Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-07 Planning Board Minutes.docMINUTES CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2007 7:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President JP Pomnichowski called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:33 p.m. and directed the secretary to take attendance. Members present: Members Absent JP Pomnichowski, President Edward Sypinski (excused) Caren Roberty Eric Roset (excused) Erik Henyon Kaaren Jacobson Brian Caldwell Randy Carpenter William Quinn Staff Present Guests Present Doug Riley, Planner II Jason Leep Andy Epple, Planning Director Noah Poritz Shoni Dykstra, Planning Secretary Norm Duesenberry Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Mark Meissner Chuck Winn, Fire Chief Todd Mitchell Mark Lachapelle, Police Brook Jacksha Chris Kukulski, City Manager Chris Mehl Steven Johnson Cheryl Ridgely Ted Lange ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Seeing there was none, President Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 2, 2007 Seeing there were no changes, additions or corrections to the minutes, President Pomnichowski stated that the minutes of October 2, 2007 will stand as written. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-07037 (Knolls East Highland South MaSub) - A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application with variances on behalf of the owners, Bozeman Deaconess Health Services, and the representatives, PC Development, to allow the subdivision of 214.16 acres into 391 lots for R-1 (Residential Single-Household, Low Density District), R-2 (Residential Two-Household Medium Density District), B-1 (Neighborhood Business District), and B-2 (Community Business District) development. The property is legally described as the southern and western portion of COS 2047, Tract 3, Sec. 17, T2S, R6E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Riley) Staff Report: Planner Doug Riley presented the staff report on the Knolls East Highland South Major Subdivision preliminary plat. This application has received preliminary approval for zoning earlier this year through a Zone Map Amendment and it will be finalized when the preliminary plat is finalized. This plat contains 337 single-household residential lots, 1 multi-household residential lot, 1 mixed use / commercial, 44 attached single-household residential lots, 8 affordable housing lots, and the remaining area consisting of parks and open spaces. Planner Riley noted two variance requests by the applicant. The first variance request regarded the improvements to the intersection of Haggerty and Main referenced in condition 39. Planning Staff does not see a reason why the intersection should not be improved as a condition of this application and is recommending denial. The second variance request was for the shared use pathways in three areas of the subdivision to be paved with asphalt instead of concrete which is the city standard. Planning Staff is recommending denial due to lack of proof of hardship. Planner Riley handed out two letters he had received from the public regarding the project. He closed stating that staff is recommending the approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions and code provisions listed in the staff report along with the denial of the two variances. Questions for Staff: Brian Caldwell asked if the applicant has adequately addressed condition 17 with the double fronted lots. Planner Riley stated that more detail is needed to meet the condition as the applicant has addressed architectural concerns, but they have not addressed landscaping such as sidewalks, gates, and fences. Caren Roberty asked what a dust mitigation plan would entail and what the differences were between the Subarea Plan and the current application. Planner Riley stated he talked with engineering and dust mitigation does not fall under our jurisdiction, but it is a health department issue. Mr. Caldwell asked if there was dust in the preparation of land for agricultural purposes. Planner Riley replied that there would be dust associated with agricultural uses and with construction. He also highlighted the area along Painted Hills Road referenced in a letter of public comment indicating there had been a change between what was presented in the Subarea Plan and the current application. Planning Staff feels that this preliminary plat is in compliance with the Subarea Plan. Planner Riley noted the applicant has done work to give more space between the lots and the trails. The applicant has proposed coordinated fencing and landscaping that abut the open space area as well as specific covenant laws to notify future home owners about the proximity of the trail. Ms. Roberty noted that the subdivision appeared to have shifted east. Planner Riley deferred to the applicant on the answer to that question. Erik Henyon asked where the proposed fire station and proposed elementary school were located in relationship to the property. Planner Riley identified an area of interest for a fire station site. Planning Director Epple shared that the corner of Kagy and Highland South has been discussed for a school site in the past, but he was not sure if the school district option continues on that particular piece of property. Mr. Carpenter asked if Staff