Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-19-15 Draft_TOP_Minutes1 MEETING MINUTES Trails, Open Space & Parks Committee Thursday, March 19, 2015 10:00 a.m. – Professional Building Upstairs Conference Room 20 E. Olive, Bozeman, MT 59715 A. Call meeting to order (10:05 a.m.) – Sandy Dodge B. Approval of Minutes of February 12, 2015 meeting – approved i. Corrected to indicate that Doug was absent (unexcused) and Bob’s absence updated to unexcused. (At the meeting Doug said he had been present, but a later email was sent to me by Sandy where Doug had indicated that he had missed the meeting.) C. Changes to the Agenda: none D. Public Comment: none E. Disclosures: i. Vice-chair Dodge said he attended the RPAB Sub. Review Subcommittee meeting during which the GPA was discussed. Dodge said he did not feel that clouded anything, but wanted to have it on record. ii. Doug Chandler mentioned his involvement with the East Gallatin Recreation Center in terms of providing services for the design of some facilities, but felt it would not affect his voting. Commissioner Andrus asked what he had been doing. She mentioned that she had received a comment about Allied being involved in another project and that it would be best if he recused himself. Doug agreed. Dodge requested not recusing until Bob Hawks arrived. F. Action Items i. Perform Rough Cut and vote on TOP application for East Gallatin Recreation Area Extension (entry property acquisition proposal); submitted by James Blackburn, resident of Sunfish Subdivision who resides at 279 Turtle Way, Bozeman, MT) a. Public Comment: Brad Ehrman of 213 Turtle Way in Bozeman, who lives adjacent to the subject property, indicated he has had personal conversations with the seller and that the seller indicated his first preference for selling the property was to see it become part of the park. This is new information and was not part of discussions with the seller’s real estate agent. Mr. Ehrman indicated that the seller (Bill Bile) expressed that he was disappointed with the current contract. Brad said he had filled Mr. Bile on the program and their efforts to put together a back-up 2 offer. Brad indicated that Mr. Bile’s realtor had told Mr. Bile that selling the property for park land was not in his best interest in terms of pennies on the dollar. He further indicated he had told Mr. Bile they were trying to put together a legitimate back-up offer related to his asking price for the property. Brad said Mr. Bile indicated strong support for that possibility. Commissioner Andrus asked why Mr. Bile was not present today. Ehrman said he did not know, but that his understanding was he was trying to do everything through his agents. b. Committee Discussion: Dodge asked if the legal impediments have been cleared in order to perform the rough cut. Poissant indicated that discussions have been held with the City Attorney and his main concern was that we were transparent in the process and that both the seller and the developer knew of the activity of the TOP Committee. She said we were instructed to update the City Attorney as to any information regarding every step and decision along the way. She indicated that the City Attorney would then convey the information to the developer’s attorney. Commissioner Andrus indicated that she had also spoken with the City Attorney and concurred that he just wanted to make sure he was in the loop, and that he understands all the decisions that are made here, and that the attorneys are all taking to each other. Director Overton indicated that there are a few moving pieces in that attorneys are involved, given that the property is adjacent to the City’s landfill, so legal need to stay up to speed, but the direction had been to proceed with the review of the application. Chairman Hawks arrived at 10:16 a.m., explaining that his calendar updated, setting the meeting time at 11:00 AM. He then called for addressing Item f. Rough Cut for the EGRA Extension application. Ms. Poissant indicated that a memo was included going over the criteria of the rough cut, and Hawks instructed her to go through the memo. The first element is under the Guiding Document, requiring that the application align with Resolution 4386. One finding in the Resolution is in support of acquiring property that is already adjacent to the City. Everyone has to vote yes on that item. The next item is that the project is identified in the PROST Plan. This item is not specifically identified in the PROST Plan, but does include two trail linkages, one on the north and one on the south side of the entry drive easement to facilitate trail connections into the park as well as to other trail corridors in the area. Chairman Hawks asked if we are to interpret that as meaning it is a natural extension of the PROST Plan. Poissant said, not specifically, as the property was 3 not identified as targeted for acquisition. She said the project does align with the Community Plan / Growth Plan in being identified as Park, Recreation, and Open Space lands. Andrus asked Ms. Poissant if she was just going through the criteria and Carolyn said her intention was to just explain what the criteria are and not recommend anything, as that is the Committee’s purview. She asked if she should proceed or if the Committee wanted to complete their votes along the way. It was decided to proceed with the review. Ms. Poissant stated in terms of the second category of Balance, the first item is: the