Syth turned his attention to the proposed residential impact fees, noting that one
of the Commission's top priorities has been affordable housing.
He noted that in 1995, 91
single-family homes were built inside city limits, along with 113 apartment units and 40
condominium units. He reminded the Commission that the
Human Resource Development
Council and Bozeman Interfaith Housing constructed a total of 27 affordable units, and asked
that the impact which impact fees would have had on these units be considered.
He then
asked if impact fees are to be assessed for remodeling of residential units.
He concluded by
recognizing that a funding mechanism to meet infrastructure needs must be devised, however,
. he cautioned the proposed impact fees are too high for Bozeman's economy.
Mr.
David Smith, Executive Vice President of the Bozeman Area Chamber of
Commerce, stated that impact fees seem to be a convenient way to contribute to the shortfall
in funding for infrastructure improvements; however, he encouraged the Commission to also
consider the complex economics of the community. He
stated that, after considerable
discussion, the Board has adopted a position of opposition to the commercial impact fees as
proposed. He forwarded their concerns, which include:
(1) the effect large impact fees will
have on new office buildings and the burden those increased costs will have on tenants; (2)
the potential of growth being discouraged within city limits and pushed into the county instead;
(3) accountability of the funds collected, to ensure that the funds collected for a particular type
of improvement are used for that improvement; and (4) the effect that immediate adoption of
. impact fees might have on the Commission's position on alternative sources of revenue, such
as a tourism tax, gas tax or realty transfer fees. He forwarded the Chamber's pledge to help
the City seek authorization for alternative sources of funding during the upcoming legislative
session in lieu of implementing impact fees.
12-04-95
- 47 -
Ms. Sally Hickey, realtor, stated she personally does not support impact fees.
She
stated that, as a member of the County committee to study impact fees, she recalls that one
of the first determinations was that there was insufficient money to complete an economic
study in conjunction with the impact fee study. She encouraged
the Commission to listen
. carefully to the concerns of those who have testified, since an economic study has not been
done. She also encouraged the Commissioners to continue to coordinate with the County in
the adoption of impact fees, and to use the citizens' committees already in place to forward
recommendations on the implementation of those fees. She further asked that the Commission
consider seeking additional sources of funding for growth.
Mr. Tom Simkins, 1219 North Cedarview, stated he is 50-percent owner of Empire
Building Materials. He noted that he has tried to retain this business in Bozeman, rather than
relocating it to another community; however, he cautioned that if impact fees are implemented,
he will be forced to move to Belgrade, where the costs are considerably lower. He encouraged
the Commissioners to consider the negative impacts that enacting impact fees at the proposed
level will have on development in the community, including the amount of property taxes that
. may be lost if businesses are forced to located outside city limits. He concluded by stating that
he is not totally opposed to impact fees and he is sympathetic to the need for funding, but he
feels the economic base of the community must be protected.
Mr. Kevin Klick, 514 North Montana Avenue, expressed concern that the proposed
impact fees will create urban sprawl and push businesses away from the community, reducing
the potential revenue base for the future. He noted that Mr. Duncan has characterized the fees
contained in the study as 100 percent of the identified costs, and he also indicated that a lower
fee could be implemented. Mr. Klick concluded by stating he is not opposed to
impact fees,
but he is opposed to implementing them at 100 percent of the figures contained in the study.
Mr. Dennis Balian stated that at the present time, he has two developments in the
planning process, one for a 26-unit apartment complex and the other for a 44-unit townhouse
. complex. He stated that if impact fees are implemented at the level proposed, he would face
$187,000 in impact fees, and he does not believe they would be marketable.
He noted that
he has lived in Bozeman for 22 years, living "in everything from the penthouse of the Bozeman
Hotel to a dirt floor basement", and he is concerned about ensuring that decent affordable
housing is provided. He recognized that high rents have been a problem in the community for
12-04-95
-- - - ---.--.--
- 48 -
several years, noting that the law of supply and demand helps to keep those rates high. He
expressed concern that with high impact fees, there will be less apartment construction in
Bozeman.
Mr. Balian encouraged the Commissioners to carefully consider the negative
impact
. that immediate implementation of impact fees will have on projects which are currentiy in the
planning process. He noted that those individuals have already purchased the land and
undertaken plans for development which do not include impact fees. He
asked that the
Commissioners consider steps to mitigate impacts on those projects in the pipeline, and let the
changes occur gradually instead of implementing impact fees at 100 percent of the level
possible.
Mr. Frank Armknecht stated that only one of his fifteen employees lives
in Bozeman;
the remainder cannot afford to do so. He cautioned that if the Commission imposes the impact
fees proposed, many more people will not be able to afford to live here.