had received any comment from Fish Wildlife and Parks. Planner Riley stated that he had notified Fish Wildlife and Parks, but had not received any comment from them to date. Mr. Carpenter noted that there is going to be a wildlife issue because of the wetlands. He also shared his concerns about the trails crossing the wetlands and dogs on the trail. Planner Riley stated that Highland Glen is a key wildlife area, but Staff feels there is adequate separation of the trails from the wetlands area. He mentioned the corridor remains intact and essentially undisturbed even with the four or five wetlands trail crossings. Planner Riley stated that hopefully dogs will be on leashes. Mr. Carpenter asked if Staff had addressed the double fronted lots on Painted Hills. Planner Riley stated that the double fronted lots had been addressed in condition 17 and 18. Some of the double fronted lots will have alley access and similar provisions have been made for the other double fronted lots presented in the plat. Mr. Carpenter asked about the study done by Traffic Impact Analysis and condition 39 requiring improvements to the intersection of Haggerty and Main. He is concerned that this application did not warrant the condition for that particular intersection at this time, but he could see a provision for improvements to the intersection in the future. Planner Riley stated that the intersection is rated at level service E and that the condition was something MDT wanted and that was why Engineering has recommended the denial of the variance request. Mr. Caldwell asked if Planner Riley felt the staff report adequately conditioned all stream crossings with 310 and 404 permits and wondered if there were any unturned stones. Planner Riley stated the conditions followed Code Provisions and he did not see major issues other than the wetlands trail crossings. Mr. Henyon voiced his concern about the underpasses. He has seen the tubing depicted in the application used for grooming devices and has seen a build up of ice in them. He encouraged using something besides the round culvert such as a bridge or box culvert for greater air flow which decreases the risk of ice build up. President Pomnichowski asked if the multifamily lot in B-2 zoned area could be residential. Planner Riley stated that it will require a CUP application. President Pomnichowski asked if Planner Riley had an opinion about the site of that particular lot. She questioned what the accesses to and from the site were. Planner Riley stated that the applicant would be required to put in 30 units, but the number of units could range from 30 to 45. He feels the multifamily lot will function well in that location with how Painted Hills is going to connect. President Pomnichowski asked if there is a site plan to the B-2 area, and if Staff knew how close it was to the back of the buildings. Planner Riley shared that it would be in a future application. President Pomnichowski asked if the Glen Corridor open space could be controlled access to avoid abuses and for Planner Riley to elaborate on that point. Planner Riley stated that the applicant had language on retaining the right to close the area in the Glen Corridor if there is abuse to the land from the public. The Park and Recreation Board and Staff felt that the condition was necessary to ensure any closure of the trail would be a joint decision rather than resting on the sole discretion of the owner. Mr. Henyon asked if Staff did not want to designate the road frontage as parkland because of the park district maintenance the City did not want to upkeep. Planner Riley elaborated that the length of the property would be inefficient in maintaining the park, but also the areas did not meet the UDO standards for dedicated parkland as they are also transportation pathways. Mr. Henyon asked if the City would allow the applicant credit if maintenance was the only reason Staff did not want to grant the request. He questioned if there were other areas in the plat the applicant had dedicated to parkland credit Staff did not want to grant other than the areas along the street corridors. Planner Riley pointed out the areas being recommended denial of parkland credit were strictly along the roadways. Applicant Presentation Jason Leep is representing PC Development and Bozeman Deaconess Health Services. He gave an overview of the application with special emphasis given to the trails as he feels it is the most interesting part of the application. He stated that the applicant spent a lot of time planning the space of the Corridor. He stated that the setbacks between the trails and the rear yard property line were 30 feet and the setbacks between the rear yard property line and the actual house was 20 feet. Mr. Leep went through the four different classifications of paths within the application. Class 1 trails are 10 foot wide trails intended to get people through and around the subdivision, and the class of trails the applicant is requesting for the use of asphalt in the place of concrete. Class 2 trails are located primarily in the Glen Corridor and meet ADA requirements. Class 3 trails are foot gravel trails through the Glen Corridor, and they would cross the wetlands on the east side. Class 3 trails do not meet ADA standards and will be kept out of the wetlands