Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Community Charrette Boz 2020 Plan 6-2000
n n n n n n n COMMUNITY CHARRETTE n BOZEMAN 2020 PLAN n n n n .� n .� n I n n 2 0 2 O () Shaping Our Future Together n n A Community Participation Event Conducted for the City of Bozeman, Montana by James E. Pepper,Planner and Team Director Dale Beland,Planner l ) Thomas Bitnar,Architect l ) Richard Charlesworth,Architect George Mattson,Architect li - with assistance from City of Bozeman Planning Department Staff Lj L� U l� June 2,3,and 4,2000 UBozeman Holiday Inn l� U �J U �J TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1 Purpose 1 Process 1 Program 2 Charrette Team Composition 3 SUPPORTING INFORMATION 4 Quantitative Data 4 Inventories and Projections 4 Community Surveys & Historic Growth Data 9 Qualitative Data I I Open Houses I 1 Focus Group Discussions 12 Charrette"Place Maps" 12 CHARRETTE WORK PRODUCTS 16 Introduction 16 Base Maps 19 Charrette-Generated Maps and Diagrams 19 (1) Existing Developed Area 19 Planning Implications 19 Policy Implications 21 (2) Natural Features Framework 21 Planning Implications 21 Policy Implications 21 (3) Primary Circulation System 21 Planning Implications 24 Policy Implications 24 (4) Parks 25 Planning Implications 25 Policy Implications 25 i Community Charrette 11/28/00 i f t ' E (5) Trail System 25 Planning Implications 25 Policy Implications 28 r (6) Urban Form&Structure: The Historic City Core 28 Planning Implications 30 Policy Implications 30 Additional Planning Implications 30 Additional Policy Implications 32 i } (7) Major Public Buildings 32 Planning Implications 32 Policy Implications 32 (8) Housing and Neighborhood Structure 34 s Planning Implications 34 I Policy Implications 34 (9) Economic Development 36 Planning Implications 36 j Policy Implications 36 i (10)Major Infill Opportunities 36 t Planning Implications 38 Policy Implications 38 (11)Major Expansion Opportunities 38 Objectives 38 Constraints 38 Planning Implications 41 Policy Implications 41 RECOMMENDATIONS 42 NEXT STEPS 43 APPENDICES Bound Separately ii Community Chwette 11/28/00 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Projected Housing Units and Land Area 5 Figure 2:Projected Land Area for Commercial and Industrial Uses 6 Figure 3: Projected Land Area for Parks 7 Figure 4: Place Map—Participants Place of Residence 13 Figure 5:Place Map--Heart of the Community 14 Figure 6: Place Map—Favorite Places 15 Figure 7: Place Map—Opportunity Areas 17 Figure 8: Place Map--Problem Areas 18 Figure 9: Existing Developed Area 20 Figure 10: Natural Features Framework 22 Figure 11: Primary Circulation System 23 Figure 12: Potential Parks 26 Figure 13: Trail System 27 Figure 14:Urban Form and Structure: The Historic City Core 29 Figure 14A: Enlarged Plan of Historic Core 31 Figure 15: Major Public Buildings 33 Figure 16: Housing and Neighborhood Structure 35 Figure 17: Major Infill Opportunities 37 Figure 18: Major Expansion Opportunities 39 iii Community ChwTette 11/28/00 3 C } . LIST OF TABLES Table l:Historic Land Area and Population Growth 9 Table 2: Scenario One--Projected Increase in Land Area Using Average t Rate of Increase for Preceding 15 year Period 10 Table 3: Scenario Two--Projected Population Density if Projected Increase in Land Area is Reduced by 50 Percent 11 Table 4:Projected Increase in Land Area per City Projections 40 iv Community Charrette 11/28/00 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Purpose This report summarizes a three-day public-participation planning project conducted in June 2000 as a part of the process for updating the City of Bozeman Master Plan. The purpose of the event, referred to as a"Charrette", was to provide an opportunity for members of the community to contribute to the formulation of the Master Plan through an interactive,hands-on collaborative process involving the public,planning professionals, and city staff. The emphasis of this particular event was to provide geographic, i.e., spatial definition to the community's vision of the future of Bozeman. Results of this collaborative process were represented in drawings and diagrams that reflected the contributions of the public participants, as well as the findings of an extensive community survey and previous community events. Alternatives were generated and explored in response to issues and concerns manifest in a series of topics considered central to the Master Plan update: (1)land use and growth pattern; (2)housing;(3)transportation and circulation; (4)parks, recreation, trails, open space, and natural lands protection; (5)economic development; and(6)urban form and structure(particularly regards the historic downtown core). These alternatives were then graphically displayed in map form, and it is this series of maps, along with this narrative summary,that represent the most important product of the Charrette, The Charrette extended over a three-day weekend period. Brief presentations by the Mayor, Chair of the Planning Board, and the director of the Charrette Team(described below)initiated the Friday evening program which consisted primarily of focussed community engagement with the topics listed above. The Charrette Team then held working sessions, including intermittent public review, all day Saturday and Sunday morning,with a concluding wrap-up session and presentation of findings on Sunday afternoon. Process The Charrette was conducted by a volunteer team of local professionals--planners and architects assisted by members of the City of Bozeman Planning Department. The Charrette Team (hereinafter referred to as the"Team")had four basic responsibilities: • to review existing materials summarizing public comments and suggestions as developed through public surveys and previous public meetings and focus sessions; • to record public comments and suggestions made at the Friday evening Charrette session, particularly comments and ideas expressed in graphic, geographic form; • to interpret these public comments and suggestions and to prepare schematic drawings and diagrams that organized this material into a series of maps illustrating land use alternatives;and • to interpret public comments and suggestions set forth in the earlier survey and previous public participation events, and to incorporate this material into the preparation of the schematic drawings and diagrams noted above. Page- 1 Community Charrette 11/28/00 As detailed below,the process was open, iterative,and collaborative. All work was carried out under public observation. The Friday evening break-out tables were organized to maximize participation of and contributions by members of the Bozeman community. These sessions were facilitated by a member of the Planning Board, notes were taken for each table, and a member of the Charrette Team(or city staff member)provided graphic support for each table. Community members determined the direction of discussion and suggestions for the various tables. On Saturday and Sunday,the Team working sessions were conducted under public observation, and included some interaction between Team members and the observing public, although the focus was on material that had been developed prior to the working session(i.e., Friday evening and previous surveys and focus groups). Periodic informal review sessions were held among team members throughout the process, with a more formal public review and comment session held late Saturday afternoon and a wrap-up session on Sunday afternoon. A number of community members were present throughout the various working sessions, as well at the review and wrap-up session. Approximately 75 members of the public participated in the Charrette. Program As summarized above,the Charrette extended over a three-day period, starting with an evening session on Friday, dune 2, through an afternoon wrap-up session on Sunday,June 4 as summarized below: Friday,June 2 7:00 PM Greeting and Participation in creation of"Community Place Maps"(see below) 7:15 PM Welcome and Opening Remarks by Mayor Marcia Youngman Overview of Bozeman 2020 Plan process by Ed Musser, Planning Board Chair 7.30 PM Slide Presentation: Introduction and Overview of Previous Bozeman Master Plans;Jim Pepper, Charrette Team Director(Prints of the slides, each with a brief explanatory note are included the Appendix.) 8:00 PM Public break-out tables. Task: Provide geographic-specific suggestions and comments on the following topics: land use;growth management; environmental quality(including trails, habitat protection, open space, and parks);housing; circulation and transportation; economic development; and the historic downtown core. 9:30 PM Refreshments and Social Mixer;continue break-out tables 11:00 PM Conclude Friday evening program Saturday,June 3 8.00 AM Charrette Team working breakfast. Task: Review evening program and assign tasks and topics Page-2 Community Charrette 11/28/00 9:00 AM Charrette Team work session;public invited to observe. Task: Assemble ideas and concepts;formalize conceptual alternatives;and prepare preliminary concept maps and diagrams 12:00 Noon Charrette Team working lunch. Task: Review work in progress;brainstorm issues and alternatives;review team organization and reassign tasks and topics as warranted. 2:00 PM Summary of Friday evening program presented to the public;presentation by Chris Saunders, Associate Planner, City of Bozeman 4:00 PM informal public review and comment on work in progress. Task: present work in progress and solicit comment and critique from members of the public and city staff. 