Break - 10:57 to 11 :03 D.m.
. Mayor Vincent declared a break from 10:57 p.m. to 11 :03 p.m., in accordance
with
Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983.
Public hearing {continued} - Commission Resolution No. 3089 - implementation of impact fees.
as proposed by consultant. for City streets. fire. water and wastewater services
City Manager Wysocki entered into the record a copy of the cost of growth
in Oregon,
presented by Mr. Sabol at last week's meeting; a letter from Harold Fryslie, former City
Manager; a memo dated November 29, regarding impact fee strategies; a sheet showing
comparisons of suggestions, dated December 1; and a letter from the Southwest Montana
Building Industry Association, dated December 1.
Planning Director Andy Epple provided population estimates, noting that
the 1990
. census was 23,000 +, and the current estimate is 25,000 people within city limits. He stated
that the jurisdictional area had approximately 6,000 residents in 1990, and has an estimated
7,000 at the present time. He then addressed the basis upon which several of the impact fees
have been developed.
12-04-95
----------------
.-.---.-.------.--
-
49 -
Mr. Duncan noted that the issue of a level playing field has been raised,
noting that,
ironically, that is one of the reasons why national organizations representing
builders and
developers support the implementation of impact fees.
He noted that, with impact fees,
everyone shares in the costs of infrastructure improvements. He recognized
that impact fees
. are not the only solution to infrastructure issues, noting that alternative sources of revenue can
be utilized. He provided examples of communities where impact fees have
been implemented
and growth has continued. He then suggested the Commission may wish to
consider adopting
impact fees at less than 100 percent of the costs identified in the study.
Commissioner Stueck noted that those who have testified have acknowledged
that
a $2,000 impact fee would be acceptable; however, a $6,700 fee is not.
Responding to Commissioner Stiff, City Attorney Luwe stated that the State
statutes
allow for the creation of an urban transportation district by the County,
which pertains to
transportation services and facilities.
He noted that, in conjunction with the district, the
County may levy a tax to pay for the services and facilities, but that
levy must be under the
1-105 limit.
. City Manager Wysocki recognized the testimony encouraging the Commissioners
to
be sensitive to projects in the pipeline, stating he feels that a transition
period should be
considered.
Responding to Commissioner Stueck, Mr. Duncan stated that if a developer
bears the
costs of off-site system improvements, and the system enhancing costs of
those improvements
is greater than the impact fees would have been, he is eligible for a credit.
At the Planning Director's request, Mr. Duncan stressed the fact that impact
fee
monies cannot be used for anything but capital facilities, noting that
one of the key issues to
consider for each improvement is whether it increases capacity.
He further stressed that
impact fees cannot be used to remedy pre-existing deficiencies. He then
cited instances where
a City has implemented impact fees but the County has not, recognizing
that while the situation
. may not be ideal, it has not created any major problems for either entity.
Responding to Commissioner Frost, Mr. Duncan stated that location is typically
important to commercial developments, therefore, he does not believe that
impact fees will
drive them "out into the boondocks". He recognized that since location
is not as critical for
high tech industry, it may be located in an area like Four Corners or Gallatin
Gateway.
12-04-95
- 50 -
Responding
to questions about whether impact fees are to be assessed on expansions
or remodels, Mr. Duncan stated that since the residential fees are based
on the number of living
units in a structure, the addition of a bedroom to a single-family home
would not trigger impact
fees. Planning
Director Epple indicated that staff has discussed impact fees on commercial
. expansions, suggesting that the Commission may wish to allow an expansion of up to 20
percent of the existing floor area at this time without triggering impact
fees.
Responding
to Commissioner Stueck, Mr. Duncan stated it is possible to waive impact
fees if it is determined that a proposed development or addition does not
impact the City's
infrastructure system.
Responding
to the Planning Director, Mr. Duncan cautioned that, while assessing
impact fees on a square-footage basis for residential development may be
possible for roads
and fire, he feels that water and wastewater fees should be based on the
number of dwelling
units in the structure because the demand on services is essentially the
same, regardless of its
size. He noted that additional work will be necessary if the Commission
wishes to consider this
option.
. Responding
to Commissioner Stueck, Mr. Duncan stated that administration of impact
fees is straight forward and
not as cumbersome as some alternatives for funding of
infrastructure improvements; therefore, no additional staff would be necessary.
Responding
to Commissioner Stiff, Mr. Duncan noted that, while some of the new
developments may be occupied largely by current residents in the community,
those older
homes are being occupied by others, many of them new to the community,
and impacts on
City services continue to increase.