setbacks and the applicant will have the necessary permits obtained. Class 4 trails are the Nordic ski trails which would be unnoticeable in summer and spring. He stated that the culverts were designed with winter use in mind and will drain water. The Subarea plan is very specific on the designations for the dedicated parklands and there would be the public trailheads to access the corridor. He also stated that he felt the future Bridger Ski Foundation building should be dealt with by the City. Hyalite Hollow Park is a critical east-west connection between the City parks. Mr. Leep addressed the plots along Kagy Blvd and Highland Blvd. He said that there is a 90 foot right of way, a 50 foot open space strip, and then the 20 foot rear yard setback. These homes would access garages from internal streets. The houses would also have coordinated fencing and landscaping to make for a good streetscape. The lots along the Glen Corridor would also have coordinated fencing and hedges to provide privacy and the trails are much lower than the lots. Mr. Leep addressed the reasons for requesting the variance on the Haggerty and Main intersection improvements. The intersection would be two miles out of the way for people turning left onto Main and most residents would opt to use Highland and Main which is currently being repaired. Since there is not going to be a great change in traffic at that intersection, the applicant is asking for a variance. Mr. Leep did not feel that seven additional cars in the morning would impact the area in such a way to deny the request for a variance. He also felt that the 10 foot paths along Kagy Blvd and Painted Hills Road were not posing a public health and safety issue if asphalt is used. He highlighted the fact that asphalt trails were better for recreational use. Mr. Leep addressed condition 2 of the staff report. The applicant would like to change the wording from “Subject to the review and recommendation of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, the Parks and Recreation Superintendent and final approval by the City Commission” to wording that has it finally settled at the City Commission level so it moves through in a more timely process. As to conditions 5 and 14, the applicant would like to see a change in wording so that 5 reads, “All dedicated park lands shall be titled ‘Public Park’ on the final plat. The neighborhood pocket park open space shall be titled ‘Open Space, Public Access.’ All other open space shall be labeled private open space and the final plat shall reference the public trail easements within the private open space areas. Notes shall be included on the plat describing ownership and maintenance responsibility for both the park and open space areas, (e.g. public park, dedicated to the city and maintained by the homeowners association and/or future Park Maintenance District, etc.). The applicant would like condition14 would read, “The final plat shall include a public access easement for all areas labeled as “Private Open Space” and for all streets/alleys if they are not dedicated to the public in order to comply with Section 18.44.090.B of the UDO. The applicant wants to restrict public access to the trail corridors only. The open public space is a liability for the Home Owners Association. The applicant wants to be able to protect the wetland areas. Addressing condition 17, the applicant would like to strike “A minimum twenty-five (25) foot required yard setback is required along Kagy Boulevard and Highland Boulevard.” as these lots have 20 foot setbacks and 50 foot setbacks from the roadways. Addressing condition 20, the applicant has dealt with conditions like this on other projects. They would like their conditions to be what they are in control of rather than having conditions that require the City to take action. They are willing to take steps in helping with the proposed fire station site, but are hesitant to have it be a condition of approval as the applicant does not have the means to meet the condition. Addressing condition 3, the applicant would like to strike the last sentence, “These grade separated crossings shall be completed in conjunction with the Kagy Boulevard improvements required to be completed as part of Phase 1 development.” The applicant feels that there is no proportionality to having Kagy Blvd completed in Phase 1. They would like to build the corresponding sections of Kagy with Phases I and II rather than having to build the entire length at one time. There is not a concern other than the perceived inconvenience of closing the road more than once. They would also like to strike, “All of the improvements to Kagy from Highland to Bozeman Trail shall be completed with Phase I of the subdivision.” from condition 33 for the same reason. Questions for Applicant Mr. Henyon asked the applicant to address the lighting plan as it is on a knoll and will be visible from most areas in the City. Mr. Leep stated that they were following the City’s requirements. Mr. Quinn asked what the projected timing was for the phases. Mr. Leep responded that Phase I with 104 lots should take about a year to begin construction. Phase II, the Bozeman Trail Road, the Glen Corridor, and the Painted Hills Road extension to Highland, would begin at least a year after Phase I. He stated that