project balances the types of parks and open space in and around Bozeman. Poissant explained that the park property is currently being leased from the State of Montana, and the access easement is leased by the State, and that if relinquished, the property would revert back to the owner, but the state is not interested in doing so as they realize it is an important access for the City’s park use. There was a bill in the Montana legislature to provide an avenue for transfer of the property to the City, but it did not make it to the floor for a vote. Ms. Poissant stated that the second item under balance is that maintenance requirements are feasible. The parcel contains pasture grasses and there had been some thought about maintaining pasture use, or just keeping the pasture grasses, which require occasional mowing. We would have to increase some maintenance of the entry road. So there would be some additional maintenance costs. Ms. Poissant stated that the third category is Opportunity: the proposal represents a prudent long-term investment for the City. Poissant indicated in terms of history that there is a current proposal to change the Growth Policy Land Use designation from Parks and Recreation to Residential, which is making its way through the City process. She reiterated the applicant’s statement that the seller preferred it remain park land. Ms. Poissant stated that the second item is that the proposal represents a feasible partnership opportunity. The applicant has indicated a number of partners are leveraging a substantial amount, $400,000 out of the $600,000 asking price. The City or applicant would need to cover due diligence and title costs, estimated to be approximately $25,000. Poissant indicated those are the three elements of the Rough Cut: Guiding Documents, Balance, and Opportunity and that we are required to have an average score of five or higher once all scores are tallied in order for the application to move forward. Dodge asked what the process for the Growth Policy Amendment application. Saunders replied it is scheduled to go before Planning Board on April and would go 4 to Commission April 20th. Crawford asked if it was an annexation and zoning request also, to which Saunders responded that it is not. Dodge indicated that if the amendment goes through, it would change the land use designation from parks, which aligns with the application, to residential, which does not. He said he did not think it was a critical difference at this time but we should be aware of it down the road. Saunders commented that most of the City’s parks are located in residential zoning districts, and parks are an inherently acceptable use in residential districts, so the change would not be an impediment. Chandler said he thought one of the City’s main consideration is the possible presence of landfill gases and the liability associated with that. Chairman Hawks asked if he was suggesting that that should be on the minds of everyone involved. Chandler said that given the experience for the Bridger landfill, that getting the property might be a way to address the liability issue. Andrus suggested to the chair that the Committee should look at the application as it is here today and that the other issues are for the consideration of the Planning Board and City Commission. She said she thought the question of the Growth Policy Amendment would be addressed as appropriate after we go through what we are here to do today. Chairman Hawks asked if there were any other areas to be discussed before going through the Rough Cut. Beeman suggested that they get a refresher on performing the Rough Cut as it has been a while since they did one. Poissant suggested that they go step by step and the Committee could make their determinations as we go down the list. Ms. Poissant proceeded to describe the elements of the Rough Cut. The first being compliance with the Guiding Documents, i.e., Resolution 4386, which is a mandatory “yes” vote by all Committee members. She then quoted the finding that the bond funds are eligible for acquiring land in or near the City for open space, trails, and parks, and further that lands annexable to the City will be the highest priority. Andrus said they would all vote and then tally the votes. Poissant said the second item was for the property to be identified for acquisition in the PROST Plan, which it is not. The trail corridors that cross the property are in the plan. In terms of the Community Plan, the property is listed as Parks, Open Space, and Recreational lands, although it is currently zoned light industrial under County zoning. Poissant said the Balance item states that the proposal balances the types of parks, trails, and open space in and around the City of Bozeman. She suggested the context be considered in that it does not create a new park, but provides an entry into an existing facility with a high degree of visibility and use, i.e., does it make a 5 significant contribution to the overall community, as well as to the facility and environs? In terms of whether the maintenance requirements are feasible, Poissant indicated that the Operations Superintendent said it would not create an undue burden on their current workload if the property were added to the East Gallatin Recreation Area, although it should be noted that the City does not technically own the EGRA at this time as we are leasing it from the state. In terms of Opportunity, whether the proposal offers a