Further
responding to Commissioner Stiff, Mr. Elliott stated that when the City
"waives" impact fees, it is actually paying the fees from the General Fund.
He recognized that
the City may choose to pay a portion or all of the fees for specific reasons,
such as
. encouraging economic development or promoting truly affordable housing.
He then indicated
that, in unusual situations, it may be possible that a proposed development or expansion does
not create any additional impact of traffic, fire, water or wastewater
and, in those instances,
the Commission could adjust the fees.
He then cautioned that it is important to monitor the
fees and the basis of assessment, to ensure they are accurate and, if errors
are determined,
corrective steps must be taken.
12-04-95
-------------
.. --..---
- 51 -
Commissioner
Stueck stressed the importance of not destroying the community's
vitality by implementing impact fees which are too high. He then questioned what level would
be appropriate.
Mr.
Jim Duncan cautioned against establishing an implementation schedule which
. provides for small incremental increases, with those increases occurring over a relatively short
time span, because of the administrative impacts. He suggested, rather, that the increases be
divided into three or four segments, with a low percentage, like 10 percent, being implemented
for the first sixty days, to minimize the impact on projects currently in the pipeline. He then
stressed that the Commission does not need to implement the full 100 percent fee if it does
not feel that is appropriate; rather, it could choose to stop the incremental increases at a lower
precentage, such as 50 percent.
Responding
to Commissioner Stueck, Mr. Elliott stated that, while the percentages
assessed for the streets, fire, water and wastewater may be different, different percentages
cannot be set for residential and commercial under each of those types of impact fees.
Since
there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Vincent closed the public
. hearing; however, he did extend the deadline for receipt of written testimony to noon on
Thursday, December 14, 1995. He then requested that the decision on this item be placed on
the December 18 agenda.
Ordinance No. 1412 - vacating and abandoning that Dortion of West Babcock Street riaht-of-
way Ivina adiacent to and north of Lot 3A-2, and adiacent to and south of Lot 3B-1, all in Block
3, Kirk's
Fourth Subdivision (immediately
northeast of realigned
West Main/West
Babcock/South 23rd intersection)
Previously
distributed to the Commissioners was a copy of Ordinance No. 1412, as
approved by the City Attorney, entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 1412
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
. MONTANA, VACATING AND ABANDONING THAT PORTION OF WEST
BABCOCK STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING ADJACENT TO AND NORTH OF
LOT 3A-2, AND ADJACENT TO AND SOUTH OF LOT 3B-1, ALL IN BLOCK
3, KIRK'S FOURTH SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA.
The City Manager reminded the Commissioners that they had provisionally adopted
this ordinance at the November 20 meeting and recommended that it be finally adopted at this
time.
12-04-95
- 52 -
It was moved by Commissioner Stueck, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the
Commission finally adopt Ordinance No. 1412, vacating that portion of West
Babcock Street
right-of-way lying immediately northeast of the realigned intersection
of West Main Street/West
Babcock Street/South 23rd Avenue. The motion carried by the following Aye
and No vote:
. those voting Aye being Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman,
Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Vincent; those voting No, none.
Ordinance No. 1413 - reoealing Sections 15.08.100 and 15.08.110 of the
Bozeman Municioal
Code and declarina the same null and void and of no effect
Previously distributed to the Commission was a copy of Ordinance No. 1413, as
approved by the City Attorney, entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 1413
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF SECTIONS 15.08.100 AND
15.08.110 OF THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING SAME
TO BE NULL AND VOID AND OF NO EFFECT.
The City Manager reminded the Commissioners that they had provisionally adopted
. this ordinance at the November 20 meeting and recommended that it be finally adopted at this
time.
It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that
the Commission finally adopt Ordinance No.
1413, repealing Sections 15.08.100 and
15.08.110 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. The motion carried by the following
Aye and No
vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman,
Commissioner
Stiff, Commissioner Stueck and Mayor Vincent; those voting No, none.
Discussion - draft letter notifying orooerty owners of Dossible reauirements
for installation of
sidewalks within the next three years
Included in the Commissioners' packets was a draft letter notifying property owners
. of the possible requirement for installation of sidewalks within the next
three years, as prepared
by City Engineer Craig Brawner.
The Commissioners concurred that, due to the late hour, it would be appropriate to
schedule discussion of this letter during next week's work session.
12-04-95
- 53 -
Renewal of Beer. Wine and Liauor Licenses for Calendar Year 1996
This was the time set for renewal of the Beer, Wine and Liquor License
for the
Calendar Year 1996.