the phases may be done out of order. Mr. Quinn asked if the water and sewer would be put in during Phase I. Mr. Leep stated that infrastructure would be installed in Phase I. Mr. Quinn asked if the land would be farmed in 2008. Mr. Leep stated that they would. Mr. Quinn asked if the Hospital was saving space for future new developments. Mr. Leep responded that there is acreage being reserved for future hospital expansion. Mr. Quinn asked if the success or failure of this project would have impacts on any health services to the community. Mr. Leep stated that the success would have a positive impact and the failure would not impact any health services. Mr. Caldwell stated that the applicant had mentioned entertaining a for sale lot for a future fire station location. He wondered if a provision for dedication be something the applicant would be interested in. Mr. Leep stated that to have the fire station site held against the developer is not fair as they do not have the means to make it happen. A provision for a dedication does not satisfy the condition. Mr. Caldwell asked if the applicant had thought of using a traffic circle at the intersection of Highland and Kagy. Mr. Leep indicated that a traffic circle for that intersection is what is being considered. Public Comment Noah Poritz resides at 1418 Maple Drive. He has discussed this application with his neighbors and they have future dust concerns. The applicant will be cutting and filling 100 plus acres if approved and that will create dust. The acreage extends from the hospital towards Bozeman Pass. A lot of east winds are common in the area and it is already hard to control the dust. Most states have dealt with fugitive dust issues. The applicant does have ways of mitigating this concern. Mr. Poritz is also concerned with the private open space. He feels management issues will conflict with private home owners. He does not want to se the restriction of the trail use, and the applicant said there would be dedicated public parking. A few changes took place a few weeks ago by the City Commission. He is concerned about the six specific houses that have moved from what was presented in the Subarea plan. Interestingly, three Commissioners asked the applicant to address those homes which are bordering the Glen Corridor, but he was surprised when he read the applicant’s response which dismissed it. He is pleased with the trail work going on in the overall plan, and there has been a lot of work put into it. He might buy a 55 or older unit someday. He appreciates the addressing of his concerns in the meantime. Ted Lange, Gallatin Valley Land Trust, shared that GVLT has spent a lot of time with the applicant. GVLT is quite pleased with the outcome. They think this is by far the most significant trail system they have seen in a development. The opportunity for the community to have a Nordic ski track is important. They support the idea of a Bridger Ski Foundation facility in the park, and the condition to implement the ski trails in Phase 1 along with the underpasses. They do not have a preference on the extension of Kagy Boulevard being done at one time or in two different Phases. They are supportive of using asphalt versus concrete on the trails because of the strong preference of the running community. He also noted that asphalt is better for melting snow. GVLT is comfortable with the lot layout and he has walked the property a number of times. The applicant has chosen the wetlands trail crossings which will minimize impact. GVLT does support the condition that the access to the Glen Corridor can’t be closed unilaterally. He would like to see more thought put into the private open space access issue. The way it is worded now may preclude schools from being able to access those parks, and he noted it will be hard to tell if someone is a homeowner in subdivision that large. The City has reached a point where more parks are managed by Home Owners Associations than the City and that is an issue of resources. This lack of resources needs to be addressed by the City. Discussion Mr. Henyon stated that the UDO does not require that infrastructure to go beyond the current phase. He feels that asking the applicant to construct the entire section of Kagy is unreasonable. Mr. Caldwell mentioned the trigger points Mr. Henyon brought up some rationale that could be discussed. He wanted to address the issue of private open space. Mr. Caldwell also noted that an important aspect of every application is the UDO requirements. Since the given land does not meet the requirements to be called open space, to call it open space does not make sense. He also stated that due to the location and wind, Painted Hills was probably not a preference either and that it is import for people to acknowledge their own footprint on the landscape. As far as specific code provisions, he feels that condition 29 needs to be addressed. The preservation office can immediately address the historic issues related to the application. The length of time SHPO is onsite needs to be addressed if something is found in the middle of a project. He feels that the using of asphalt for the Class I trail is a reasonable request given the network of trails throughout the plan and the linking of existing developments. He also would like to consider