Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-15Draft_TOP Minutes_MINUTES OF THE TRAILS, OPEN SPACE AND PARKS COMMITTEE MEETING, APRIL 16, 2015 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Hawks, Commission Chair Doug Chandler Sandy Dodge, Vice Chair Don Beeman Cyndy Andrus, Commission Liaison Tom Starner COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: COMMITTEE MEMBERS UNEXCUSED ASBENCE: CITY STAFF PRESENT: Mitch Overton, Parks & Recreation Director Carolyn Poissant, Manger Trails, Open Space and Parks Design & Development Debbie Barnett, Recording Secretary Greg Sullivan, City Attorney I. Meeting was called to order at 9:00 by Chair Hawks II. Approval of minutes – Bob Hawks request attendance be changed to excused for prior meeting. This was followed by a discussion regarding what is excused (prior notice given) and unexcused. Change made to March 19, 2015 and Minutes approved. April 9, 2015 Site Tour Meeting Minutes to be approved at the next meeting. III. Changes to Agenda a) Email received by East Gallatin Recreation Area Applicant (see attached) IV. Disclosures a) Tom Starner spoke with Ashley Ogle, Kenyon Noble, regarding the site tour on April 9 and they’re aware of everything and working with GVLT. b) Sandy Dodge spoke with Kelly Pohl with GVLT regarding what kind of questions people had at the April 9 site meeting. c) Doug Chandler said he might have a conflict of interest with East Gallatin Rec Area application and may step back from the project. Contacted Greg Gianforte and would help with the application – Sunrise Rotary club may be applicant and he recused himself. d) Bob Hawks did a walkthrough with Sandy Dodge on the Front Street project, where they had a by-chance visitor (next door architect firm) and spoke with them as well. Bob toured the site again on his own and he feels he’s fully informed at this point. V. Action Items b) Rough cut on East Gallatin Recreation Area  Public comment  Cyndy Andrus has a question regarding whether a verbal commitment was received for this project or did we receive something in writing.  Carolyn Doesn’t have all the history – it comes from the grant application  A letter was received from Pickens - he previously committed to $200,000 and he’s reduced it to $80,000 MINUTES OF THE TRAILS, OPEN SPACE AND PARKS COMMITTEE MEETING, APRIL 16, 2015  Cyndy would like to know how committed they are to this project because it’s changed over time. Should we expect a letter of intent before it goes further; per Carolyn, yes, we should receive a letter.  Amount has changed on this application – they’re now seeking $320,000 total from TOP  Discussion  Amendment received on 4/15/15 (see attached document)  Applicant is not here, but will need to go through another rough cut due to substantial change to application.  Doug recused himself – sits away from table.  Sandy Dodge: No money for development from this group – it’s just for the real estate transaction. Closing cost not included. Why does a property not annexed, undeveloped, not zoned for development and has a toxic water issue come in at 3x the amount o Tom states that size is relevant – feels the location and zoning is relevant. Different elements and the value is there. o Don Beeman: what assumption should we base the value on? o Carolyn Poissant: for clarification that the property is zoned in the County.  Bob states there is no further discussion  Any additional public comment  Carolyn notes on the email that application states meeting today is 10:00. Time was posted with Agenda.  Decision to move forward with application and vote using Guiding Documents for Resolution 4386 TOP ROUGH CUT MATRIX (see sheets attached)  Sandy Dodge - No o Carolyn Poissant: is concern that the first question on the matrix is a mandatory yes by all - required in order to proceed with application process. Cannot move forward. o Bob Hawks states he didn’t think the first vote had to be unanimous – it’s not clear in his mind. o Sandy Dodge clarifies his position that nothing on ballot language says “not a storage unit” is what the public voted for – would like to see some development plan come forward before it can be considered an appropriate use for TOP funds. Was not aware that one vote kills the project. o Tom Starner believes it should be based on an average score and not a unanimous score, which is the purpose of a committee o Greg Sullivan, City Attorney, believes they should proceed with the process and ultimately the Commission will decide.  Beeman – yes - but no on the long term investment  Bob Hawks – yes  Tom Starner – yes  (3) Yes (1) No o Average score of is met and passes MINUTES OF THE TRAILS, OPEN SPACE AND PARKS COMMITTEE MEETING, APRIL 16, 2015 a. Rough cut for Front Street Trail  Presentation was on the March 19th and site visit was April 9th. Applicant is present.  Public Comment: Applicant, Kelly Pohl with GVLT :  GVLT is asking $137,000  Support from community is great – have letters supporting  Speaking with City Engineering - no curb and gutter should be required at this time & no additional work  Trail is a standalone project  Front street development is about 10-15 years out  Had dialog with Kenyon Noble and shared info & know they’re in the ROW  Timing is important and knowing how much they’ll have to move out of the ROW and will discuss with City Engineers over the next 9 months  Possibly share cost of fencing, etc.  Not enthusiastic about moving, but GVLT cannot negotiate on behalf of the City.  Have to wait for City Engineering to define and draft the designs.  Doug Chandler states if building is to be moved at all it would make sense to move entirely out of ROW at this time. Type of structure they have is simpler to move.  No infrastructure needed just an asphalt path.  Kelly: regarding crossing on Wallace – the head of crossings with the railroad department said the current design is about as safe as it can possibly get at this point. Might be some innovation down the road, but current design works well.  Carolyn asked if Public Works will be in charge of this project because it’s in City ROW - Brian from Public Works said he did not have an answer at this point.  Carolyn Poissant would like City Engineering to proof budget once information is available.  Doug Chandler: spending $11,000 seems unreasonable for a fence; working with Kenyon Noble is one thing but we shouldn’t have to build the fence. Kelly states it’s an issue of safety along the railway (protecting children and dogs) and not for property division for Kenyon Noble property. It was still noted that this seems unreasonable. Tom Starner seconded this statement.  