A total of 35 applications have been received, along with the required
fees.
. Included in the Commissioners' packets was a list of the establishments
which have
made application and paid the required fee, as follows:
APPLICATIONS FOR BEER, WINE AND LIQUOR LICENSES
CALENDAR YEAR 1996
APPLICANT
BEER WINE
LIQUOR TOTAL
Albertson's Food Center #237
200 South 23rd
$ 200 $
200 $ $ 400
American Drug Stores
dba Osco Drug
1525 West Main Street
200 200
400
Anaconda Molly Brown, Inc.
dba The Molly Brown
703 West Babcock Street
500 500
. Bozeman Restaurant & Lounge, Inc.
dba Cantrell's in Holiday Inn
5 Baxter Lane
500 500
Bozeman Town Pump, Inc.
2607 West Main Street
200 200
400
Bridger Bar-B-Q & Grilli
Montana Fats Billiards
101 East Main Street
200 200
400
Buttrey Food and Drug Company
1601 West Main Street
200 200
400
Cas a Sanchez Restaurant
719 South 9th Avenue
200 200
400
Cat's Paw
721 North 7th Avenue
500 500
. Empire, Inc.
dba Black Angus
520 West Mendenhall Street
500 500
GranTree Lounge
1325 North 7th Avenue
500 500
Grape Expectations Wines & Deli
27 South Willson Avenue
200 200
400
12-04-95
-.----.-..
-
54 -
Great China Wall
525 Professional Drive
200 200
400
Hilltop Conoco
1007 East Main Street 200
200
Jackpot Casino
1801 West Main Street 200
200
400
. Kagy Korner, Inc.
1809 South Tracy Avenue
200 200
400
Lewis and Clark Family Restaurant
824 West Main Street
200 200
400
Me and Jan's Mini Mart
919 West College Street
200 200
400
Me and Jan's II
621 West Main Street
200 200
400
Mini Mart, Inc.
dba Mini Mart #728
717 West College Street
200 200
400
Mini Mart, Inc.
dba Mini Mart #729
1910 West Main Street 200
200
400
. O'Brien's Restaurant
312 East Main Street
500
500
Panda Enterprises, Inc.
621 Bridger Drive
200 200
Price Rite Drug
910 North 7th Avenue
200 200
400
Safeway Store #289
907 West Main Street
200 200
400
Scoop Bar
712 West Main Street
500
500
Sentinel Corporation
dba Chalet Markets of Montana
2825 West Main, Unit 5-E
200 200
400
Special Request LLC
2450 West Main Streett Suite F
200 200
400
. The Crystal Bar, Inc.
123 East Main Street
500 500
The Filling Station, Inc.
2005 North Rouse Avenue
200 200
400
The Haufbrau, Inc.
22 South 8th Avenue
500
500
12-04-95
- 55 -
The Store, Inc.
1210 East Main Street
200 200
400
VFW Post No. 903
2205 North Rouse Avenue
500 500
Village Inn Pizza Parlor
806 North 7th Avenue
200 200
400
. West Main Exxon
920 West Main Street
200
200
Total - 35 Applications
$ 5.000 $ 4.400
$ 5.000 $14.400
The City Manager recommended that the Commission approve the applications
as
submitted.
It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Stueck, that
the
Commission approve the renewal of Beer, Wine and Liquor License for Calendar
Year 1996 for
the various establishments as listed above. The motion carried by the following
Aye and No
vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff. Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner
Frost,
Commissioner Youngman and Mayor Vincent; those voting No, none.
. Discussion - FYI Items
City Manager Wysocki presented to the Commission the following "For Your
Information" items.
(1 ) Memo
from Prosecutor/Staff Attorney Susan Wordal, dated November 30,
forwarding a draft of the agreement between the City and the County for
a civilian evidence
technician.
(2) letter
from Brian leland, received November 29, forwarding general
comments on construction in wet areas.
(3) Memo
from Commissioner Youngman, dated November 30, regarding open
space.
. (4) letter
from County Planning Director Dale Beland cancelling the growth
issues forum scheduled for December 5.
(5) Memo
from Administrative Services Director Gamradt, dated December 4.
regarding building permit fees.
(6) Memo
from Clerk of the Commission Sullivan, dated November 30,
forwarding a copy of the form for evaluating the City Manager.
12-04-95
..------
- 56 -
(7) Memo
from Planning Director Andy Epple, dated December 1, announcing
that the impact fee consultants would be willing to conduct an informal
meeting with interested
Commissioners at 2:00 p.m. today.
(8) Memo
from Clerk of the Commission Sullivan, dated December 1, suggesting
. that the Commissioners may wish to meet with the County Commission on December 5 to
review options for adoption of impact fees.
(9) Agenda
for the Development Review Committee meeting to be held at 10:00
a.m. on Tuesday, December 5, in the Commission Room.
(10) Agenda
for the City-County Planning Board meeting to be held at 7:00 p.m.
on Tuesday, December 5, in the Commission Room.
(11 ) Agenda
for the Board of Adjustment meeting scheduled for 1 :30 p.m. on
Thursday, December 7, in the Commission Room.
Consent Items
City Manager Wysocki presented to the Commission the following Consent
Items.
. Commission
Resolution No. 3096 - relatina to Multi-familv Housing
Mortgage Revenue Bonds (FHA Insured
Mortgage Loan--Arcadia
Gardens
ADartments Proiect) Series 1995; authorizing sale and
issuance
of bonds and establishing security therefor; authorizing
execution
of documents
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3096
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA,
RELATING TO MUL TI-FAMIL Y
HOUSING MORTGAGE
REVENUE BONDS (FHA INSURED MORTGAGE LOAN--ARCADIA GARDENS
APARTMENTS
PROJECT) SERIES 1995;
MAKING FINDINGS,
AUTHORIZING
THE SALE AND
ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS
AND
ESTABLISHING
THE SECURITY THEREFOR;
AUTHORIZING THE
DISTRIBUTION OF AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS.
Ratify Actina City Manaaer's sianature - Loan Aareement with Comstock
Aoartments
re $50.000 loan from CDBG Revolving Loan Fund
. Direct staff to proceed with zone code amendments re Desian Review
Board and sianaae for larae multi-tenant
commercial buildinas as
quickly as oossible
Commission Resolution No. 3097 - relating to outstanding bonds owned bv
the
DeDartment of Natural Resources and Conservation; granting
oreliminary
aooroval to the amendment
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3097
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
12-04-95
..-.-....---
- 57 -
MONTANA, RELATING TO OUTSTANDING BONDS OWNED BY THE
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND CONSERV ATION;
GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE AMENDMENT THEREOF.
Claims
It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Stueck, 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 Stiff, Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Frost,
Commissioner Youngman and Mayor Vincent; those voting No, none.
Review of RFP for consultant to review zone code. master Dlan. subdivision regulations and
Dublic works Dolicies for possible revisions in light of affordable housing Dolicy
Included in Commissioners' packets was a memo from Neighborhood Coordinator/
Grantsperson James Goehrung, dated November 21, forwarding a proposed request for
proposals and evaluation forms for possible revisions to the zone code, master plan, subdivision
regulations and public works rules and regulations.
Commissioner Youngman reminded the Commission that she, Planning Director
Epple
. and Neighborhood Coordinator/Grantsperson James Goehrung were directed to prepare this
proposed request for proposals, for Commission action.
She indicated that this request for
proposals is for a consultant to develop regulatory language to implement some of the
provisions of the affordable housing policy which the Commission has adopted.
She then
indicated that the costs of this consultant may be funded through the Community Development
Block Grant Revolving Loan Fund.
Commissioner Stueck questioned the percentages upon which the proposals
are to
be evaulated, stating he feels they are out of balance.
Responding to questions from Commissioner Frost,
Commissioner Youngman
acknowledged that some revisions in the language in the request for proposals will be necesary,
. particularly in light of some of the comments forwarded during the public hearing on impact
fees. She then stressed that the information in this request is simply
a guideline for the
consultant to prepare a proposal, noting that the language in the proposal is taken directly from
the affordable housing policy.
12-04-95
~
-
58 -
Commissioner
Stiff expressed his concern about considering this agenda item at this
late hour.
He then requested that it be delayed until the next regular meeting, stating that if
it is acted on tonight, he will abstain.
It
was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that
. the Commission authorize and direct staff to advertise the request for proposals for a
consultant to develop regulatory language to implement some of the provisions
of the
affordable housing policy, with the costs to be paid from the CDBG Revolving
Loan Fund. The
motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being
Commissioner Frost,
Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stueck and Mayor Vincent; those voting
No, none.
Commissioner Stiff abstained.'
Adjournment - 12:32 p.m.
There
being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was
moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Stueck, that the
meeting be
adjourned.
The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being
. Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner
Youngman and
Mayor Vincent; those voting No, none.
ATTEST:
r2~ Jb~
ROBIN L. SULLIVAN
Clerk of the Commission
.
12-04-95