the balance of the overall Subarea Plan when there are discussions of trigger points for the intersection at Haggerty and Main. He feels that maybe a waiver of right to protest for a SID might be in order if this was the only development that went in for the next 20 years. He can support both variances. Mr. Carpenter noted that he generally agrees with Mr. Caldwell on both variances. Mr. Henyon stated he supports both variances. He is confused by the Haggerty Lane requirement. Mr. Caldwell made some good points to looking at the intent of the entire application. He has been in favor of a lot of concrete sidewalks over the years; he was persuaded by Mr. Lange’s comments as to the use of these trails and the amount of recreational use and would support the use of asphalt. Ms. Roberty said that she feels that asphalt will be a lot nicer. On the intersection, she doesn’t feel that there is a need to have it done right now. A waiver for a SID would put the cost on the home owners. She wondered if there would be a payback program on doing something upfront rather than having something that would hang over the neighborhood. She agrees with the staff recommendations of having the Kagy extension done at one time. Ms. Jacobson stated she likes the overall plan a lot. She agrees with the rest of the board. She liked what Mr. Lange had to say about asphalt on the trails especially about the faster cleared trails in winter. She does not see the need for a light on Haggerty, but a payback program would be a good option. The private/public space is troubling her. She can understand the reason the applicant does not want the entire City running through the subdivision, and she feels that the homeowners would be paying a premium for the extensive trail system. She feels more discussion will be needed to find a resolution, but it probably won’t happen tonight. She is still troubled by the double fronted lots on Kagy Boulevard. She pointed out a back yard is still a backyard, and even though the back is being made to look like a front, it still is a backyard. She would like to see the front of those homes be on Kagy Boulevard. Ms. Roberty shared that dust can be harmful to many different people. She encouraged those who struggle with the extra dust to contact the DEQ or the county, if it gets bad as it is out of the City’s jurisdiction. President Pomnichowski stated that she does not support either variance. She does not feel that either variance meet the highest critique requirement. She stated that she cannot support something because it will be nicer or the developer was creative; it has to meet the requirements. From the beginning of this application, traffic has come up very early. She does not think the Staff condition including improvements to the intersection of Haggerty and Main should be a surprise to the applicant. There is no proof of undue hardship, and it must be there to grant the request. She also stated that anyone can go and park by Lindley Park and use the trails, and you can park near Gallagator Trail and use it. As distinctive as this site is, she feels to propose private open space with public trails is almost indefensible with the potential for conflict She does not like the idea. She does like the work on the parks and trails. She addressed condition 33 which is the relating to the completion of Kagy Boulevard in Phase 1. She stated that there were a few places where the street was required to be extended before the phasing was complete. She used Garfield as an example of a condition similar to this when it was extended almost over a mile before ground was turned for anything within the project. She noted that the cost and the trouble are better dealt with when it is built and completed at one time. She feels the entire project will be stunning. For dust mitigation, President Pomnichowski would like to see a condition to be worded around DEQ dust control during construction of a site in excess of 5 acres because it is such a windy site. She would like to see if there is support for a condition worded around EPA and DEQ guidelines for dust control and mitigation at the construction site. Addressing condition 29, she feels that any historical materials would be turned over to SHPO. She doesn’t feel like she has the knowledge to put a term on the length that SHPO may take if artifacts are found, but she assumed that it would be pretty quick. President Pomnichowski voiced her concerns about the multifamily unit in the B-2 zone. She understands that the Conditional Use Permit would be the process it would go through, but for all the reasons she has stated before on the board regarding livability she is concerned about the unit. This is already going to be a place where people are going to be living very closely. She does not want people living in the parking lot of Costco or the parking lot of Target. Along with the sensitivity the applicant has had with the rest of the development, she is hoping the same sensitivity will be given here and they will provide a buffer or a treatment so the people in the complex would feel like they are a part of a neighborhood not a part of a commercial development. She supports all the staff conditions. She commended Doug Riley on his work on the project and the staff report. Mr. Henyon questioned