good long-term investment for the City, Poissant suggested that it be evaluated in terms of the overall system, and that the concern of the liability might be factor, i.e., does it behoove the City to acquire the property to eliminate the liability question, if the Committee feels it is appropriate to consider that issue. In terms of a partnership opportunity, the proposal states that they will commit $400,000 toward the $600,000 plus the $25,000 in associated costs for acquiring the property. In terms of leveraging bond funds, this would be roughly 64% of the cost of obtaining the property. Chandler indicated to the Chairman that before he came in, he had disclosed that he had been working on projects at the EGRA, and that Allied had donated all the work they had done. Andrus stated that the comment she received was not about this project and it is totally up to you if you feel you should vote. Chandler said he is inclined to stay in with the disclosure as is and that he is keenly interested in the proposal. Chairman Hawks reminded the Committee that the process requires an average score of five (5) or higher to proceed and that all yeses are required for the first item. He requested everyone to put their names on both pages of the Rough Cut form. He asked if there was a need for any further discussion. There being no further discussion, he asked the Committee to mark their forms. Chandler said that the Bozeman Sunrise Rotary Club is very supportive of the proposal in that the group had adopted the park over twenty years ago. He indicated that the Rotary Club would be interested in taking on more projects as the park develops over time. Poissant asked if she should announce all the votes, or just tally the totals. Chairman Hawks instructed her to just tally the votes. He asked if anyone voted for the first category in the negative. None replied. Poissant proceeded to tally the votes and reported that the average score was 7.5. Chairman Hawks thanked the applicant for their work and that the proposal would continue through the process. He asked if there were any public comment. 6 Jimmy Blackburn of 279 Turtle Way asked what the next step would be. Ms. Poissant explained that a site visit would be scheduled and then another meeting to do the full evaluation of the application and score the matrices and those meetings will be scheduled at the end of today’s meeting. She said the TOP Committee will then make their recommendation to Commission. ii. Perform rough cut and vote on TOP application for Front Street Trail; submitted by Gallatin Valley Land Trust a. Committee Discussion: Chairman Hawks then requested an explanation for the second action item. Poissant indicated there is a second application for the Front Street Connector Trail and introduced Kelly Pohl from the Gallatin Valley Land Trust. Ms. Pohl proceeded to give a presentation about the project, providing illustrations on the display screen in the room. She described the project, which is located in northeast Bozeman in an existing public street right-of-way. She said the trail would connect the Oak Street multi-use path to the Story Mill spur trail, which connects to the Trail to the M. It is an important connector and will provide a safe way to get across Rouse Street. It will include a pedestrian bridge and a fence along the railroad ROW. The adjoining neighbor has encroached into the ROW and conversations are underway to deal with the encroachment. The primary purpose is to increase safety by avoiding Rouse entirely as Rouse will only contain bike lanes. Connectivity is also important for east-west movement as is the opportunity to connect to Story Mill Community Park and the Trail to the M. It will be an accessible paved path, allowing people to go on paved paths from North Seventh and the northeast residential areas to other parts of town. It is a sound investment in that no new land needs to be acquired and the path will tie into a future street. It will be built to the far side of the ROW to allow room for the street and the bridge could be re-used later. There is a small water quality component in that the construction of the bridge would include some creek restoration work. The project aligns with the bond ballot language and is called out in the PROST Plan and the Transportation Plan. The total project cost is estimated to be $156,000, including engineering, creek restoration, paving, fencing, and project management. GVLT proposes to contribute about 12% or $18,000. Dodge asked if the trail will match the existing trail along Oak. Pohl responded it does. Dodge said it would be great to get to Story Mill without using Rouse and you can cross Rouse safely at the light at Oak. Director Overton asked if Public 7 Works will be designing the trail. Pohl explained that they have a contract to pre- design the street, but we would have to pay for final design, including engineering and specifications. Overton asked what the progress has been with the neighbor. Pohl said her understanding is that the City Manager has had conversations with the adjoining property owner, which is Kenyon Noble, regarding the encroachment. Some of the items are lumber piles, but there is also a storage building. Pohl said they understand they are encroaching and she would be speaking with the property owner next week. There is a question as to how much they would move as the trail does not require the full width, only about 25 out of the 55 feet, but it is essentially a City issue. Chairman Hawks said he believed the public record would show that this discussion has been going on with Kenyon Noble for at least 25 years, so it is not something new. Chandler asked if it would be better to keep the trail on the south side in the long run. Pohl explained that the creek crossing would likely have to be re-designed when the road is built, along with the trail. Chairman Hawks asked how people would get across the railroad ROW. Pohl explained that there is currently a signalized at-grade crossing. Gary Vodehnal has had discussions about increasing the safety of that crossing, but it is not part of this proposal and should be addressed eventually. People will likely stay on the north side of the street to continue on to the Story Mill spur trail. We have approached the railroad about using their ROW for the path, but they are not interested as it is too close to their main line. Chandler asked if Wallace is a 60-foot ROW, and Pohl said she thinks it is. Chairman Hawks said he thinks this project, given the east-west connection, is a point of critical mass, especially for bicycles as the season approaches. He went on to elaborate concerns regarding turning movements when trails are adjacent to streets, especially right turns, where there is a conflict. He described the Dutch design where the crossing is moved away from the intersection so cars can see the bicycles and stop. Beeman asked if he was referring to the Oak Street intersection. Hawks described a recessed path that allowed more space for cars to stop. He said it was a question for Chris. Mr. Saunders indicated at one point they had looked at going over the railroad tracks as part of a development, but it was a $10 million price tag to do so. Hawks said traffic circles tend to address this issue nicely. Saunders said it would require a lot of work and another railroad crossing to tie Pear directly into Birch, which is not likely to happen. Beeman asked how the conflict of cars turning south onto Rouse from eastbound Oak would be addressed. Pohl said the light will likely be re-designed and could include a pedestrian-activated signal and a separate right-turn signal for vehicles. 8 She said it gets messy because the Rouse re-design is a Montana Dept. of Transportation project. We tried really hard to get a shared-use path along the full length of Rouse but were not able to, so this is the next best thing. She said it would probably be possible to work with MDT on the intersection options. Dodge indicated that if the trail extension were in place, it would give MDT a reason to re- design the light with bicycles in mind. He said the railroad crossing at Rouse was much better than the crossing on Rouse and a better way to get to the Story Mill spur trail. Chairman Hawks asked Commissioner Andrus at what stage they are interfacing with MDT and would it be possible to tweak the Rouse design. Saunders indicated that it is pretty too late as they are in final design and that ROW purchases have already delayed the project. Pohl said she it would really only take some tweaks to the light and would not involve any ROW issues. Chandler said he agreed and that the intersection would need to address ped-bike crossings. Hawks said he just wondered if some pressure from the City Commission could bring that about. Overton said he wanted to underscore the opportunity this path gives people to the west to allow access to a future flagship facility, as an alternative mode of transportation. Beeman said the same goes for the East Gallatin Recreation Area and the entire north side, that there is a lot of benefit to this connector. Poissant asked if people are already going down the railroad ROW. Pohl replied, yes, there is a dirt path that is being used, and that it is neither safe nor legal for people to be that close to the tracks. Clearly there is a demand and we should not allow this to continue. Gary Vodehnal introduced himself as being with the Gallatin Valley Land Trust and having worked on this project. He said it is a great opportunity for people in the north neighborhoods to get over to North Seventh and to connect to the cannery development area. Saunders indicated the boundary of the Northeast Redevelopment district and that state law allows them to spend money outside their boundary if it can be shown to be a direct benefit to the district. Since it connects to the Depot Park and the lack of park facilities is one of the deficiencies in the area, he wondered if they had been approached about funding this project. Pohl said she had spoken to the Board and they were going to write a letter of support. They were in the middle of their budgeting process and she encouraged them to consider financial support. Saunders said that City Commission has final say on their budget so that may get addressed one way or the other. Chairman Hawks asked if there was any further discussion. Poissant said she had a memo she could go through and go down the list. She said the first category is the Guiding Documents and it does meet the general requirement of Resolution 4386, 9 and it aligns with the PROST Plan, which is the second item in that it is shown a trail corridor and shared-use path, so it is clearly identified. It aligns with the Community Plan in addressing the shortage of east-west connections, and it connects high-use areas, other trail corridors and recreational amenities. In terms of Balance, Poissant