5:30 PM Conclude Saturday work session Sunday,June 4 9:00 AM Charrette Team working breakfast. Task: Review Saturday work products; review and discuss public and staff comments;assign tasks. 10.00 AM Charrette Team work session;public invited to observe. Task: Revise work in progress per public and staff comments; refine conceptual alternatives;prepare more detailed preliminary concept maps and diagrams 1.30 PM Charrette Team working lunch. 3:00 PM Wrap-up session. Task: Presentation of work products;public review and comment on work products. 4:00 PM Refreshments and Social Mixer 5:30 PM Conclude Sunday session Charrette Team Composition The Charrette was organized and directed by Jim Pepper, a Bozeman native who returned to Bozeman after a lengthy professional and academic career in California. Mr. Pepper's professional experience and expertise is in land use planning and urban design. Other professionals serving on the Charrette Team were planner Dale Beland, and architects George Mattson,Thomas Bitnar, and Richard Charlesworth. Mssrs. Pepper, Beland, and Mattson's professional careers each span forty year, following undergraduate degrees in Architecture at Montana State University. Although Pepper and Beland returned to Bozeman following professional careers in California, Mattson has maintained a professional practice in Bozeman for 25 years. Bitnar and Charlesworth previously practiced in New York and Jackson, Wyoming respectively. Mike Bruckner, an intern with the Bitnar firm, also participated in the Charrette. Page-3 Community Chamtte I I/28/00 Staff members from the City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development assisting the Charrette Team were Andy Epple,Planning Director•, Chris Saunders, Planner; John Sherman, Planner; and Jody Olson, Planner. Two Vista Volunteers, Cheryn Fairbairn and Ashley Greene, assisted with logistics before and during the event. Members of the Planning Board actively participated in the Charrette: Ed Musser, Chair;Ben Alexander;Joanne Eaton;Joe Frost;Brian Gallik;Eric Lindeen; Nikki Naiser;and Rich Noonan. City Manager Clark Johnson also assisted in the preparation and support of the Charrette. SUPPORTING INFORMATION This subsection summarizes information upon which the Charrette was based. As described below,this information takes three forms: (1) quantitative data on historic growth patterns, land use, demography, etc.,prepared by the Planning Department; (2) gualitative data generated through various forms of public participation(including the Friday evening session of the Charrette); and (3) normative data in the form of draft Goal Statements prepared by the Planning Board. The following discussion of supporting information is organized into these three categories. Quantitative Data Inventories and Proiections The Bozeman Planning Department prepared the following data summaries for the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan; these data sheets are included as Figures 1, 2, and 3 of this report. Figure 1 (page 5): • Number of projected housing units(in five year increments—2005, 2010,2015,2020); • Area(acres)projected for new housing units(in five year increments). Figure 2 (page 6): • Existing area(acres)of commercial and industrial zoning; • Existing area(acres)of land use types, including area available for development,percent of city land area, and comparison with national averages; • Area(acres)projected for new commercial and industrial development(in five year increments--2005,2010,2015, and 2020). Figure 3 (page 7): • Existing area(acres) of City parks and comparison to national standards • Projected(estimated)area(acres) of City Parks (in five year increments—2005,2010, 2015, and 2020). Page-4 Figure 1 lw I 5 St M1: "tJ t < Ln CCU a4 �I r L ^ ^'' Cc) 1 a+ p p O O U ru as �" b o 4.4 14 00 LL y� c O G y i N bpA W I C O RS O ;� C) U G "1 ' tr ♦-�-! V N xi ti - O c 'L1 ct p «t Gti ti? r-. U p O O " U Ln C:) c r) C) } ,r; sa O C14 U sy y ..ct1�U, , `>ui�,;.� N N 1 e4 eUc �`'` ti t' # ■ J ❑ o 0 0 0 bjO © ro _ - o 0 ' ) 4.4 tn QD CQ� lS� M En Lf� O O O Nxk v e� U o C'� LD s b oil 111 # 14 r V Q Q) C3 C) C--) Q< a j Q C_3 C� 0 C)p fL �� � s� c Page - 5 7 F Figure 2 'R ty 5 x v � rt j 4, 1 cz i ti AFS � � 5 d Yy C`i a 1 1 o 03 '- ¢ ° 1q�ktea gn ,VIA, i m m 0 cc 00 i�t ,fl3 jfll to tn ++ tn 2 cq rh _ G t rA Li C] C0 p I � co E y h CL ' O w 0Lo � W N 0 r- Iz N _ cn 3 i rn n U7 � r U Page - 6 Figure 3 DO ru 14-4 L , CJ � n7 � d" d' '� GJ -.�•-t w �a�' s�t��"z ��� �.1,� ` �, p �N $ y ±� G V �{ b �k k C+. O ski ■ ! -� - cUa Fl C/J W M r- ftl <', ' CNI C` Q kr +-1 Q N NCN '.. iC LC CC CZ, O N' O ly 4F iS,.it. F b F V 00000: ZVI F4 00 a � ("0 Mi Okn eq U � Ggt L � N c 1 O CCf �� d t4.' C , o CQ -7771�- Page - 7 Community Charrette 11/28/00 Community Survey Additional quantitative data is contained in the Bozeman 2020 Plan, Community Characteristics and Opinion Survey, distributed to 1,200 randomly selected households in October 1999. The summary of this survey is included as an Appendix to this report. Results of this survey are of particular interest since they reflect 438 responses, and the results provide a statistically robust sample of the opinions of Bozeman residents(see"About the Survey"on page 1 of the survey results). Two questions in October 1999 survey provide quantitative data on the mobility of Bozeman residents and their previous place of residence. Question 14 asked respondents how long they had lived in their current dwelling unit. Thirty six percent of the respondents indicated that they had lived in their current dwelling unit for more than ten years, and an additional fourteen percent had lived in their current housing for six to ten years. The remaining fifty percent of the respondents had lived in their current housing five years or less, indicating that the Bozeman population is highly mobile in terms of housing tenure. Question 15 asked respondents to identify the location of the housing unit in which they lived prior to their current housing unit. Forty percent of the respondents lived outside Bozeman prior to moving to their present housing unit; (22%previously lived out of state; 7%lived in Montana but outside Gallatin County; 11%lived within Gallatin County but outside Bozeman). These data indicate that in 1999, four out of ten new occupancies of the city's housing stock were the result of in-migration. Question 16 asked respondents why they choose to live within the City of Bozeman. One half of the approximately 200 respondents to this question identified"convenience";the close "proximity"to stores, services,and activities;the "manageable"size of the city as their most important reason for choosing to live in Bozeman. Approximately 5%respondents identified "natural beauty"of the area as the primary reason for choosing to live in Bozeman, and only 7% identified a job opportunity as the primary reason for their choice. These data suggest that half of the city's residents selected Bozeman due to its compact, accessible, and manageable size. This single consideration constitutes a key direction in the identification of Charrette laud use options. However,when asked to identify(in order of importance) five or more important items from a list of items City residents often boast about(Question 18), respondents turned to outdoor recreation and the quality of the natural environment as their top choices. Other frequently mentioned attributes of interest to the Charrette process included"attractive town", "downtown", "sense of community", "school system", "trail system","parks and playfaelds", and"street trees". Clearly, Bozeman residents appreciate the quality of both the natural and built environment, and the sense of community that the city affords. These data suggest that residents value these qualities of the city and that these qualities should be protected and/or conserved in the formulation of the Master Plan update. Note that in combination and summary these findings suggest a compact, accessible city that is situated within a high quality natural environment that affords outdoor recreation opportunities. These considerations also constitute an important direction in the identification of Charrette land use options. Question 19 asked respondents to rank-order a list of items that City residents most often complain about. Traffic was identified as the most pressing problem,followed by low paying jobs, loss of rural lands, cost of housing, and urban sprawl. Traffic, loss of rural lands, and urban Page-8 Community Charrette 11/29/00 sprawl are clearly important factors in considering land use options, and housing costs are directly related to the types of housing provided for in the Master Plan update. Question 20 asked respondents to identify one item that they would most want the 2020 Community Plan to accomplish. The control and/or management of growth was by far the most frequently identified item, identified by 39%of the respondents. The solution of traffic problems was the second most frequently cited response, identified by 19%of the respondents. The balance of the responses were identified by less than 10%of the respondents and were distributed among a number of items,including tax and income concerns,housing, quality of life, and downtown. The responses to this question underscore the importance city residents give to the issue of controlling Bozeman's growth,presumably in a manner that would protect the positive factors identified in other parts of the survey, such as maintenance of open space lands, protection of natural lands,and a compact, accessible,urban area, This quantitative data was used in generating several of the Charrette maps. Data on projected growth{i.e., land required for housing, commercial, industrial, and parks)is reflected on the Charrette maps showing the magnitude and location of existing opportunities for infill development and for future growth at the perimeter of the city. Data identifying the positive attributes of Bozeman are reflected in the organization of the land use pattern and in the form and structure of the urban area as shown in Charrette maps concerned with maintaining the vitality of the historic core of the city. Historic Growth Data City staff also prepared a series of maps showing the historic growth pattern of Bozeman as reflected in annexations. These maps, which show annexations in twelve periods ranging from seven to thirteen years, are included in this report as an Appendix. Table i summarizes the data shown in these maps showing the historic growth of the city. Table 1: Historic Land Area and Population Growth Year Area Population Period Total Change Percent Total Numerical Percent Density Interval City In area Increase Increase Increase (pers per (years) (sq- mi.) (sq. mi.) (per year) I (per year) sq.zni.) 1892 2.78 3,419 1,229.86 1905 13 3.251 0,47 1.30% 3,419 - 0,00% 1,052.00 1915 10 3.25 0.00 0.00% 5,107 1,688 4.94% 1,571.38 1925 10 3.25 0,00 0,00% 6,183 1,076 2.11% 1,902.46 1935 10 3.25 0,00 0.00% 8,855 2,672 4.32% 2,724.62 1945 10 3.25 0.00 0.00% 8,665 190 -0.21% 2,666,15 1956 11 3.31 0.06 0.17% II,325 2,660 2,79% 3,421.45 1964 8 6.05 2.74 10,35°/n 13,361 2,036 2.25% 2,208.43 1972 8 6.63 0.58 120% 18,670 5,309 4.97% 2,815.99 1984 12 7.91 1.28 1.61% 21,645 2,975 1.33% 2,736.41 1993 9 10.10 2,19 3.08% 22,660 1,015 0.52% 2,243.56 2000 7 10.621 0,52 0.74% 32,000 9,340 5.89% 3,013.18 Page-9 Community Charrette 11/28/00 Several important observations can be drawn from analyses of these data. • The physical size of the City of Bozeman remained relatively stable from the founding of the city in 1892 until the period 1956-1964 • The size of the city roughly doubled during the 72-year period 1892 to 1964, and doubled again during the 32 year period between 1964 to 2000. • Population growth roughly doubled during the period 1892-1925,doubled again in the year period 1925-1964, and then more than doubled again in the period 1964-2000. Each of these three doubling periods is approximately 35 years in length. • The rate of population increase has varied significantly over the city's history. The most significant periods of population increase have occurred during the period 1964-1972 when the rate of increase was 4.97%per year, and the period 1993-2000 when the rate of increase was 5.89%per year. Both of these periods manifest extremely high growth rates;rates which can easily outstrip a municipality's capacity to satisfactorily accommodate growth. • Population density increased gradually from the founding of the city until 1956, when the density reached 3,421 persons per square mile. This density reflects full buildout of historic Bozeman as defined by the grid street pattern. Bozeman was a very"walkable",pedestrian city at this time. • Population density dropped significantly following 1956 as suburban forms of residential and commercial development replaced the compact,historic grid street layout and became the predominant pattern for new development. 1n the year 2000, some forty-five years later, the population density was only slightly over 3,000 persons per square mile. During this period the historic core remained pedestrian friendly,however the overall development increasingly relied on the automobile. The population projected for the 2020 Master Plan update(46,600 persons)represents an overall increase of approximately 45% over the current population, a doubling from the 1993 population. Population increases of this magnitude warrant very careful planning with respect to the land use pattern, intensity of land use, and the supporting circulation system. In order to better understand the implications of this level of growth, the following tables have been generated to illustrate two policy scenarios reflecting the population projections for the 2020 Master Plan update. Table 2 shows the land area required to accommodate the projected population increase to the year 2000 using the average rate of increase in land area over the past 15 years, a 1.9 percent increase per year. This would result in a net increase in the area of the city of approximately 4.6 square miles. Under this scenario the population density would remain approximately the same as the current density,but ten percent below the"walkable"Bozeman density in 1965. Table 2: Scenario 1 --Projected Increase in Land Area Using Average Rate of Increase for Preceding 15 Year Period (1.9% per year). Year Area Population Period Total Change Percent Total Numerical Percent Density Interval City In area Increase Increase Increase (pers per (years) (sq.mi.) (sq.mi.) (per year) (per year) sq. mi.) 2000 10.62 0.52 0.70% 32,000 3,013 2005 5 11.62 1.00 1.88% 35,950 3,950 2.47% 3,094 2010 5 12.72 1.10 1.89% 39,600 3,650 2.03% 3,1I3 2015 5 13.92 1.20 1.89% 43,120 3,520 1.78% 3,098 2020 S 15.27 1.35 1.94% 46,600 3,480 1.61% 3,052 Page- 10 Community Charrette 11/28/0O The second of these two scenarios, shown in Table 3 below,reduces the amount of required additional land area by 50%. This scenario would require 2.28 square miles to accommodate the projected population increase. This objective would be achieved through gradually increasing the current population density until a 20 percent increase was reached by the year 2020 (i.e., an area with 5 dwelling units per acre would increase to 6 units per acre). This increase in density would be achieved through pursuing an aggressive infill policy, a modest intensification of existing development, and more efficient land utilization in new development. These two scenarios are intended only to illustrate the implications of policy choices between land use intensity and the land area required for city expansion, and reflect the Charrette participants concern for protecting agricultural land and managing urban growth.' According to Planning Department projections of land area(acres)projected for new housing (see Figure 1, page 5), approximately 2.38 square miles are required to accommodate the residential uses for the projected population(at an average household size of 2.35 persons at a density of approximately 4 dwelling units per acre). Pursuing a modestly higher density as illustrated in Table 3 would result in an actual density increase from an overall average of 4 units per gross acre to an average of approximately 4.8 dwelling units per gross acre,but requiring 50%less new land to accommodate all growth(i.e., not just housing)within the city. In order to achieve such an objective,this option would require an aggressive infiil and intensification strategy for selected areas within the existing area, and modestly increased densities for all new development. Note that the population density resulting from this policy choice would reach the historic 1956 density by the year 2010, with an increase to 3,612 persons per square mile by 2020. This density reflects only a 5.5 percent increase in density from the 1956 figure. Table 3: Scenario 2—Projected Population Density if Projected Increase in New Land Area is Reduced by 50 Percent Year Area Population Period Total Change Percent Total Numerical Percent Density Interval City In area Increase Increase Increase (pers per (years) (sq. mi_} (sq. mi.) (per year) (per year) sq. mi.) 2000 10.621 0.52 0.70% 32,000 3,013 2005 5 11.121 0.50 0.94% 35,950 3,950 2,47%1 3,233 2010 5 11.67 0.55 0.99% 39,600 3,650 2.03% 3,393 2015 5 12.27 0.60 1.03% 43,120 3,520 1.78% 3,514 2020 5 12.90 0.63 1.03% 46,600 3,480 1.61% 3,612 Qualitative Data Open Houses A series of four Open House meetings were held on November 15-- 18, 1999. Qualitative data generated at these public participation events included a visual preference survey, a survey of preferred development styles, and statements of community characterization. Over 300 members of the community attended these events. Page- 11 Comrnunity Charrette 11/28/00 Focus Group Discussions Additional qualitative data reflecting the values of the participating members of the public was generated at a Focus Group meeting held in February,2000. This public meetings was organized into focus groups whose charge was to identify problems/issues and solutions, as well as identifying any current programs or policies that were being effective in addressing the problems or issues. Over 100 members of the community participated in this event, The ten focus groups topics were as follows: (1)Historic Resources; (2)Parks, (3)Trails and Open Space;(4)Natural Resources and Environment; (5)Community Character; (6)Land Use; (7)Economic Development;(8)Transportation;(9)Public Services, Facilities and Infrastructure; and(10)Housing. Public comments were recorded at each of these focus group sessions, and a master list of comments was compiled by Planning Department Staff. Inasmuch as the purpose of these focus groups was to solicit public continent on specific topics, and the format consisted of open exchange among the participants, there was no attempt to provide a summary of the discussions. Moreover, since these data express individual preferences and do not reflect any unanimity or consensus,the Charrette Team used these data simply as an initial "commentary"on the various topics. Charrette"Place Maps" Charrette participants were given a set of colored stickers to place on a series of five maps as a means of identifying locations with specific qualities or importance. These"place maps"are shown in Figures 4 through 8. Due to the difficulty in graphically reproducing these original maps, these figures are computer-based copies of the originals;the original maps are housed in the Planning Department archives. The first map(Figure 4)was used to identify the location of the residence of the participant. Tabular results of this map indicated that nearly two-thirds of the participants lived in the southeastern quarter of the city(using No. 7`h/So. 8`'Avenues and Main StreetlHuffine Lane as the dividing lines), and approximately one-quarter lived in the northern half of the city. Nearly 80 percent of the participants resided in the eastern half of the city(i.e., east of No.7 /So. 81h Avenues), These results suggest that residents living within the historic core of Bozeman are more concerned with the future of the city, and tend to participate more actively in public events concerned with the formulation of the Master Plan update, Participants were asked to identify the"heart"of the community on the second map(Figure 5). Two-thirds of the participants identified the historic commercial core(including Main Street plus the Willson School and the Emerson Cultural Center) as the"heart"of the community. Other locations identified included Montana State University(9%), Lindley Park(4%)and Burke Park (4%). On the third map(Figure 6),participants were asked to identify their three(3)most favorite places in Bozeman. Locations most frequently identified were(in descending order)the historic downtown,Burke Park,MSU, and Lindley Park. However, taken as an aggregate, parks and trails(including Lindley Park, Cooper Park, Burke Park, Bogarts Park, Sourdough Trail, and Gallagator Trail) emerged as the most frequently identified favorite places. Page- 12 n C) n r ! f C) 1 / � ^ } n C) 1 - 1 C) felt IFT . 1 1� r-----�1 • - Ci t 1 T a -_ -...... , lv Legend Q - J . Participants Place of Residence _ Existing Developed v Areas j l� 0.3 0 0.3 0.6 Miles GIS &Map Production v -- Place Map -- Participants' Plac Figure 4 Jim Pepper g \ Ryan Hamilton of Residence J �— — - Pie-13 C) n n r n TT �J , Y-I, O r � O - � *j O �r O Legend J N OHeart of the UCommunity Existing Developed Areas i O03 0 0.3 0.6 Miles / f O 615 Map Production O Jim Pepper Place Map -- Heart of Figure 5 U Ryan Hamilton the Community U Paw 14 O O • --------------------- --- f • 4 1 41 n T lJ _LL T D A� Legend Favorite Places • Existing Developed I % • Areas of • 0.3 0 03 06 Miles GIS A Map Production Jim Pepper Place Map Favorite Places Figure 6 Ryan Hamilton I I Page 15 Community Charrette 11/28/00 The fourth map(Figure 7)concerned the identification of problem locations. Each participant was provided with three stickers to identify places that constituted major problems within the city. Traffic problems were the most prevalent locations(19`4 Avenue between Main and Babcock, and North 19d'Avenue and North 7u'Avenue--apparently including the adjoining commercial development)and the eastern entry to the downtown area(i.e., the Main Street-- Burlington/Broadway area). On the fifth map(Figure 8),participants were asked to identify three(3)locations within the city that represented important opportunities for new development, revitalization, or the repair of the urban fabric. The primary opportunity area was identified as the eastern entry to the commercial core followed by the core downtown area(7t' Avenue—Church Avenue and Babcock— Mendenhall Streets), the Fairgrounds, and the Idaho Pole site. In sum, these"place maps"tended to reinforce the finding of the formal surveys: the historic Main Street commercial district is the clearly the heart of the community; downtown,parks,trails and open space areas are highly valued;major traffic problems at a limited number of particular locations are deemed serious; and the historic core contains several important opportunity sites for revitalization, adaptive reuse, or some form of redevelopment. These quantitative and qualitative data provided the Charrette Team with a clear sense of direction;there is strong community support for reinforcing the compact, accessible, manageable form and structure of Bozeman; for arresting urban sprawl and protecting natural lands and agricultural lands; for maintaining a vital historic core;and for solving serious traffic problems. CHARRETTE WORK PRODUCTS Introduction As summarized earlier, the basic objective of the Charrette was to produce a series of maps and diagrams that began to provide geographic(i.e., spatial)dimension to the update of the Bozeman Master Plan. Specifically, the Charrette sought to create a series of drawings that expressed ideas, concepts, and alternatives set forth by community members either through direct participation in the Charrette and other public participation events, or though the community survey summarized above. A series of 9 maps or map overlays and two concept diagrams were produced during the Charrette, Due to the relatively short time available for the initial production of these graphics, the original artwork consists of colored markers on relatively thin tracing paper. Slides have been taken of all original artwork, as well as computer-scanned images. Copies of the original maps in the form of scanned images are located in an Appendix. However, due to the relatively poor quality of the slides and scanned images, the Charrette Director obtained further professional volunteer assistance from Ryan Hamilton, a local Geographic Information System(GIS) technician, who recreated the maps and map overlays using a computer mapping program that is compatible with the City Planning Department system. Since the mapped results of the Charrette are now in computer format,the Planning Board and city staff can continue to work with the geographic results of the Charrette. These future tasks may involve expanding and/or refining Charrette work products, and/or undertaking major revisions or new initiatives and exploring other alternatives. The graphics contained in this portion of the report are the result of this conversion to GIS conducted by Mr. Hamilton. Page- 16 n 1. 1 n • • l ; n r l / • i • •� • •• ; • • • f � ' nfl . ..... - ( •.• • e • 4 r' • —ice • � T ! • is • • •I • _ i U Legend Q C �� Opportunity Areas • Fxisting Developed • Areas (�) 0.3 0 0.3 0.6 Miles GI5 A Map Production Place Map -- Opportunity Figure 7 Jim Pepper �) Ryan Hamilton Areas 1 J Page]7 L� ` J r) C) C) f C) _ Q • -� �� • - t n _ . . r � v I � �• i IT I O4L Z f Legend U Problem Areas + ) I Existing Developed j Areas } lJ 0.3 0 0.3 0.6 Miles � 1 J GI5 &Map Production Jim Pepper Place Map -- Problem Areas Figure 8 J Ryan Hamilton L� Community Charrette 11/28/00 The following narratives summarize the maps and diagrams that are the primary work products of the Charrette. Note that this subsection of the report does not reflect the precise topics of the various break-out tables inasmuch as the tables may have made contributions to more than one map, and in some instances, one map contains information from several tables. Finally, the sequence of the maps and narratives reflect the logical development of the various ideas and concepts presented;in some instances this sequence is particularly important inasmuch as the material in subsequent maps tends to reflect patterns and opportunities suggested by preceding maps. Each of the narratives concludes with a set of related draft planning and policy implications that derive from the comments and ideas generated through community participation either at the Charrette or reflected in the survey results. Base Maps The base maps used for the Charrette were prepared by the City of Bozeman Planning Department. Two map scales were used: a map of the overall planning area at a scale of 1"_ 1000', and a map of the developed area of Bozeman at a scale of I"=600'. Information contained on the I"= 1000' base map consisted of the city limits,the Bozeman Planning Area and Negotiated Area of Impact, the street system, streams, and wetlands. The I"=600' base map covered only the developed portion of the city, and information consisted of existing zoning, streets, and parcels. Charrette-Generated Maps and Diagrams These base maps were used for recording the geographic location of various proposals set forth by the community members who participated in the Friday evening session. The Charrette team used the same base maps to record and interpret the materials generated on Friday evening, as well as incorporating applicable survey results. (1) Existing Developed Area—Figure 9 In order to identify areas for possible development infill and expansion, the Charrette Team first prepared a map showing the existing development pattern, Information on this map is generalized, and was prepared with assistance from the Planning Director and other Planning Department staff. Figure 9 shows the perimeter of the existing developed portion of the city; the boundaries of undeveloped areas within the city;the boundaries of Montana State University lands, including lands under the jurisdiction of the Montana State Experiment Station and lands belonging to the Montana State University Foundation. This map also shows the location of pending development, i.e., development proposals that have been formally initiated with the city but that have not yet been approved. Planning implications: • Prepare a detailed inventory and map of all vacant lands, including both unsubdivided lands at the perimeter of the city and subdivided lands and vacant lots within the developed area Prepare detailed and precise map of limits of existing development • Prepare a detailed inventory and snap of all pending development • Formulate incentives to encourage infill development • Consult with Montana State University to identify uses proposed or projected for MSU lands contiguous to undeveloped portions of the city. Page- 19 n n � i n I Cl i C I L ZZ If 1 El Legend N I t-J Existing Developed Areas � T•`--r �_ 1 MSU-Agricultural Extension Land -� MSU—High-Tech Park � 1 J \L 1 MSU—Campus U Potential Int-ill Areas t s Pending Development 0.3 0 0,3 0.6 Miles 6I5 Map Production U Jim Pepper Existing Developed Area Figure 9 � J Ryan Hamilton i j Nee 20 I � I ) Community Charrette 11/28/00 Policy Izn lip cations: • (See specific topics below) (2) Natural Features Framework—Figure 10 Protection of the natural environment was among the most strongly expressed goals identified by the community(both through the surveys and through the focus groups and the Charrette. Since streams, stream corridors and wetlands are the dominant natural features remaining within the city,the delineation of these natural features provided an important framework from which to generate Master Plan options and alternatives. Figure 10, Natural Features Framework, shows existing steams, and artificial and natural wetlands, along with existing parks and the addition of a conservation corridor along all streams. A draft of this map was prepared by the community members who participated in the Charrette, tither public participation events and the community surveys summarized above reinforce the strong community sentiment to protect streams and stream corridors, and to afford protection to all wetlands. Planning Implications: • Prepare a detailed inventory of streams and wetlands, including a description of the habitat values of the water body and the adjacent corridor • Evaluate habitat values for all water bodies and corridors • Rank all streams and wetlands in terms of conservation/protection priorities Policy Implications: • Protect important habitat areas • Protect important streams, stream corridors, and wetlands • Protect a network of interconnected stream corridors and habitats(Environmental Quality Corridors)to the greatest degree possible • Protect all streams, stream corridors, and wetlands contiguous to existing and proposed parks (3) Primary Circulation System—Figure I I The primary circulation system shown in Figure 11 reflects both the suggestions and ideas set forth by both community participants and members of the Charrette Team. In general, this map shows the existing major streets and highways, along with the major links necessary to complete a coherent and functional system of major streets necessary to serve future expansion of the city. This figure is conceptual only, and in addition to identifying alternative locations and alignments,is intended to illustrate the need for an overall circulation system that can direct through traffic onto an arterial street system that can relieve congested areas that are identified as major problems by the community. Page-21 =if 0 U11 11 1 1 n!-�";��11»rl � .�� NION ME M EM11111111110111111 IN M �h11 �, 1111111 CiH11�1111111"'�� ���. , �� 111111111111�1' ICI11111 �' R � *► law 11 all fill ��/ Ml- !,JIM Le , - gend A �� , �Streams and 8U Stream Corridor Buffer Exisfing Parks Wetlands--Natural Wetlands—Artificial 0.3 0- 0.3 0.6 Miles G15&Map Production Jim Pepper Natural Features Pyan Hamilton Framework R�� C) n n Legend A N Major Collector Minor Collector C) t Minor Roads Proposed Roads Existing Developed O i r Areas Potential Infill Areas n r:D Pending Development 0.3 0 0.3 0.6 Miles C) F1 T _J T 0 U f,-Jlr 1, - � ; T A (J C715 Map Production Primary Circulation Jim Pepper Figure 11 S Ryan Hamilton Stem Page." Community Chwene 11/28/00 Planning Implications: • Integrate land use planning with transportation planning • Coordinate formulation of the updated Master Plan land use map with the Transportation Plan currently being prepared by a transportation planning consultant • Seek more efficient use of the existing circulation system through increased land use intensities along existing and proposed transportation corridors • Collaborate with Gallatin County in determining the land use and circulation system for lands contiguous to the planning area for the City of Bozeman • Formulate a phased circulation/transportation plan that can accommodate increments of growth rather than a plan that is inherently growth-inducing • Explore the feasibility of increased public transportation • Explore traffic-reducing measures such as car-pooling,ride-share programs, park-and- ride, dial-a ride, and increased shuttle services • Conduct(or review existing)origin-destination analyses(i.e., analyses of traffic generation expressed by the origin and destination of existing traffic)as a means of encouraging land use responses(e.g., the location of neighborhood-serving commercial centers, future employment centers, etc.)that serve to reduce trip lengths • Seek to avoid bisecting economically viable units of agricultural land in locating alignments of major streets beyond the edge of the existing development pattern • Explore the use of a ring-road system to direct through traffic around the perimeter of the more intensively developed area(characterized by narrower streets) • Explore pursuing a more"concentric ring"development pattern that would encourage a more balanced growth pattern around the historic retail and residential core(i.e., a pattern that would seek to balance to the west with more growth to the east). This development pattern would tend to distribute vehicular trips more evenly on the circulation system (rather than the current development pattern that is overloading the system on the west and south of the city) Policy Implications: • Create pedestrian-friendly streets • Promote pedestrian zones that reduce dependency on the automobile for internal trips within commercial areas • Create bicycle-friendly streets through a comprehensive bikeway plan • Direct through traffic away from existing neighborhoods and the historic commercial core • Provide dedicated turn lanes at key congested intersections • As appropriate, provide signals at key congested intersections and roadway segments, including, but not limited to Babcock Street and 19'h Avenue • Promote trip-reduction measures such as live-work(i.e., zoning that permits home offices and small businesses), alternative forms of transportation, ride-share, dial-a-ride, and remote parking • Seek higher land use densities along primary elements of the circulation system as a means of increasing potential rider-ship necessary for public transportation • Encourage major employers such as Montana State University to pursue staggered work hours to reduce traffic during peak hours Page-24 Community Charrette 11/28/00 (4) Parks—Figure 12 Charrette community participants identified six potential sites for a major park as shown in Figure 12. These park sites are neither ranked nor mutually exclusive, and do not represent an exhaustive inventory. Rather,these are sites that warrant consideration either as a regional park(in their entirety)or as a neighborhood park(a portion of the site)and/or a special purpose park such as sports fields. In addition to these park sites, Charrette discussions and survey results indicated that parks are a highly valued land use within Bozeman, and that the Master Plan should include the designation of parks as an integral part of each neighborhood (see Housing below). Planning Implications: • Prepare a detailed inventory of all parks, including existing facilities,principal uses, service areas, etc. • Review national park and recreation standards and compare with Bozeman; determine any deficiencies in park size, service area coverage, special park needs, etc. • Work with parks-oriented community organizations and the Bozeman School Board, and other concerned with parkland acquisition and development. Policy Implications:, • Formulate and adopt specific park standards appropriate to the City of Bozeman • Formulate a parks Master Plan that meets the park standards established for Bozeman • Provide a neighborhood park for each new neighborhood and located convenient to new elementary schools(see Housing below) • Work with Gallatin County in the identification of a regional park site that serves both county and city residents and that is easily served by the trails system(see Trails below). (5) Trail System—Figure 13 Figure 13 was generated by the Charrette participants interested in the trail system. This figure delineates an extensive potential trail system, as well as the primary segments of the existing tail system. Most of the potential trails shown on this figure are located within the stream corridors shown on this figure. This potential trail system is also intended to provide a network that connects all major parks,existing and proposed. Concerns regarding wildlife habitat protection raised during the course of the Charrette indicated that some stream corridors may warrant a level of protection that precludes active trail use. As a result, the potential trails shown on this figure will require more careful examination in order to determine trail alignments that not only create an interconnected trail system,but that link important destinations and that provide appropriate protection of important habitat areas. Planning Implications: • Prepare an exhaustive inventory and map of all existing and currently planned trails. • Work with the Gallatin Valley Land Trust and other community trails organizations in the preparation of a Master Trails Plan for Bozeman. • Work with Gallatin County to achieve an interconnected city and county trail system. Page-25 n n � - � � ,I ! ! � I a L� i` Legend — Streams (: ) Existing Developed Areas / Existing Parks - i Proposed Parks �t Potential Infill Areas (� / Pending Development `1 0.3 0 0.3 Was / �\ GIS&Map Development Jim Pepper Potential Park Sites Figure 12 Ryan Hamilton Paize 26 n C n -$ 1 Li (1 1 �1 ' - - \l L _ 1 + LL --- 1+1 -j — � ' U ULegend 4I -- — ..0 U� ---- Existing Trails `, 1 — �I ( Proposed Trails -'u,---:/ ,. �\ Streams �-1 Existing Developed _e // Areas - � / (� Existing Parks l ) - Proposed Parks I Potential Infill Areas `r— � Pending Development U033 a 0:3 MAes U GI5&Map Production IU Jim Pepper Trail System Figure 13 Ryan Hamilton l -- -- ---- Page 27 U I Community ChwTette 11/28/00 Policy Implications: + Formulate and adopt a Master Trails System for the City of Bozeman • Establish trail standards for incorporation into the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. (6) Reinforce the Historic City Core—Figure 14 Charrette participants reinforced the survey results that place a high value on the historic commercial and residential core of the city. The high value of this historic core is apparent in the"Place Maps"prepared during the Charrette, and in specific survey results concerning important attributes of the community. Charrette participants overwhelmingly identified the historic commercial Main Street core as the"Heart"of the community. Walking distance is a useful expression of a"core"pedestrian area, and according to professional "rules of thumb", pedestrians will walk 10 to 12 city blocks--approximately one mile, to a specific destination. In order to better understand the form and structure of the historic core, a map was prepared showing walking distances in 1000 foot increments, using the intersection of Main Street and Willson as the center, and extending for 5000 feet(i.e., five concentric rings). This pedestrian area is shown in yellow and delineated by five concentric rings on Figure 14. As shown in Figure 14, that portion of the historic core situated within 5000 feet of the intersection of Main Street and Willson. Avenue reaches from the University campus on the south to the Fairgrounds on the north, and from Lindley Park on the east to the High School on the west. Main Street and Willson Avenue constitute the primary streets in this historic core. Due to their unique functions, these two principal streets warrant special treatments— distinetive street trees and street lights along Willson Avenue and special paving, lighting, and landscaping along Main Street(as proposed in the June 1998 Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan). The four areas that delineate the termination of the historic sections of Main Street and Willson Avenue also warrant special attention. Of these four areas, only one—the MSU campus, consists of urban fabric that is relatively intact. Major opportunities exist for revitalizing and renewing the other three areas as reflected in the Charrette"Place Maps", the surveys and focus groups, and in the community comments during the Friday evening session of the Charrette. Specific comments germane to these areas follow. The area defined by the Fairgrounds and the public lands immediately to the east and west of the fairgrounds were identified as both a problem and opportunity area, Two specific suggestions for this area warrant mention due to their appeal to the Charrette participants: • Consolidation of public lands under,jurisdiction of the MDOT, Gallatin County Road Department, and City of Bozeman Public Works Department and relocation of these three facilities to a more appropriate location that is equally accessible but removed from residential areas. • Conversion of the Fairground, including the consolidated public lands noted above,into a Community Activity Area. This area could include,but not be limited to, a reconfigured fairgrounds(with updated facilities and uses that could serve as a year-round tourism center focussed on the history and natural lands of the region)and/or civic buildings and functions(including library, city park, performing arts center, etc.). .Page-28 II From I 11—W 111111111 f 14 a fill Lei Wall WHO 1101F T All, 11111mmiarn;1.00 IN 19.11 =11 I I gill No —11 W11111 I l"9MV gend A Existing Developed Areas Community Core Community Activity Center Fast(;ateway,High Shcool,MSU Core Existing Parks Proposed Parks Ind.s-.W Aeas Major Londscaped Corridor Proposed Parking Structures 1000'Radius Incrementals CD Historic Core: 5000 Radius fTom Willson/Mam 0.3 0 0,3 0.6 Miles 615 Map Production Jim Pepper Ryan Hamilton Community Charrette 11/28/00 The High School and surrounding area constitute a second major opportunity area. Although the High School physical plant provides an important anchor to this transition are between the historic core and the strip commercial corridor to the west, the area immediately to the south and to the southeast lacks coherence and presents opportunities for infill and revitalization as an important gateway into the downtown area. Similarly, the area at the east Main Street end of the historic core constitutes a major opportunity area, as borne out in the"Place Maps"and other forms of community expression. Like the High School to the west, I_,indla P provides an important anchor to this area. However, the balance of this area wholly lacks coherence and structure, and presents a major opportunity for infill and revitalization. This area is a particularly important gateway to Bozeman since it is the primary eastern entry to the city. In combination with the various properties to the north of Lindley Park,this area warrants careful and sustained attention in the formulation of the Master Plan update. Planning Implications: • Prepare inventory of underutilized lands, particularly within the historic commercial core • Collaborate with the County Fair Board to explore opportunities for expanded civic and public uses of the area • Explore opportunities for relocating road and highway related uses adjacent to the Fairgrounds with MDOT, Gallatin County, and the City of Bozeman Public Works Department Policy Implications: • Formulate incentives for infill and revitalization of the historic downtown core • Facilitate and expedite processing for neighborhood-based development plans submitted for city review and approval • Emphasize revitalization of the historic downtown core. • Locate all major public facilities within the historic core of the city(see Major Public Buildings below) • Create gateways at the eastern and western edges of the historic downtown core • Expand the civic and public uses of the Fairgrounds and environs, including possibilities for library expansion, a performing arts center, and year-round, culturally-based tourist activities(i.e., a reconfigured and reoriented `Fair") A diagram focussing only on the central core area also accompanied Figure 14. This diagram, included as Figure 14A, contains an enlarged portion of Figure 14. There are four additional proposals shown in this figure. Planning Implications: • Identify locations for parking structures • Explore opportunities and strategies for expanding the historic commercial core immediately to the north and south of the existing commercial core boundary • Explore opportunities for the location of major public and quasi-public facilities within this expanded area Page-30 I •! �■ � 1 lip II ► ,�- mt /A® IM- 01 err.. low � �F .. r IBM_ ' 19■r 1;► INS r �r1 'I —. ..NO©... . j 11� .1 ■ 111�,.,1 , E U.EI o i Ali ,III w Existing Developed Areas Community Core Community Activity Center, East Gateway,High Sh000l,MSU Core Existing Parks Proposed Parks Industrial Areas ICD100(Y Radius Incrementals Maj.,Lds.ped Corridor Proposed Parking Structures Historic Core: 0„ C> from Willson/Main rA .. Production FigureJim Pepper ' a Community Charrette 11/28/00 • Explore infill and intensification sites within this expanded area, including additional space for library expansion,city hall expansion, and a performing arts center Policy Implications: + Restore the Sourdough Creek corridor within the downtown area • Locate remote parking areas(lots/s"ctures) at the eastern and western ends of the historic main street corridor and link these remote parking areas with some form of public conveyance • Designate sites for parking structures within the core area as shown on Figure 14A • Ensure that there is easy circulation and access to and between parking structure sites • Expand the historic commercial core by one or one-an-one-half blocks to the north and south of the existing commercial core boundary (7) Major Public and Civic Buildings—Figure 15 Figure 15 shows the location of the major existing civic, public, and quasi-public buildings and facilities in the city. Included in this figure are schools(elementary, middle, high school, and college), City Hall, County Building, Federal Building, Law and Justice Center, library, post office, hospital, cultural and arts centers, entertainment facilities(including cinema, theaters, auditoriums, and churches. It is important to note that nearly all of these facilities, with very few exceptions, are concentrated within the historic core(as indicated by the concentric rings shown in Figure 14 above). This figure also shows Elementary School Service Areas—a ten-minute(2500 feet) walking radius, for each of the existing elementary schools. As illustrated in this figure, the elementary schools within the historic core area are sited in such a fashion to provide easy walking access to the schools. These service areas provided near-continuous coverage for the entire historic core, and overlap along the primary circulation routes—Main Street and Willson Avenue. The service areas for the two newer elementary schools do not provide continuous coverage, thus increasing the likelihood that vehicular trips are necessary to transport children to and from school. Planning Implications: • Prepare a detailed and complete inventory and map of all public, quasi-public, and civic buildings • Work with organizations concerned with the siting and/or expansion of important public and quasi-public facilities, such as the Library Board, School Board, Fair Board, Chamber of Commerce(Convention Center), Performing Arts Center Board, etc., to ensure that the locations of such facilities will add vitality to the city core. Policy Implications: • Locate all major new public facilities within or contiguous to the historic core • Formulate and provide incentives to attract and facilitate the development of all new public facilities within or contiguous to the historic core Page-32 n n n n n .. n I n �ti n _ - y L \ f Legend N r �. Existing Developed Areas F • f t l�! fi- Community Core • - • ' Community Activity Center, • .I High School MSU Core, -, •J l &East Gateway l ) Industrial Parks w� Major Landscaped Corridor 1000'Radius Incrementals OHistoric Core: 5000'radius Ufrom Willson/Main • Churches • _ I J Entertainment Centers _ — �� • Public Buildings • Schools • _ (`) Elementary School: 1 '�-✓ 1/2 mile radius 05 0 05 Mies ") &IS Map Production Major Public Figure 15 I Jim Pepper Buildings `J Ryan Hamilton U Page 33 �J Community Charrette 11/28/00 (8) Housing and Neighborhood Structure—Figure 16 Housing has been addressed in focus group discussions and identified as a major issue in the survey results. The discussion of housing at the Friday evening session of the Charrette produced a drawing of the desired composition and structure of a prototypical neighborhood. As shown in Figure 16,this neighborhood unit would consist of the following elements and relationships: • A mix of housing types • Organized around an elementary school and neighborhood park • Served by a trail system • Contains an open space system that was coherent and functional • Boundaries defined by major arterial and/or collector streets, and • Incorporates neighborhood commercial services This neighborhood unit would become the logical unit for expanding the city,and would be cooperatively planned as a single"entity"by the various land owners and developers with interests in the area. Some form of cost and benefit sharing would be used to plan and develop these unified neighborhoods. Planning implications: • Explore the feasibility of formulating neighborhood-based, area plans for all major city expansions • Cooperate with the School Board in siting elementary schools within new neighborhood units • Cooperate with the Parks Board in siting neighborhood parks within new neighborhood units • Encourage collaboration among developers in the preparation of areawide plans for new expansion areas Policy Implications: • Use neighborhood units rather than independent subdivisions as the logical basis for guiding city expansion • Create neighborhoods with a variety of housing types • Provide convenient, accessible neighborhood commercial centers to new neighborhood units • Create functional open space areas within new neighborhood units • Link new neighborhood units to the overall trail system + Formulate and provide incentives for developers to collaborate in the creation of area- wide neighborhood-based plans • Facilitate and expedite processing for neighborhood-based development plans submitted for city review and approval Page-34 n n n n n n C) i C) I 1 i i h) - —-- - ( Legend A Neighborhoods _ 1 ® Neighborhood Commercial Parks { i Elementary School CDSchool 1/2 mile Service Rach 1_ i GIS&Map Production ,J - -Jim Pepper Housing and Neighborhood Figure 16 J Ryan Hamilton Structure U Page 35 l� l � Commur ity Charrette 11/28/00 (9) Economic Development No overall map was produced by the discussion group concerned with economic development, however several geographic specific areas were identified for specific economic development purposes. The following areas are shown in Figure 17 below: • Technology Park options • Neighborhood Center options • Commercial Parkway options Planning_Implications: • Explore the formulation of policies, and revisions to the zoning and subdivision ordinances to enable the development of neighborhood centers Policy Implications: • Create Gateways and Entry Corridors at all primary entrances into the city • Update and revise regulations to permit the development of neighborhood centers (10) Major Infitll Opportunities—Figure 17 Figure 17 identifies the location of major infill development opportunities(as excerpted from Figure 9, Existing Development). This figure also shows pending development as generally identified by City Staff, as well as identifying several specific sites for outlying commercial and technology park development(see Economic Development above). In order to realize the benefits of infill development, the City Commission and the City Planning Board will need to actively pursue a four-part action strategy: (1) Formulate and adopt policies that create incentives for infill development and that create disincentives for holding vacant land from development when such lands are clearly surrounded by urban development within the City limits. (2) Formulate and adopt policies that create incentives for the development of lands contiguous to existing development within the City limits. (3) Formulate and adopt policies that place constraints and disincentives for leap-frog development within the City limits or that seek to expand the City limits through leap- frog development. (4) Work with and encourage Gallatin County to pursue the formulation of County policy that strongly discourages de facto expansion of the City of Bozeman through County development approvals contiguous to or near the City limits. These actions are central to the realization of increased densities that will result in a more pedestrian-friendly City. These actions will also contribute to the containment of urban sprawl. Page-36 n n n n + `S n � n 1. T �! 1 I - — J! J ) I ( J t � � t LegendS / — Existing Developed Areas T Pending Development potential Infill Areas -- Entry Gateways OParkway Commercial OTech-options - Neighborhood Commercial 0.5 0 0.5 Miles &IS At Map Production Major Inf ill (J Jinn Pepper Figure 17 O Ryan Hamilton Opportunities �-� Page 37 lJ Community Charrette 11/28/00 Planning Implications: • Prepare detailed inventory and map of all vacant land • Prepare a detailed inventory and map of underutilized lands,particularly within the historic commercial core • Prepare a detailed inventory and map of all planned and committed lands, including quantitative data on numbers of units, square feet of commercial space, etc. • Work with land owners and developers associated with major infill areas to formulate appropriate development plans for such areas Policy Implications: • (See policy discussion above) • Emphasize and encourage infill and intensification development • Formulate incentives for infill development • Formulate incentives for contiguous development • Facilitate and expedite processing for infill development plans submitted for city review and approval (11) Major Expansion Opportunities—Figure IS The final graphic prepared during the Charrette illustrates opportunities for city expansion as shown in Figure 18. This figure is based on the following objectives and constraints: Objectives: • Provide adequate land area for the projected city expansion required to serve the projected increase in population • Be responsive to agricultural uses through the creation of a regular(i.e., not a ragged)city edge contiguous to agricultural land in order to contribute to the continued viability of agricultural operations • Provide adequate land area for expansion making while making certain that the amount of land provides development choices but does not constrain the amount of land available for development so as to artificially increase land prices(note: this objective is addressed through doubling the actual amount of land area required for new growth) Constraints: • Do not extend development beyond the line showing water pressure limitations as shown in Figure 18 • Do not extend development beyond the line showing sewer drainage limitations as shown in Figure 18 According to Planning Department projections(see Figures 1-3 of this report), approximately 3000 acres(4.64 sq. mi.) are required to accommodate the projected growth as shown in Table 4 below. This projection of required land area is derived as shown on the following page: Page-38 n n / n / C > L TAW U Legend _ N Existing Devclopcd Areas l J 1'cnding Dc�xlopmcm ` 1 1 f J 14 PorcMol lafdl Areas _ _ � L � `� Egarrsian Opponanilics i;..J t L F _ ( \ I �i, r \J41111110 C—dy Cam • Ncigliwr — - - Comtrctcialial �• /��� Oftlk—y CaimrcreW - Com ly Acawy Cwm Fast ata Galy,High Shcool,MSU Cam ��. Enq Gawaays Apcultuml _i Regalamed Agnnduiral .J� Bou dao Watet i m L.I OS 0 OS Mln tJ - 6I5&Map Production Major Expansion �-...� Jim Pepper Figure 18 i U Ryan Hamilton Opportunities - Pam 39 - l ) Community Charrette 11/28/00 Land required for new residential uses(Figure 1) 1,527 acres Land required for new commercial&industrial uses(Figure 2) 776 acres Land required for new parkland(Figure 3, Bozeman trend line) 664 acres Total 2,967 acres Total land area required for City growth(all uses) approximately 3,000 acres This data assumes that the residential areas would yield 4 dwelling units per gross acre. Table 4: Projected Increase in Land Area per City Projections Year New Development Aggregate Total Growth Population Residential Convind Parks Growth Area Growth Total Density Total Period Total Period Total I Period Total Period Rate/ (persons Year /sq mi 2000 1 0.72 10,61M 32,250 2005 0.60 0.60 0.301 0.30 0.80 0.08 1.70 0.98 11.601 1.85% 35,950 3098.68 2010 1.19 0.60 0.61 0.30 0,88 0.081 2.68 0.98 12.58 1.69% 39,600 3147.50 2015 1.79 1.19 0.91 0.30 0.96 0.08 3.66 1.58 14.16 2.500/a 43,120 3045.92 2020 2.39 1.19 1.21 0.30 L04 0.081 4.641 L57 15.73 2.22% 46,600 2962.60 Table 4 Note;Data for New Development,Aggregate Growth,and`total Growth are shown in square miles. Calculations used during the Charrette assumed that approximately 3600 acres(5.64 sq, mi.) would be required to accommodate new development at 4 dwelling units per gross acre, distributed as follows: • Pending development 830 acres (approximately 25%of total required land area) • Infill development 840 acres (approximately 25%of total required land area) • New development 1940 acres (approximately 50%of total required land area) The areas shown in blue in Figure 18 constitute one option for expansion opportunities that respond to the objectives and constraints stated above. This area identified for city expansion in this figure contains approximately 2000 acres(3.125 sq. mi.)of undeveloped land at the perimeter of the city, accounting for the 1940 acres of new development identified above. However, in order to provide sufficient land area for expansion without constraining the supply of land and thus increasing land costs, the Charrette Team recommended that the actual supply of new land available for expansion should probably be doubled to provide for market flexibility. This scenario would thus require approximately 4000 acres(6.25 sq. mi.) of land available for new development(approximately twice the area shown in Figure 18.) A comparison of the data in Table 4 with the data in Tables 2 and 3 suggests that additional analyses and adjustments are necessary in the population and land requirement projections. The assumptions inherent in these projections also need to be made explicit and reexamined. For example, the population density actually declines under the Planning Department projections, whereas the density has gradually increased over time in the historic data. A cursory examination of the historic trend indicates that the population density should Page-40 Community Charrette 1 I/28/00 probably increase to approximately 3800 persons per square mile by the year 2020 if historic trends were to continue. If this were the case, the amount of land area required would decline accordingly, more in line with the data shown in Table 3, which assumed a 50%reduction in the land area required for new growth. Since the protection of agricultural land and open space is a major concern for many residents, strategies for managing the amount and location of growth warrant consideration, although a detailed discussion of such strategies if beyond the scope of this report. Nonetheless, several ideas concerning growth management are identified under"Planning Implications"below. Planning Implications: • Prepare a detailed description of the assumptions behind the population and land area projections and review and modify as deemed warranted • Explore alternative growth projections based on differing policy objectives as suggested in Scenario 2, Table 3, • Utilizing the inventories and maps of infill and underutilized lands, assign an explicit development potential to each infill parcels and underutilized parcel, including explicit assumptions regarding the development potential of each parcel; these data should be used in determining the actual amount of new land necessary to accommodate projected development • Inventory and map agricultural land uses at the periphery of the city • Collaborate with Gallatin County to seek stronger protection for agricultural and other open space lands surrounding the City of Bozeman to ensure not only that the city edge is not merely a collection of unrelated developments within the county,but that the city will have a reasonable area for future growth that will not be encumbered by existing development that will exacerbate or stifle sound planning and urban development • Explore the use of capital improvement policies as a means of directing growth; i.e., use infrastructure to lead private sector development Policy Implications: • (to be formulated by City Staff and Planning Board members, following discussions regarding infill, intensification, and City expansion) Page-41 Community Charrette 11/28/00 RECOMMENDATIONS--MODEST AND NOT SO MODEST The following recommendations are from various presentations of the Charrette results,including the Charrette Wrap-Up Session and two presentations to the Planning Board. Note that these recommendations are not intended to constitute a complete, exhaustive list; additional recommendations are contained within the Planning Implications and Policy Implications set forth in the body of this report. Regarding the Planning process: • Sound public planning should lead,not respond to development initiatives; sound planning should also maintain a balance between public goals and the choices manifest in the private sector marketplace, and should help shape market choices so as to avoid thwarting important public policy objectives • Work closely with the County; we are all part of a single valley. • Public-private collaboration is essential. • Pay attention to the"center"(i.e. the historic core)and mediate the"edge"(i.e., new development at the urban limit). • Density is not the enemy. • Grow by neighborhood units instead of subdivisions. • Integrate land use planning and transportation planning;these two critical components of the Master Plan must work as a single unit. Avoid the formulation of a growth-inducing transportation plan;the transportation plan should be designed to accommodate desired growth,not to simply induce growth as a result of the planned circulation system. Regarding the development approval process: • Reward developers who advance community goals. • Density is not the enemy. • Grow by neighborhood units instead of subdivisions. Regarding maintaining the vitalijy of the historic downtown: • Coordinate the siting of key public and quasi-public facilities. Work with special interests such as performing arts, schools, library, convention folks, fair board, etc. These quasi-public facilities are critical to the continued vitality of the community,particularly the historic downtown area. Regarding the reduction of urban sprawl• • Promote and reward infill development. • Density is not the enemy. Regarding urban form and structure: • Density is not the enemy. • Maintain an accessible, well-connected urban fabric. • Maintain discrete, identifiable, neighborhoods Page-42 Community Charrette I I/28/00 Regarding parks,open space, and trails: • Create a network of interconnected trails, parks, and other functional open space, Regarding housing: • Seek to achieve a housing stock characterized by a nix of types, sizes, and costs, including both single family and multifamily units, and for sale units as well as rental units. NEXT STEPS This report is intended to inform the Planning Board and the City Staff in the formulation of the Bozeman 2020 Plan. Those members of the community who participated in the Charrette, along with the Charrette Team urge the Planning Board and City Staff to consider the analyses, ideas, suggestions, and recommendations set forth in this report as they move into the policy formulation and land use plan stages of the planning process. Finally, the Charrette team commends the Planning Board and City Staff for their untiring effort, and extends to both parties our availability for future discussions with both the Planning Board and the City Staff as they continue on the important task of revising the Master Plan. Page-43