condition 17 and the required UDO setback of 25 feet. Planning Director Epple noted that technically those lots are not adjacent to the right of way on the arterial so you could strike the first sentence of condition 17. Motion and Vote It was moved by Mr. Henyon, seconded by Mr. Caldwell, to strike, “A minimum twenty-five (25) foot required yard setback is required along Kagy Boulevard and Highland Boulevard. Said notation shall be provided on the final plat and in the homeowner’s association documents.” from the wording of condition 17. All in favor, motion passed 7-0. Those voting in favor being Ms. Jacobson, Mr. Caldwell, Ms. Roberty, Mr. Henyon, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Quinn, and President Pomnichowski. It was moved by Mr. Caldwell, seconded by Mr. Quinn, to modify condition 5 to read, “All dedicated park lands shall be titled ‘Public Park’ on the final plat. The neighborhood pocket park open space shall be titled ‘Open Space, Public Access.’ All other open space shall be labeled private open space and the final plat shall reference the public trail easements within the private open space areas. Notes shall be included on the plat describing ownership and maintenance responsibility for both the park and open space areas, (e.g. public park, dedicated to the city and maintained by the homeowners association and/or future Park Maintenance District, etc.).” The motion passed 5-2. Those voting in favor being Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Carpenter, Ms. Jacobson, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Henyon. Those voting against being Ms. Roberty and President Pomnichowski. It was moved by Mr. Henyon to strike, “All of the improvements to Kagy from Highland to Bozeman Trail shall be completed with Phase I of the subdivision.” from condition 33. The motion failed for lack of a second. It was moved by Mr. Caldwell, seconded by Mr. Henyon, to complete improvements to Kagy with any subsequent Phase whether or not it was Phase II. The motion failed for lack of a majority1-6. Those voting in favor being Mr. Caldwell. Those voting against being Mr. Carpenter, Ms. Jacobson, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Henyon, Ms. Roberty, and President Pomnichowski. It was moved by Mr. Caldwell, seconded by Mr. Quinn, to recommend that the City Commission support the variance request for improvements at the intersection of Haggerty Lane and Main Street. The motion failed for lack of a majority 4-3. Those voting in favor being Mr. Henyon, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Carpenter. Those voting against being Ms. Jacobson, Ms. Roberty, and President Pomnichowski. Ms. Roberty asked what a motion would need to entail that would provide for future development of Haggerty Lane and Main Street and would be part of a payback in the future. Planning Director Epple explained that what would typically happen is if a future phase of the project came under review and portions of Haggerty and main triggered requirements for improvement that there would be a condition to not proceed until those improvements were done. If the applicant fronts those costs, you could propose other developments in that area be required to payback a share of what was spent on those improvements. Mr. Caldwell stated that it would need to be linked to an SID. Mr. Quinn stated that he would like to see condition 20 take place, but does not feel that it is fair to hold the developer to approval with a condition they cannot meet. President Pomnichowski stated that the language of the condition is general and that the final plat approval shall not be granted until the site for the fire station is secured which isn’t too specific. Planning Director Epple clarified that a secured fire station site is the City’s responsibility. The City is not expecting the applicant to provide the site, but a site will need to be secured before final plat is granted. Staff is aware of the applicant’s position, but they also need to have viable fire service in the area before completion of a subdivision. President Pomnichowski said that as part of a Zoning Commission review there are 12 specific criteria that need to be met and one of these requirements is security from fire, panic and other dangers. There are going to be hundreds of structures with this application that have a need to be secure for fire protection. There needs to be an identified potential site. Planning Director Epple stated that there would need to be a title transfer or an easement in the area for it to be considered a “secured” site. Any new subdivision in that area would need the same modicum of commitment to having a fire station site secured. It was moved by Mr. Caldwell, seconded by Mr. Quinn, to recommend that the City Commission support the approval of the variance of using asphalt on the Class One Trails instead of concrete. President Pomnichowski stated that there are the four specific criteria of hardship to the owner that must be met. She does feel that an asphalt shared use path can be done, but not in place of the City standard. There is no hardship. Mr. Caldwell stated that this is a design standard variance not a zoning standard variance and the criteria are not the same. Planning Director Epple stated that the language is related, but