It was asked if we should be having City Commission approve use of the trail when the ROW is still in discussion at City Engineering.  Cindy Andrus states that there’s nothing currently on the radar screen for Commission in regards to the ROW. If TOP feels this is an important project then they should bring it to the City so they can have a discussion with Kenyon Noble.  City does have the Oak street connection currently from Rouse to Highland intersection.  City engineering strongly suggest that they keep conversation of the City development of roads and trails separate. Should finish conversation and suggest we determine ROW needed with this application so that City can then discuss with Kenyon Noble.  No further discussion  No additional public comment MINUTES OF THE TRAILS, OPEN SPACE AND PARKS COMMITTEE MEETING, APRIL 16, 2015  Motion: Motion to move ahead with matrix - project passes the test. Bob ask if anyone’s averaged less than 60% - all above 60%. (see attached Community Benefit Matrix sheets)  Beeman motions to recommend to commitment to move forward. Doug seconds. Unanimously passed. VI. Discussion Items a. Mr. Blackburn, East Gallatin Rec Area applicant, arrives at 10:00 today. He was told the meeting was at 10:00 a.m., not 9:00 a.m. He request information about their application and is told they’re proceeding to the next round, with a site tour scheduled for April 30, 2015 @ 10:00 a.m. Cindy Andrus adds that there was some concern as to how this project fits into the legal guidelines for the bond, but a site review is still scheduled for April 30, 2015. b. Commission approved appointment of Sandy Dodge and Doug Chandler to the Advisory Board at their last meeting. c. MANGERS UPDATE – Carolyn Poissant  Park & Recreation Advisory Board has issue with the Dog Park fence having to be moved due to the easement issue. They were hoping not to have to move the fence.  TOP Board feels that if Kenyon Noble has to move out of easement they should also have to move the fence out of easement. No favoritism should be shown. Insurance should cover the cost due to the survey being incorrect.  Bozeman Pond – Infrastructure cost has come up. Site plan doesn’t comply and requires completion of roads and a parking lot. Bond money would cover Fowler improvements only. Haven coming on-line triggered the improvements and they’re only responsible for 20% of the total cost. As the park runs on both sides of Pond Row the commitment is larger.  Doug Chandler: GVLT had a discussion with City Engineering regarding improvements and originally it was told that they shouldn’t worry about the impact fees. Now the site plan is under review they’re treating the project as they’re developers.  Question: regarding development based on location of land – how important is that land on the north side? Maybe remove the portion of the land located on the north side to make this infrastructure plan work. And, is this appropriate use of TOP funds, as it was never intended to be used to build infrastructure?  Doug Chandler: suggest having Pond Row built wider and having diagonal parking, eliminating the parking lot – which would also slow traffic down.  Mitch Overton: TOP is designated for parks, even though the road is triggered by Haven. Originally told to acquire the property and discuss the road issues at a later date, which we’re now at this later date. We don’t usually cut a park in two but this plan has a distinctive feature on the north and south side, which puts the park on both sides of the road. MINUTES OF THE TRAILS, OPEN SPACE AND PARKS COMMITTEE MEETING, APRIL 16, 2015  Sports Park  Waiting on report – which we should have this week with cost of construction.  Master Plan portion is $250,000  Construction/Admin, etc - $600,000  Bozeman Creek  Professional Service Agreement – approved by Commission.  Site visit for next Monday or Tuesday scheduled.  Should be finalized and on track for next fall.  Story Mill  Draft of RFQ to Trust for Public Lands for engineering work.  Community group for impact of final details.  Professor Craig with MSU Archeology Dept took a group of students into the area. Only groups with special permission are allowed on site, otherwise the area is posted to the public regarding construction.  “M”  Federal land project team meeting is schedule for Wed, April 29 at the Commissioner Chambers from 4-7:00 pm. This is a community update presentation. VII. FYI: Schedule  Next meeting is a site tour on April 30th – Cyndy Andrus is not available, Doug Chandler to recuse himself – feels he has a conflict of interest with Rotary and will not be present.  Next Advisory meeting: prepare recommendation to Commission on Front Street Trail. Date is May 22, 2015 at 10:00 in the Professional Building conference room. VIII. Additional Discussion  Don Beeman would like to include discussion regarding how much do we get into the process and is this efficient use of time? Is the board helping or hurting the process?  Sandy Dodge: As interest is being paid on the bond money it helps to account to the public.  It’s cautioned that we need to stay focused on what we are tasked to do.  It’s good to have no surprises – helps to hear from advisory.  Bob Hawks feels the situation this morning regarding unanimous or average score on the first bond matrix question needs to be cleared up at the next board meeting. He feels five people’s opinion works as this is committee. Additional comments include:  This is advisory and Commission will want our write up  One person should not be able to veto on Advisory – not fair for the one negative vote  Should this be a one step process? Or, does this allow the applicant to receive feedback. MINUTES OF THE TRAILS, OPEN SPACE AND PARKS COMMITTEE MEETING, APRIL 16, 2015  Should there be a mandatory yes from all on a rough cut?  Cyndy Andrus feels there should be a majority of all members. One person should not stop the discussion, as Commissioners would never get anything!  Committee should consult with City Attorney before next meeting.  Tom Starner: some concern that the EGRA is being considered when they’re not in first position on the land. Are we wasting time or motivating the first buyer to purchase?  No further discussion. IX. Meeting Adjourned - Sandy Dodge motions to adjourned. Beeman seconds. Motion is passed unanimously. ________________________________ Bob Hawks, Chair Attest: ______________________________ Carolyn Poissant, TOP Manager PREPARED BY: ______________________________ Debbie Barnett, Recording Secretary Approved on____________________