indicated there has been discussion with Public Works and Commission about the need to spend some of the remaining TOP funds on critical trail connections. This is a relatively small project that can provide a key connector. The maintenance would require plowing for winter maintenance as it is a fully accessible trail. The new bridge would not require maintenance for some time but it is an investment in City infrastructure. Park Operations does not feel it would be a huge consideration at this time. In terms of Opportunity, does it provide an important investment for the City? By coordinating with Public Works, we would hopefully address the proper location of the trail and the bridge could literally be lifted off its abutments and re-use if necessary. There are a few unknowns and depending on discussions with Kenyon Noble, the location of the trail is not yet determined. The proposal suggests a feasible partnership opportunity, as Kelly mentioned, they have letters of support from several organizations and Public Works is providing initial design and engineering which will address the feasibility questions without any additional cost to the project, so just final design and engineering would need to be completed. Chairman Hawks asked if that meant that the project looks to be feasible. Poissant indicated that yes, since Public Works agreed to take it on, it is likely a good assessment. Saunders indicated that it has been the policy of the City for some time to look at alternative modes of transportation and these types of enhancements. In terms of leverage of bond funds, the applicant would be providing 12% of the total project cost, with the City covering roughly 88% of the $156,000 total. She said she thought it would be difficult to find other funds in the near future for this trail project. Chairman Hawks asked if there were any other questions. He then instructed Ms. Poissant to tally the votes. He asked if there was unanimous approval on item number one. Poissant replied yes and that the average score was eight (100%). iii. TOP Project Updates a. Bozeman Pond Expansion Master Site Development Plan Ms. Poissant indicated we are set to start the DRC process and handed out a small copy of the site master plan. Some of the factors that have come up have to do with the cost of the public infrastructure, which include a full street width, 10 streetlight, and crosswalks. The main north-south path is paved, and other paths will be gravel. There are three picnic shelters that would accommodate 1-2 picnic tables each, and we are still working with the Optimist Club as that was indicated as a match (donation). There will be small berm and natural playground, utilizing the felled trees from the Ravalli intersection. It is difficult for Forestry to truck the trees, off, so we are trying to be as efficient as possible. The drainage will be taken to the north, with possibly a small detention pond being constructed at the southwest corner of the dog park as the full detention pond will not be needed until the road is completed. Beeman asked how the overages are being addresses. Poissant said the budget, including the contingency is currently a few hundred dollars over, which does not include the shelter, or any benches or picnic tables, and only three trees. They are using conservative numbers, but word out on the street is that construction costs are really high since everyone is busy. Beeman asked what happens if there is not enough money. Poissant replied that the total budget was $1,045,000, $600,000 went toward the purchase, and the consultant contract was just under $85,000, leaving about $500,000 for construction. Director Overton indicated that construction costs are going up, and infrastructure costs were higher than anticipated. He said we will be meeting with Public Works to see if they can help out in any way, that things change, but to one one’s fault. We treat ourselves just like any other developer. The other aspect will be when we get the actual quote at which time we would come back to the TOP Committee and RPAB if we feel additional funds are needed to get the parks to where it needs to be for a ribbon cutting. Beeman said he was concerned in approving the other projects if we are short on existing projects. Overton said that the overages would definitely be appropriate to come from the revenues from the bond. Poissant said we have about $900,000 left out of the $15 million. Prior to today we had actually $915,000 plus another $300,000 in revenues. We will keep TOP and RPAB involved and will explain to Commission that we only had a rough estimate of what the infrastructure costs would be when it was suggested we allocate $250,000 for the road. We will need to address the current costs as well as costs down the road when Haven comes on line. Chairman Hawks asked if Haven is in the loop. Poissant said we have met with their director and will meet next week and that they are in their early stages of their site planning. Beeman said he is assured that staff is on top of the finances and we would not give a favorable response to the new applications and then have to rescind the offer. Overton said we are watching it every step of the way. If need be, will would come back to the TOP Committee before going to Commission. Poissant indicated that we are at 70-80% CDs for DRC and if any comments come 11 up at DRC, we would have to address that before going to bid. Overton said they we are still planning on a Labor Day ribbon cutting and we would like to have the TOP Committee present. Poissant said she would try to schedule that event way ahead of time, perhaps not on Labor Day in case people are out of town. b. Bozeman Sports Park Poissant continued, saying regarding the Sports Park, we have selected DOWL, a local, all-inclusive engineering firm, who teamed together with Steiner Thuesen, a landscape architecture firm, Siegfried out of California, and Bayliss, a local architecture firm. We interviewed three teams and they came out on top. They are preparing their cost proposal now and we should be getting it soon. She said she anticipates that it will be sizeable, given the $4.6 million budget and that engineering costs are usually about 10% of the budget, with another 5% for construction management. Hawks asked if water conservation would be a factor and Poissant replied that she has met with Lain and the Sustainability Coordinator (Natalie) and they will be keeping in contact. She said that DOWL had stood out in addressing the water issues and we will definitely look at re-using water and possibly using artificial turf. The Professional Services Agreement will go to Commission and there will be a series of public workshops to refine the Master Site Development Plan before bringing it to Commission for approval. The plans will then go through DRC. The $1.78 million amount allocated for the road infrastructure is being handed over to Engineering as they are already designing the roads and will manage all the public ROW infrastructure. We are also finishing up the annexation and zoning – TD&H is handling that as they did the original COS. We are also looking at a draft Donor Recognition Policy that would be an amendment to the Agreement with the Sports Park Foundation. Anything proposed will have to comply with the Master Plan so we will come up with some design criteria, or template, that will need to be adhered to. The Foundation is determining their fundraising goals and we are not getting into the dollar amounts specifically. We will bring that amendment to Commission so the Foundation can tell donors what types of recognition are available. Chairman Haws asked if the committee that brought the application forward was still together. Poissant explained that it served as the basis for the Sports Parks Foundation and an actual non-profit has been formed, with a Board of Directors, bylaws, etc. They have not yet obtained their tax-exempt status, so the Bozeman Community Foundation is processing their donations for now. They have various committees and we will interface with them as to the design. c. Bozeman Creek Enhancement Project 12 Poissant indicated we will need to process and amendment to the Bozeman Creek design and engineering contract with Confluence Consulting. They were given and initial contract to do preliminary design, and the first amendment was completed in 2013 to complete final design. In the course of the design, one property owner decided not to allow access or any changes on his property, which extend all the way into the park across the creek, so it will include one meander instead of two, leaving the creek as is at his property, with floodplain enhancements on either side. The hydraulic calculations had been done, so we will need to revise some details for the FEMA Letter of Map Revision, which will cost about $7000, bringing the total contract to $139,000. We are hoping to take this PSA Amendment and the Sports Park PSA to Commission on April 6th. The timeline for construction is still the same, in that we plan to go to bid this fall and complete construction in spring of 2016. d. Story Mill Community Park For Story Mill Community Park, Poissant indicated Maddy from TPL is working with a new planner whom she met with, who will probably shepherd the project through the DRC process. Maddy is very meticulous about the budget and fundraising and is keeping track of all that in developing the scope of work. e. Trail to the M Poissant said we have selected an alignment on the north side of Bridger Canyon Drive and will need to acquire some right-of-way in order to avoid having a huge retaining wall adjacent to the trail. We will utilize a consultant that is already on board with the Engineering Department to perform the right-of-way negotiations. Poissant said she will be drafting a scope of work with Kirk from the Federal Lands Access Program and anticipate it to be under $10,000. She said she was not sure if the amount would strictly come from our match or if FLAP would kick in a portion. Either way, it should not have a huge impact on the budget. Once that process is completed, we can move into final engineering. Chandler asked how far off the highway it would be. Poissant explained it would be elevated a bit above the road, with the drainage ditch left in place for snow storage. It would be graded back to avoid having a large retaining wall, and the trail would be about 20-30 feet from the pavement. We are trying to keep it minimal, just a few slivers of right-of-way. Director Overton indicated that this was the original alignment that was identified in the application, and that if we moved to the south side, the trail would be adjacent to the guardrail. Poissant mentioned that she had met with one property owner on the south side of Bridger Canyon Drive, and that there may be more inquiries as the project moves forward. She said there will be another public workshop to present the preferred alternative to 13 the community. All the adjacent property owners will be noticed when it goes to DRC. Further discussion: Chairman Hawks asked if members of the TOP Committee should be present when these projects go before the City Commission. Overton asked if he meant for the contract amendments. He said it always shows solidarity when people are there, but it is not mandatory. Hawks said to make a judgment call and notify the Committee members so they could divvy up attendance to the meetings. Overton said even if items are just on the Consent agenda, it always helps to have support in the audience to show solidarity and cooperation. Chandler asked if Commission has to act on the Rough Cut. Overton said it will not go to Commission until the TOP Committee does their full evaluation and makes a recommendation regarding the application. iv. FYI a. Dodge said his term expires next month and asked if there is something they need to do. Commissioner Andrus said he would probably have to be reappointed by the Commission. Chandler indicated that he would have to go through the entire process, starting with the Clerk’s office. Dodge said he would probably need to obtain a recommendation from RPAB as the liaison to the TOP Committee. Ms. Poissant said she would send the appropriate information out. b. Director Overton said he had a couple FYIs. He said there was a mention of the Bozeman Pond project in the national parks and recreation magazine as part of a larger article describing partnership funding. It was good exposure, mentioning Bozeman at the beginning. Beeman asked if that was something that was done by the City. Poissant indicated that GVLT had provided the information and Penelope Pierce was quoted as it related to conservation organizations. On a local level, this month’s Montana Parent had an article about the Sports Park. It mentioned TOP and the bond funding, a small article, but very positive. Also, Carolyn will be meeting to discuss a grant application for the Sports Park with the Mountain Sky Guest Ranch Foundation, along with the Bozeman Sports Park Foundation and partners, GVLT, Run Dog Run, to make a pitch for that project. He said he will be meeting with Community Development at that time on another project. Overton also mentioned he had reviewed a guest column by Public Works for the Chronicle that addresses the water quality benefits of the Story Mill Community Park. c. Chairman Hawks again mentioned the issues of the bike crossing and asked if we could interface (with MDT) regarding the signal at the intersection of Oak and Rouse. Chandler noted that the intersection would have to have a pedestrian 14 signal. Overton mentioned that in another community he had worked to put in an “all-stop” for pedestrians at a busy “star” intersection, which was very successful in providing security for all pedestrian movement. Dodge mentioned that those exist in downtown Denver. Chandler said it was a good idea for roundabouts which are notoriously dangerous for bikes, so having a stop down the street would help drivers focus. Poissant mentioned that it would be good if the flashing yellow was longer. The signalization time period is critical and should be consistent, and preferably have the second count-down indicated. Commissioner Andrus said she could mention these ideas to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Committee. v. Set date of next meeting -discussion Poissant mentioned that the two sites are pretty close together. Beeman mentioned he would be out of town April 2nd. The committee decided to meet on April 9th at 10:00. Overton said it would be a scheduled, posted meeting. It was decided to meet at the entry to the East Gallatin Recreation Area and then proceed to the Front Street location. Poissant asked if they wanted to go over both sets of matrices at one meeting. Overton asked if they wanted to then meet during the next regular meeting. There was discussion regarding going over both in one meeting. Andrus said she wondered how the Growth Policy Amendment decision might affect the schedule. Overton indicated that the proposal will go to Planning Board on April 9th and Commission on April 20th. There was some discussion as to how the GPA proposal might affect the East Gallatin TOP project proposal. Director Overton mentioned that he had spoken the City Attorney about the timing of this project, but that it was not clear that there was any specific line in the sand. Commissioner Andrus said she was concerned about all the moving pieces. Chairman Hawks said it perhaps would be better for the Commission to have a recommendation than not to have one. Andrus said she was concerned about the lack of a full presentation and the hearsay of having support of the property owner without then being present. Beeman said he was comfortable with the amount of information they had for the Rough Cut. Chandler said in the past they had allowed the applicant flexibility to give a presentation when the matrices were scored. There was further discussion about the times and getting the supporting materials out. Poissant indicated she would get documents out before the walk-through on April 9th. It was decided that the meeting to perform the review of the matrices on April 16th to start at 9:00 AM to allow enough time to evaluate both applications, with the Front Street application being reviewed first. vi. Adjournment – meeting adjourned at 11:52 a.m.