it is different. The motion failed for lack of majority 4-3. Those voting in favor being Ms. Jacobson, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Henyon, and Ms. Roberty. Those voting against being Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Quinn, and President Pomnichowski. It was moved by Ms. Roberty that the applicant have a dust mediation plan for this phase of the subdivision plan. The motion failed for lack of a second. It was moved by Mr. Quinn, seconded by Ms. Roberty, to recommend approval of the Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-07037 to the City Commission as conditioned by staff with the conditions amended as passed by the Planning Board. The motion passed 7-0. Those voting in favor being Ms. Jacobson, Mr. Caldwell, Ms. Roberty, Mr. Henyon, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Quinn, and President Pomnichowski. President Pomnichowski stated that the City Commission would see the Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-07037 on November 5 at 6 p.m. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS 1. Police Department presentation on 2007 Public Safety Mill Levy. (Lachapelle) Chris Kukulski, City Manager, presented a general overview of expenditures in regards to public safety. He introduced the need and reasoning behind the presentation of the public safety mill levy and the fire mill levy. Mark Lachapelle, Deputy Chief of Bozeman Police Department, presented the public safety mill levy. He highlighted staffing needs and shortages identified in a comprehensive staffing analysis and how the mill levy would permit the department to hire the number of officers recommended by the analysis. He highlighted how the department would deploy and use the additional officers hired with the mill levy and how the additional staff resources would benefit the community, as well as have a positive effect on the department’s ability to function as it should. 2. Fire Department presentation on 2007 Fire Department Mill Levy. (Chuck Winn) Chief Winn, Fire Chief, presented the fire mill levy. He highlighted the strain on the fire department staff of only having two stations. He noted the positive safety implications for the City if the mill levy was approved and how the department would move forward in the building of Fire Station 3 with the appropriate number of staff. Questions for the Presenters: Mr. Caldwell stated that the Board has seen a lot of applications that require 6 minute or less response times. He wondered where the probable locations of Fire Stations 4 and 5 were. Mr. Winn said that the fire stations may not be built in numerical order so Fire Station 5 could go in next. The amount and placement of growth will determine where the next fire station will be. It appears as if Station 4 might go in at 19th and Graf at Meadow Creek, but the plans are flexible and there needs to be a reaction to what the City needs are. Mr. Caldwell stated that the Board has seen a lot of conditions in subdivision review regarding secured fire station sites. He wondered what the timeline was for the fire stations in regards to how it will affect those subdivisions. Mr. Winn responded that the demand for service would be such that another fire station would be warranted which is based on how much growth occurs in an area. Mr. Kukulski stated that the City is not preventing subdivisions from building, but they are going to require that the site for the fire station be secured. He shared how multiple subdivisions were facing the same condition and how the site for Fire Station 3 was a result of those conditions. He also reminded the board that fire service is a basic service of the city and it needs to be provided on an adequate level. Mr. Quinn asked about working with Sourdough fire. He can see there being a positive effect for both parties, as we would have more staff and Sourdough fire would have addition funding. Mr. Kukulski shared that this is the best relationship he has seen between city and rural jurisdictions. The City is responsible ultimately for the basic level of service, and he does not want to take advantage of those rural fire departments. He did agree that both departments need more resources to respond appropriately. Mr. Henyon questioned where impact fees were going and why there was a mill levy request when the City has been collecting impact fees. Mr. Kukulski shared that those impact fees don’t go into the general fund, but that they go into a Capital expansions to the delegated place for current projects. The City has the cash to build Fire Station 3 because impact fees have been set aside, but there is a limited amount you can do with impact fees. You cannot use an impact fee on personnel or on equipment that does not last longer than ten years which means that personnel and equipment come from the general fund. Mr. Henyon asked if there were state mandated guidelines for the collecting and using of impact fees. Mr. Kukulski responded that there was a state mandate and those revenues are tracked very carefully and assured the Board that impact fees end up at the right accounts. Mr. Carpenter asked what the level of service standards were for the Bozeman Police Department. He also asked what the current crime statistics were and if we were becoming less safe. Mr. Lachapelle responded that the Police Department has been taking complaints over the phone rather than responding to a site. Officers are less able to patrol the streets because of the lack of staffing and the number of complaints keeps going up. He stated that the “ghost” patrol car has not been utilized since it had been vandalized. He mentioned that some trends are going up, and there is an escalation of crimes because Bozeman lacks a visible police force. When people see officers on patrol, it is a deterrent to crime. He also shared that there has been an increase in assault cases. The department is seeing trends that are becoming more violent in nature. The department really wants to be proactive in the community. Gallatin County and the City have a high level of registered sexual offenders. The Department is not having a lot of success getting all of the information into the hands of the community. Mr. Henyon asked if there might be a way for some of the new developments to privatize the fire safety needs for their community. Mr. Kukulski stated that privatizing is an option, but citizens move into an area with the expectation that these services will be provided. There are advantages and disadvantages to having privatized sections for a public safety section. Typically, there is a difference between the level of service provided with privatization and the expectations of the community. Mr. Winn shared that they are seeing consolidation and are taking advantage of the resources being shared. When a tax payer pays for the fire department, the citizen is benefiting by all of the services provided by the department not just the fire station itself. Bozeman needs more than two stations and everyone will benefit from the next station. Mr. Caldwell encouraged the Board to promote the merits of these mill levies such as writing letters to the editor to promote the needs for additional funding. Mr. Kukulski appreciated the comments Mr. Caldwell made, but stated that as a City employee he personally could not advocate for or against, but he can educate on the needs of the departments. What the Board does with this information is up to them. President Pomnichowski asked about connectivity and what the coverage map showed of the existing fire stations. She is concerned about the Southeast section. She asked if Graf was continued from 3rd to 19th would you have a faster response time to the Southeast. She also wondered what the possibilities of expanding Station 2 would be. Mr. Winn stated that the location of Fire Station 2 is barely large enough as it is. It is in a good spot, but another station at Graf and 19th would be helpful. He also mentioned that traffic preemptions have also helped as the fire trucks can move safer through the traffic lights. The Department is utilizing technology as much as possible. Mr. Kukulski shared about discussions City Staff have had with the developer to get Graf through sooner rather than later. President Pomnichowski asked why the fire mill levy was in one year versus the police station’s three. Mr. Kukulski stated that full staffing would be needed for the fire department as soon as it was built, whereas the police need time for more extensive training and for the impact on how the department is structured. President Pomnichowski asked if each fire station will require a bond issue. Mr. Kukulski said that it has taken ten years of impact fees to build up the revenue for this fire station. We probably will need a bond to go along with the impact fees for the next station. President Pomnichowski asked what happens if the mill levies don’t pass. Mr. Kukulski stated that the City will continue to use the general funds to raise revenue for both departments. He also stated that if we do not have the capacity to teach our children and keep our citizen’s safe, people are going to start moving out of the area because of the lack of care. Mr. Carpenter asked how constrained the City is by the state statutes on concurrency. Mr. Kukulski believes that Bozeman is where the legislature wants us. Mr. Carpenter asked what the concurrency requirements were in subdivisions. Planning Director Epple shared that Montana does not have a concurrency requirement like other states. When Staff looks at zoning and planning, we address public health and safety. There could be a point where staff would have to deny subdivisions because the city was not equipped to provide the basic services to new areas. Mr. Carpenter asked if we were constrained by state law on concurrency requirements with police services. Planning Director Epple said that concurrency with fire services is easier to prove than police services. Mr. Kukulski shared that we need to be sensitive to the reality of a growing community. The core community must deal with those coming in and we need to be able to work with those who control land use around us. President Pomnichowski thanked the presenters for coming and for staying so late. She also updated the Board about upcoming meeting of upcoming review agencies. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there were no further issues before the board, President Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ JP Pomnichowski, Chair Andrew C. Epple, Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman