Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90- 1990 Bozeman Area Master Plan Update ' / a ` `• I ` l.. �v,�",,-�'•�` i' � _ � I 'i -ems �,,,�,'til`�� �� « 'S '��>s.. G,.� , ,�, -^x j• I 4Jt __ � i. •�. 1,�3 i�. � r_, ~ t I �.�-3rr1• w. 13 Ll Al - —v 90 . ity cif-Bozem C,&Utu f G alla i� ana PLANNING352 I '` _. BOZEMAN 1990 , - .. .1 'I ..�' . `.��'.�1 :? � ,n yam. / j � .. __..T`,�•- 27 AWN i - I - • It 1'A Al �` e 14 ` z r 190 .M. _ IN ..N aster�Bbzeman, . s Galla i _ ana Illm r. w 1990 BOZEMAN AREA MASTER PLAN UPDATE This certifies that the attached 1990 Bozeman Area Master Plan Update has been duly adopted by the Gallatin County Board of County Commission by Gallatin County Resolution No. 1990-65 dated October 23, 1990; and by the Bozeman City Commission by City of Bozeman Resolution No. 2818 dated October 29, 1990. GALLATIN COUNTY COMMISSION BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION Ramon S. White, Chairman Ro4 t L. Hawks, Mayor ne Jeli ki , Member Joe N. Frost James L. Goehrung Beverly H. Knapp Timothy Swanson A. D. Pruitt, Member O 9 Attest: .Attest•(:�4, S elly Ch ey, Clerk Robin L. Sullivan , Clerk and Recorder Clerk Bozeman City-County Plannina Board Roger ; Craft, Pres dent Riney Bennett Deb Berglund Ralph Johnson Barbara Kapinos Ellen Kreighbaum Bill Myers Keith Swenson Ray White Bill Wright 1990 BOZEMAN AREA MASTER PLAN UPDATE October, 1990 Prepared for: Bozeman and Gallatin County City-County Planning Board 35 North Bozeman Avenue P.O. Box 640 Bozeman, Montana 59715 Prepared by: BRW, Inc. 4643 South Ulster Street, Suite 1180 Denver, Colorado 80237 and Hammer-Siler-George Associates, Inc. 1638 Pennsylvania Denver, Colorado 80203 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BACKGROUND FOR THE PLAN 3 A. History 3 B. The Impact of Planning 3 C. Planning for Development in the Bozeman Area 4 III. INVENTORY/ANALYSIS 14 A. Socioeconomic Characteristics 14 B. Existing Land Use 16 C. Physiography 20 D. D rainag e/Flood plains 21 E. Utilities 22 F. Transportation 27 G. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space 31 H. Historic Resources 35 I. Housing 40 IV. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES 42 A. Environment, Aesthetics, and Natural Resources 42 B. Energy and Resource Conservation 46 C. Historic Preservation 46 D. Administrative/Review Process 47 E. Residential 49 F. Commercial, Industrial, and Economic Development 50 G. Public Facilities 52 H. Transportation/Circulation 54 V. MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS 56 A. Land Use 56 B. Parks/Open Space 66 C. Transportation 67 D. Historic Resource Preservation 68 E. Entryway Corridors 70 VI. IMPLEMENTATION 72 A. Capital Improvements Funding Strategy 72 B. Regulatory Strategy 81 LIST OF FIGURES (Located in back of document) 1. Study Area 2. Physiography The following additional information is available in the 1983 Master Plan: (a) Figure No. 2, Slope Map, Section 3, Page 7 (b) Figure No. 3, Geology Map, Section 3, Page 8 (c) Figure No. 4, Geologic Constraints Map, Section 3, Page 9 (d) Figure No. 5, Soil Map, Section 3, Page 10 (e) Figure No. 6, Hydrology Map, Section 3, Page 11 (f) Figure No. 10, Soil Potential Map, Section 3, Page 30 3. Drainage/Floodplains 4. Utilities 5. Transportation 6. Open Space 7. Historic Resources/Public Facilities 8. Master Plan 9. Overlay Districts LIST OF TABLES AND GRAPHS 1. Population, Bozeman and Gallatin County, 1960-1987 14 2. Residential Building Permits, Bozeman, 1980-1988 15 3. Non-Agricultural Employment by Major Industry, Gallatin County, 1981-8718 18 4. Functional Classification Definitions/Principles 28 5. Functional Classification Characteristics 30 6. Park Standards 32 7. City of Bozeman Existing Park Facilities 34 8. Cluster Driven Density Bonuses Graph 59a 9. Major Capital Improvement Projects, Bozeman, FY89-FY93 74 I. INTRODUCTION The previous Bozeman Area Master Plan was prepared in 1983, and adopted by the Bozeman City Commission and the Gallatin County Commission on December 12, 1983 and November 8, 1983 respectively. This document, the Bozeman Area Master Plan Update, has been prepared to: 1) simplify Master Plan land use recommendations, allowing for more flexibility in decision making. 2) give a stronger vision to land use concepts and projects which recognize and enhance the Bozeman Area's unique environmental and cultural assets. 3) encourage more development within the Urban Growth Area, and less scattered development in the unserviced rural area. 4) identify long-term major capital improvement projects, beyond the scope of current annual funding, which will further Master Plan goals. 5) provide a basis for revision of the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance. This document updates, but does not totally replace the 1983 Bozeman Area Master Plan. The 1983 Plan provides a good reference for background information. For example, data on soils, geology, groundwater, and other inventory information which has not been used on a regular basis for decision-making are not included in this document. Since 1983, other planning documents have been prepared, and their principal findings are a basis of this Master Plan Update. These documents include: ° Goals and ObJectives, Bozeman City-County Planning Board, June 28, 1989. Bozeman Charts Its Future, A Strategic Plan for Local Economic Development, Bozeman Certified Cities Program, October 1986. ° Gallatin County, An Economic Profile. ° Bozeman Linear Park Proposal, Dick Pohl, July 1987. ° City of Bozeman Parks Inventory, No Date. ° Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of Bozeman Map Index, Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 15, 1988. ° Bozeman Arterials, North 19th Avenue - Oak Street, Kagy Boulevard Final EIS, Montana Department of Highways, October 1986. 1 The Master Plan is organized into the following sections: II. Background for the Plan, a discussion of previous and ongoing planning efforts related to the Master Plan. III. Inventory/Analysis, a summary of the primary factors influencing the Bozeman Area. IV. Goals. ObJectives. and Implementation Policies, statements of purpose and action to direct the future of the Bozeman Area. V. Plan Elements, the presentation of major Master Plan concepts in the areas of land use, transportation, open space, and historic resources. VI. Implementation,a summary of capital improvement and regulatory programs recommended to achieve the Master Plan. 2 II. BACKGROUND FOR THE PLAN A. HISTORY The growth and development of Bozeman must be compared to the background of early development throughout Gallatin County. Settlers began moving into the Gallatin Valley after the Lewis and Clark Expedition in 1805. Their numbers increased significantly during the 1850's and 1860's. Bozeman became the focal point of county activity and was named the county seat in 1867. The development of the Bozeman Trail, a more suitable route for travelers from the Midwest to gold camps in the West, also improved the position of Bozeman as a major trading post. The highly productive soils throughout the valley produced a variety of agricultural products with Bozeman serving as a major distribution point to national markets. Recognizing the importance of the city's strategic location, the United States Army established Fort Ellis, a military outpost, three miles east of Bozeman in 1867. The extension of railroads to Bozeman in the 1880's and the development of many local flour mills made Bozeman a strong agricultural marketing hub, a vital service point and a center of governmental administration. Bozeman was chosen as the site for the Montana College of Agriculture in 1893. B. THE IMPACT OF PLANNING Neither Bozeman nor any other community just happens to develop at their locations. They are established because of plans and decisions carried out by people. A plan for the City and surrounding area has provided a framework for construction and extension of the City's public facilities in an orderly and cost-effective manner since the middle of the 1950's. Subdivision regulations were adopted by the City and County in the 1950's and 1960's. These regulations set standards for public facilities planning and construction when new development takes place. They have contributed immeasurably to the efficiency of the community's public services and facilities, and have been the moving force in producing a more functional and attractive community. Zoning was extended to the three-mile extraterritorial boundary around the city of Bozeman in 1973. It requires at least ten acres per dwelling unit as a means of discouraging development where public facilities and services can not be economically provided. It calls for higher densities where subdivisions have been developed with streets and other improvements installed in order to encourage full use of these facilities. It allows for higher densities to encourage expansion of central urban facilities where engineering plans provide for expansion. The zoning regulations seek to protect agricultural activities by discouraging sprawl development. Zoning also aims to encourage improved public services and facilities at less cost. It encourages economic growth and development by providing for an attractive, orderly community. 3 situations the city and jurisdictional area could possibly encounter. The findings of the Study list three growth alternatives: 1. Contained growth, 2. Peripheral growth, and 3. Selective growth, with a recommendation on which of these alternatives may be best suited for the Bozeman area. In December of 1983, the local governing bodies adopted the Bozeman Area Master Plan prepared by the City-County Planning Staff. The Master Plan contains summaries of special purpose plans for the Bozeman area and these were used to project population growth, economic conditions and land use trends. The Plan identified important land use issues and makes several recommendations. It recommended that development be restricted until central sewer and water has been constructed and it encourages development within the Bozeman sewer service area. The Plan also recommends consideration of development density transfer (the transfer of allowable density from an area not well suited for development to another area better- suited for development) to provide compensation to owners of land for which development may not be possible. There are 25 goals and 47 policies in the Master Plan that provide a basis for planning decisions. The Land Use Plan breaks the issues, goals and policies down into four major designations: 1. The area within the city limits of Bozeman is proposed to develop at urban densities with growth occurring as public facilities are expanded. 2. Development in the proposed sewer service area, extended about one mile around city limits, is to be restricted to 20 acres per dwelling unit to prevent the City from becoming surrounded by large lot development. 3. All other subdivided areas are designated as rural development nodes. The increased development in these areas would provide for cost-effective services and would provide incentives for filling vacant lots in existing subdivisions. 4. Undeveloped rural lands with no physical constraints are allowed to develop at a density of 20 acres per dwelling unit. A numerical evaluation system was utilized in preparing the jurisdictional area land use map. The numerical system has also been used to evaluate new proposals outside the sewer service area. Finally, the Plan recognized the natural beauty of Bozeman and the surrounding area. It calls for the protection of views, vistas and 6 environmental resources, historic resource preservation, and prevention of ' unattractive strip development. Summaries of Existing Plans Wastewater Facility Plan. The Wastewater Facility Plan (1978) was prepared primarily to analyze what was then the existing wastewater treatment system and identify alternative systems improvements to the secondary treatment of wastewater. Improvements were needed to eliminate Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit violations being experienced at the time. A chosen improvements alternative was carried through the design and construction process, with its conclusion in 1982. The design of the improvements was based on parameters identified in the facility plan, including a design population of 55,000 in the Bozeman area. A sewer service area corresponding to this population projection was identified in the plan. This service area is the definitive boundary used by the Bozeman Engineering Office. The Wastewater Treatment Plant will be upgraded utilizing a phased construction process to assure that the facility can meet the need of the design population of 55,000 in the Bozeman area. A number of trunkline sewers were also identified in the Plan and their locations shown inside the service area. This information is used to assure new development sewage contributions are distributed according to the facility plan. Areawide Water Plan. The Areawide Water plan of May, 1973, utilized information contained in the 1972 Bozeman Area Plan to determine water system improvements for 1) immediate needs; 2) five to ten year plan; 3) long range plan. The changing needs of the City and the imposition of the Federal Drinking Water standards forced the City to construct a filter treatment facility somewhat sooner than indicated in the Water plan. The southside treatment plant was completed in 1984. In addition to the filter plant, large distribution mains and additional storage facilities have been completed in accordance with the plan. Planning for further improvements to the water treatment and distribution systems continues. Water Rate Evaluation. The original evaluation by Thomas, Dean & Hoskins in December of 1977 was superseded by a similar evaluation completed by the engineering firm CH2MHill. The CH2MHill study of August, 1984, established a cost-of-service rate structure that was subsequently approved by the Montana Public Service Commission. The cost of service rate structure is reviewed annually, and the annual review process is appropriate for Bozeman at this time. Stormwater Master Plan. The Stormwater Master Plan prepared in 1982 by Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, provides the technical criteria used by the Bozeman Engineering Office to review development proposals regarding storm drainage 7 control. This control includes water quality treatment, maintenance of historic drainage patterns and runoff rate attenuation. The Plan envisioned that stormwater management be centralized and operated by the City as a utility, much like the water and sewer systems. A proposed ordinance to create and fund such a utility was included in the report. However, the City continues to require stormwater control only upon development, in essence maintaining the status quo. To provide areawide detention and treatment facilities would require difficult land acquisitions if the basins identified in the Plan were to be utilized. Housing Element. The Housing Element was completed in 1978 by the Bozeman City-County Planning Staff. The purpose of the study was to present information documenting the present and future housing needs for the community. The plan is a comprehensive study of population growth as well as housing types and conditions. It also evaluates the cost of housing and the supply and demand of housing types. The study also includes an estimate of land requirements to satisfy future housing needs in Bozeman. The City of Bozeman Housing Advisory Committee, established in December 1982, expanded on the Housing Element in Spring 1985. The Advisory Committee prepared a series of reports describing local housing needs and recommended solutions to Bozeman's housing deficiencies. The reports established a list of priorities that should be addressed by the Bozeman community including the need to provide safe, affordable housing for low and moderate income people. Bozeman Park and Recreation Inventory and Work Plan. The Bozeman Area Work Plan was completed in 1975 by the Bozeman City-County Planning Staff. The Plan is an analysis of inventories and surveys developed to determine community recreational needs and adequacy of the existing facilities to fulfill the present as well as the future needs. It has led to the formulation of development recommendations and plans for each park or park area within the Bozeman area. In 1980, the Community Recreation Board completed a study of the Bozeman Recreational Program. The study included an inventory of existing parks, their development status, a compilation of user groups and their needs, and recommendations. Areas of concern indicated by the study are: 1. A low level of public involvement and support for the Recreation Department. 2. Inadequate financial support and responsibility assignment to the Recreation Department by the City and County. 3. Inadequate recreation opportunities for the school age population. 4. Lack of a current recreation site acquisition and development schedule. 8 The study recommended that: ° rural areas be assisted in providing recreation for youths through participation in voluntary associations and park development planning; ° joint funding by the City and the County be provided for the Bozeman Recreation Department; ° the Bozeman Recreation Department and Gallatin County Subdivision Review Office coordinate efforts on the disposition of parklands; ° policy statements and an Interlocal Agreement be developed that will better serve a renewed dedication to the concept of cooperative Community Recreation. There currently exists a Recreation Administration Department in the City of Bozeman. The Department is charged with the responsibility for planning and administering the use of the City's Park System. In addition, the Parks department is responsible for the care and maintenance of Bozeman's parks and other public recreational resources. The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board meets regularly to provide community input to both the Recreation Administration Department and the City Parks Department in Bozeman, Montana. Outdoor Recreation-Open Space Plan for Gallatin County. An Outdoor Recreation-Open Space Plan for Gallatin County was completed by the Gallatin County Subdivision Review Office and adopted in 1989. The Plan contains a detailed inventory and description of all public and private park, recreation and school lands in Gallatin County. There is also an analysis of past growth and development in Bozeman and the jurisdictional area. The plan suggests the adoption of subdivision park location and development criteria, cash-in-lieu fund disbursement criteria and linear park linkages. This plan also calls for more City-County cooperation regarding recreation concerns. Bozeman Transportation Plan. The Bozeman Transportation Plan was completed in January, 1982, by Clete Daily and Associates of Helena, Montana, in cooperation with the Montana Department of Highways, Federal Highway Administration, and the City of Bozeman. The plan evaluates the existing transportation system for the City of Bozeman and reviews current street and traffic conditions by using projected growth information supplied by the Planning Staff in 1977; future traffic patterns and transportation network problems were determined. The Transportation Plan is becoming outdated. Several projects identified in the Plan have been completed including 19th Avenue - from Main to Durston and Kagy Boulevard from Highland to Willson. 9 The Bozeman Arterial EIS (October 1986) provides updated information on transportation issues related to the North 19th, Oak Street, and Kagy Boulevard projects. Master Plan for Campus Development (Montana State University). The Campus Plan was completed by the Office of Facilities Planning of Montana State University in March of 1982. The intent of the document is to record and analyze projected trends and changes in the University's academic programs; to identify elements of potential impact for future study, and to begin establishing guidelines for development of the campus. The plan projects an enrollment of 14,000 students by 1992 and 17,000 students by 1997. The University has revised its projected enrollments in the plan downward to an anticipated 10,200 students in 1992, rising slightly through 1997 to the 10,500 range. The Campus Master Plan produces three goals concerning the use of campus land: 1. Campus development should be implemented with a recognition of further growth potential of both the University and the City of Bozeman. 2. Central campus development should continue to provide an academic core in which pedestrian travel between most points will require no more than seven or eight minutes. 3. Open space -within the central campus should be preserved, emphasized and improved. One major area of development which will serve both the campus and the community is the land south of Kagy Boulevard between South 11th and 19th Avenue. A map in the campus plan identifies Montana State University's preferences for land use and provides a solution the university feels will benefit the campus and the city. Three major land use designations are recognized as being needed: R-4 (multi-family housing); TR (Research- Technology); and B-1 (Neighborhood Business). Final Report for Bozeman Public Schools. The study of Bozeman public schools was completed in February, 1981, by the Blue Ribbon Commission. The commission was made up of 38 citizen advisory members appointed by the school board and a team of professional consultants. These groups were supplemented by graduate assistants from Montana State University. These groups were assigned to seven subcommittees dealing with population, financing, facilities, administration, the elementary program, the secondary program and auxiliary services. 10 The study inventories existing schools in School District 7 and offers current and projected student enrollments through the year 2000. Student enrollments are projected to increase. The study outlined the numerous auxiliary services available through School District Number 7 which consists of The Adult and Community Education Program, the Pupil Transportation Service, the Learning Media Services and The Special Education Program. It also included recommendations for acquiring and establishing future school and park sites. In January, 1986, the Bureau of Educational Research and Field Services, Montana State University, completed an enrollment and facility study for Bozeman School District No. 7. The study analyzed community growth trends, population projections and facilities. The Bozeman School Board endorsed the project and bases its present course of action on the study's findings. The report stresses the need for new public school facilities. After considerable demographic analysis, the study predicts a student enrollment increase from 4,152 in 1986 to 4,600 by 1995. This increase will require a new elementary school. The report also maintains that Emerson and Willson schools are unsafe, beyond cost-effective renovation, and will need replacement. The School District proposes to build a facility on the south edge of Bozeman. Although a bond issue put to the voters for new school facilities failed in the fall of 1987, the School Board Bond issue passed with substantial approval in September 1989. Bozeman Central Business District Study. In February, 1972, the Bozeman City-County Planning Board, in conjunction with a group of downtown businessmen, solicited proposals to study Bozeman's Central Business District in four specific areas: 1. Marketability, 2. Circulation, 3. Parking, and 4. Design As a result of the 1972 study, ongoing efforts have been made to preserve the Bozeman downtown area and address its problems. In 1980, the Bozeman Downtown Development Association hired the architectural firm of Kommers, McLaughlin and Leavengood to prepare a Phase I Downtown Bozeman Plan. Using the consensus-building technique called a "charrette", the firm compiled a priority list of objectives. The charrette noted the evolving nature of downtown Bozeman towards a cultural center, in addition to its retail trade emphasis. (Many objectives echo the recommendations of the 1972 Downtown study.) Principal among them were: 1. elimination of through truck traffic 2. provision of more off-street parking 3. development of a civic center 11 In 1986, the Downtown Bozeman Association called for a review of viable alternatives regarding the following: 1. a sign ordinance 2. paving of the alleys 3. increasing the use of the alleys 4. burying the power lines 5. providing more greenery along the streets and in off-street parking areas 6. providing a bus service from the airport 7. street lighting improvements 8. hiring a Main Street.manager Again, the association listed the critical issues of a civic center, off-street parking, and truck traffic on Main Street. Blue Ribbons of Big Sky Water Quality Management Plan. The comprehensive area-wide study of water quality in the Madison and Gallatin River drainage was begun in February, 1976. The study was sponsored by the Madison and Gallatin County governments including their incorporated cities and by the Madison and Gallatin Soil Conservation Districts. The Blue Ribbon's study was intended to determine the water quality of the lakes, streams and rivers in the Madison and Gallatin River drainage, and what must be done to insure their quality: The Water Quality Management Plan recommends a wide variety of alternative actions including zoning to control development density, treatment of streams, and city-county planning jurisdictional area plans and regulations to restrict development to the central sewer and water service areas. Energv Element. The Energy Element was completed in June of 1982 by an energy consultant employed by the City of Bozeman. The study deals with all aspects of energy use in the community. It includes studies relating recent consumption patterns to future energy prices, energy conservation to land use planning, and energy costs to transportation. The study concludes that low temperatures and long winters are the distinguishing characteristics of the Bozeman area climate. This makes Bozeman uniquely suited to building earth-sheltered and superinsulated structures. It also concludes that high density residential development such as multi-story apartments, condominiums and townhouses are the most energy efficient of all residential developments. Because of Bozeman's northern location and cloud patterns, a solar-heated structure is not as suitable. In 1981, there were 4,000 fireplaces and wood-burning stoves in the Bozeman area. Almost one-half of these have been installed since 1976, resulting in a surprising increase of visible air pollution. This increase in wood burning will affect the availability of firewood and will undoubtedly result in increased wood prices. 12 The number of fireplaces and woodstoves has continued to grow proportionately with population increase, new construction, and the cost of nonrenewable energies. Consequently, concern by the community regarding air quality has also escalated. Although the air quality of the Gallatin Valley is far under federal and state hazardous air pollution standards, community participation, both public and private, is necessary to avoid further air quality degradation. With the increase in wood burning the availability of firewood and undoubtedly wood prices will continue to be affected. Given this assumption, commercial wood prices may eventually parallel natural gas and electricity prices for home heating. Vehicle fuels represent over one-half of all energy expenditures in the Bozeman area. If energy savings are to be made, greater decreases in personal transportation energy consumption will necessitate public involvement in three essential areas: 1. Land use controls and incentives will have to prevent scattered development and encourage higher density development with central urban facilities. 2. Provisions will have to be made to provide for better bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities. 3. Arterial streets will have to be improved to permit the free flow of larger volumes of traffic. 13 III. INV ENTORY/ANALYS IS A. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Over the past several decades, population and employment in Bozeman and Gallatin County have been growing slowly. This slow, steady growth is likely to continue into the future, allowing the area to easily accommodate projected growth. Population Population growth has had an average annual growth rate of about 2.3 percent over the past 25 years in both Bozeman and Gallatin County; rapid growth occurred in the city during the 1970s. Bozeman's population has grown from 13,400 in 1960 to 23,800 in 1985 (the most recent estimate), while county population has increased from 26,000 in 1960 to 48,700 in 1987, as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1. POPULATION BOZEMAN AND GALLATIN COUNTY 1960-1987 Annual Change Population Absolute Percent Bozeman City 1960 13,361 -- -- 1970 18,870 551 3.5% 1980 21,645 278 1.4% 1985 23,809 433 1.9% 1987 24,171 181 0.8% Gallatin County 1960 26,045 -- -- 1970 32,505 646 2.2% 1980 42,865 1,036 2.8% 1985 47,151 857 1.9% 1987 48,700 775 1.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Forecasts, Gallatin County, 1988- 2010 and Hammer, Siler, George Associates Estimates of future population vary depending on the source. The most conservative forecasts estimate population growth for the City and County at about one percent annually. Other sources are more optimistic, estimating an annual growth rate of over five percent between 1990 and 2010. Given recent trends, a slower rate of growth seems more likely. Residential building permits echo the population growth of the 1980s with an average of 177 building permits issued in each of the nine years, as shown in Table 2 below. About 33 percent of the units have been for single family houses and the remainder for multi-family dwellings. A surge in multi-family 14 construction in the mid 1980s reflects the availability of financing and local economic prosperity. Table 2. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS, BOZEMAN, 1980-1988 Single Family Multi-family Units Units Total 1980 56 98 154 1981 57 99 156 1982 57 37 94 1983 122 311 433 1984 88 299 387 1985 65 129 194 1986 35 77 112 1987 30 7 37 1988 28 3 31 Average 59 118 177 Source: City of Bozeman Fewer residential building permits can be expected in the future, as has been the case in the past two years, reflecting the slower population growth. At an average of six dwelling units per acre, about 30 acres of land have been required for new residential development each year, and a comparable land requirement can be expected in the future. Building permits are required for construction in the extra-territorial zoning area and within the City limits of Bozeman. Building permits are issued by the City. The building permit totals illustrated in Table 2 above include totals for both the extra-territorial area and for permitted construction activities within the City limits. Employment Employment has also been growing slowly, at an average annual rate of 2.6 percent in recent years, as shown in Table 3. Overall the number of jobs in Gallatin County has grown from 21,200 in 1981 to 25,400 in 1987. Services, government and retail trade are the largest employment sectors, representing nearly 75 percent of nonagricultural employment in 1987. In terms of absolute change, services have been growing most rapidly, and this growth is also reflected in the rate of change. Both retail trade and government have been growing more slowly than total employment. Montana State University remains the largest employer both in the City and County, accounting for about 2,000 faculty and staff jobs, both full- and part- time. As enrollment stabilizes in coming years, so too will University employment. 15 During the 1980s, employment in Gallatin County has been growing slightly more rapidly than population, an annual rate of 2.6 percent compared to 1.6 percent for population. The expansion of employment in the retail trade and services sectors indicates the important role of tourism in the local economy. Government continues to represent a significant number of jobs, although its percentage of total employment has been declining slightly. The relatively slow rate of population and employment growth is likely to continue into the future. Even if employment and population were to increase to previous high-growth levels, the community vision presented in the master plan simply would be achieved more rapidly. Any unforeseen event or drastic change in the local economic outlook which would stimulate a radically different development pattern or infrastructure requirements would be cause to reevaluate the master plan. B. EXISTING LAND USE The most recent inventory of land use was done on-site in the city and the jurisdictional area was completed in 1981. The amount of land in each zone, as well as the amount of land in use, was then measured and recorded. Upon completion of the land measurement work, the data was summarized and totals for planning areas were compiled. All of the acreage figures include the areas of adjacent streets, roads and alleys. There is also a total for area of roads in the city and jurisdiction. In order to further document existing land uses within the Bozeman Area, staff is advised to perform a detailed existing land use inventory in conjunction with the 1990 census. It should also be noted that County Planning and Zoning Districts are excluded from the activities of the City-County Planning Board. Residential Land Use The majority of housing in Bozeman and the jurisdictional area is single- family residential. According to the land use inventory conducted by the planning staff in 1981, 52 percent of all housing in the city was comprised of single family housing. This was equivalent to 3,184 housing units. There were approximately 783 acres in use for single family residences in 1981. This comprised about 17 percent of the city's total land use. At the same time, there were 2,885 multi-family units in the City, accounting for 48 percent of the City's housing stock. Since 1981, almost 1,500 additional units have been constructed in the City, of which about two-thirds have been multi-family. After a peak construction of 433 units in 1984, construction has dropped dramatically. The average annual housing construction for the decade of the 1980's has been 177 units. 16 There has been a slow but steady conversion of single family residences to apartments in Bozeman. These conversions generally relate to supplying university students with housing, and the majority of these conversions have taken place in the university area. From 1970 to 1981, approximately 900 multi-family units were converted from single family residences. In Bozeman, the demand for mobile home dwelling units as a housing alternative is somewhat less than the demand for single family, multifamily and apartment dwelling units. There are approximately four and one-half acres of land utilized for mobile homes on individual lots within the City of Bozeman. There are approximately 65 acres of land with developed mobile home parks scattered around the City with nearly 500 mobile homes situated in these parks. A majority of the mobile home parks are developed to capacity. 17 Table 3. NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GALLATIN COUNTY 1981-87 Annual Absolute 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Change Percent Ag Service 208 221 239 296 314 353 377 22 8.9% Mining 81 78 81 94 105 157 150 10 9.2% Construction 1,271 1,392 1,524 1,746 1,685 1,660 1,561 24 3.0% Manufacturing 1,424 1,275 1,354 1,523 1,559 1,323 1,309 5 -1.2% TCU 1/ 854 892 917 1,000 1,045 1,037 1,077 26 3.4% Wholesale Trade 620 664 705 729 869 888 892 33 5.3% Retail Trade 4,685 5,006 5,111 5,228 5,339 5,514 5,415 58 2.1% FIRE 2/ 1,449 1,514 1,581 1,607 1,609 1,628 1,644 19 1.8% Services 4,592 4,889 5,349 5,774 6,151 6,362 6,701 259 5.5% Government 5,980 6,126 6,179 6,155 6,238 6,277 6,249 18 0.6% r 00 -- Total 21,164 22,057 23,040 24,152 24,914 25,199 25,375 474 2.6% 1/ Transportation, Communications and Utilities 2/ Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis and Hammer, Siler, George Associates The number of available mobile homes had been increasing both within the City and within the extra-territorial jurisdictional area where land is more plentiful to develop mobile home parks. Existing mobile homes and parks had been developed nearly to capacity until the fall of 1987. A decrease in demand, however, has changed the need for this housing alternative. The annexation of the Annie Subdivision to the City 'of Bozeman in 1987 provides for the addition of 78 residential-mobile home lots to the market. This reflects a continued community trend to provide available mobile home housing lots and housing alternatives within the City limits, but the land owner has negated the action of the City by placing covenants on the land to prohibit the siting of mobile homes. The majority of growth that has taken place in the jurisdictional area in the last ten years has been single family residential, large lot growth. As of 1981, there were 1,558 single family residential units in the jurisdictional area (outside of the City, within the City-County Planning Area, Figure 1). The land use survey conducted in 1981 showed approximately 2,000 acres of land being utilized for single family residences at that time, and over 7,000 acres have been subdivided into residential lots of 20 acres or less. Commercial Land Use Approximately 290 acres of land are being utilized for commercial uses in the city and 241 acres are being utilized in the jurisdictional area. There are three zoning designations for commercial land in Bozeman and the jurisdictional area: the Central Business District; highway commercial development, and neighborhood commercial development. The area zoned for the Central Business District is approximately 94 acres in size. Only 32 acres of this area is currently in commercial use. A major portion of this land remains in single family residential use. Therefore, there is more land available for commercial use within the Central Business District than may be expected to be utilized in the near future. As the commercial activity in this area expands, the single family residences will be converted to commercial use. There are approximately 500 acres of land zoned for highway business use in the City of Bozeman with about 250 acres being utilized at the present time. The majority of this development has taken place along North 7th Avenue and West Main Street. There are approximately 38 acres of land zoned for neighborhood commercial with about 20 acres being used at this time. The majority of the developed commercial land is in the University area with locations set aside in Valley Unit Subdivision and the Story Hills Annexation. Industrial Land Use There are presently 679 acres of land zoned for industrial use in the city of Bozeman. Of this, 135 acres are now being utilized for light industrial purposes in the northern portion of the City. The majority of this land, 19 however, is either owned or controlled by the Burlington Northern Railroad and is not available for development at the present time. There are 52 acres zoned for technology-research with nine acres presently being used for the existing electronics assembly plant. There are seven additional acres for plant site expansion adjacent to the existing plant. The remainder of the zoned land is located in Valley Unit Annexation. Agricultural Land Use The land use survey prepared by the planning staff during the summer of 1981 showed 41,947 acres of the jurisdictional area outside the city to be in agricultural use. This is approximately 82 percent of the total land area. Over 90 percent of the land in the west and north-west planning areas was in agricultural use, and nearly 85 percent in agricultural use in the east planning area. Agricultural activities have not been as severely impacted by urban development in these areas as in some others, and these are areas with the more productive soils on moderately sloping to level terrain. Large acreages were also in agricultural use south and southwest of the city. The southwest planning area contained 6,916 acres, nearly 80 percent of it in agricultural use. The southern planning area contained over 7,300 acres in agricultural use, which is about 72 percent of the total land. These are also generally more productive soils on gently sloping to level terrain. Approximately 23,740 acres of the City-County Planning Board's jurisdictional area is zoned. Some 21,438 acres are zoned Agricultural Suburban, which requires ten acres per dwelling unit. About one half of this, 10,238 acres, is undeveloped land for which the agricultural use potential has not been impaired by urban development or local subdivision activity. Existing residential development in the jurisdictional area outside the City of Bozeman occupies about 3,122 acres and has a population of about 5,787 people and 2,278 dwelling units. The average developed residential property is approximately 1.41 acres in size. C. PHYSIOGRAPHY Bozeman is located in the Gallatin Valley, near the foot of the Bridger Range of the Rocky Mountains, which rise just east of the City (Figure 2). Much of the area to the northeast, east, and south of the City of Bozeman lies within these foothills, and is in excess of 15% in slope. This area creates the visual backdrop for Bozeman, with the surrounding flat agricultural Valley creating a striking contrast. The physiography which creates this unique environment also presents general constraints to development. Slopes greater than 15% create problems for urban development, including potential erosion, steep access roads, and visual scars resulting from road and lot grading. Steep slopes in the Study Area include the foothills and the area above Sourdough Ridge in the eastern portion of the City. All of these ridges and steep slopes add visual character to the Bozeman area, and development of these features should be 20 discouraged, or carefully designed to avoid visual impacts. The formation of the Bridger Range to the east and the Gallatin Range to the west and south has created several fault lines. The exact location of these faults is not easily identified, but they have been generally located (Figure 2). The displacement along these faults is generally less than one foot, but displacements of more than 20 feet do exist. Development in the vicinity of these fault lines should be discouraged. A significant volume of detailed information regarding the physiography of the Gallatin Valley and the Bridger Range is available. Physiographic resources studied include extensive slope analyses, geologic assessments and complete soils analyses. In addition, surface water studies and ground water analyses have also been completed. This information is available for review in greater detail in the original Bozeman Area Master Plan (1983). This 1983 document, and the detailed information contained within, will continue to be integral information important to the administration of planning and development approvals within the jurisdiction. D. DRAINAGE/FLOODPLAINS Bozeman and the Gallatin Valley are crisscrossed with numerous creeks and irrigation canals. Most of the creeks flow from the southeast to northwest, to the Gallatin River (Figure 3). Major creeks within the Planning Area include the: ° East Gallatin River, in the northeastern portion of the City and Planning Area ° Bozeman (Sourdough) Creek, flowing south to north through the City into the East Gallatin River ° Spring Nash, Mathew Bird, and Figgins Creeks in the southern portions of the City ° Hyalite Creek, southwest of the City ° Rocky Creek, flowing northwest along the Interstate, into the northeast sections of the City ° Bridger Creek, flowing west from Bridger Canyon, joining Bozeman and Rocky Creeks north of the City to form the East Gallatin River. Bozeman Creek has been channelized and rerouted into a storm pipe as it flows through the center of the City. All of the drainages in the Bozeman Valley are a critical resource, and have great value for use as visual open space and recreation corridors. Groundwater is another important water resource in the Gallatin Valley. Generally, groundwater is near the surface, and flows. from south to north to the East Gallatin River. Locally high water tables (less than 10 feet from the surface) exist throughout the Valley. High water tables are a problem for construction of basements, and also cause septic tank leach fields to malfunction. 21 Gallatin County and the State of Montana allow septic tanks and leach fields' on one-acre lots. While no adverse groundwater quality effects have been documented, the cumulative effects of septic systems on ground and surface water quality continues to be an environmental concern. In addition, high water tables also pose constraints to development where the storage and disposal, of wastes and chemicals will required. Care must be taken to develop a Plan that acknowledges the importance of the groundwater resources in the Gallatin Valley. E. UTILITIES The City of Bozeman provides water and sewer service to areas within the corporate limits. In addition, the system has the potential to expand within a future service area. Montana Power Company provides electric and gas service to the Gallatin Valley. At this time, the Environmental Protection Agency is promulgating increasingly stringent rules governing the supply and treatment of drinking water, disposal of sewage sludge, municipal solid waste landfilling practices and stormwater runoff quality and treatment. It would be premature to predict the final rules. It is not premature to recognize that the future needs of these areas is going to be directly affected by the EPA. Water System Supply. The present water supply for Bozeman is taken from three sources, Lyman Creek, Bozeman (Sourdough) Creek, and Hyalite (Middle) Creek. Lyman Creek, located northeast of Bozeman, derives its source from a number of springs. Average flows approach 134 miners inches during the summer with a low of 50 miners inches in the late winter. The city has the right to the first 238 3/10ths miners inches of flow. The water from Lyman Creek is treated with chlorine and fluoride. The Bozeman Creek system, located south of Bozeman, consists of a small intake and settling basin on Bozeman Creek, about six miles south of the City. The City has rights to 250 miners inches of normal flow and rights to Bozeman Creek flood water. Minimum flow in Bozeman Creek is often less than 625 inches of decreed water rights. The minimum flow in the summer is 2,900 miners inches. The water of Bozeman Creek is filtered and treated with chlorine and fluoride. Mystic Lake, in the past, has supplemented Bozeman Creek during summer months. Since that time, Mystic Lake has been breached due to structural deficiencies in the dam and the future of its use has not been resolved. The reconstruction of the Mystic Lake dam at an alternate location is, however, being actively pursued. Resolution of the issues surrounding reconstruction of the structure itself, stability of the surrounding bedrock, and the potential reuse of Mystic Lake as a domestic raw water supply are yet to be made. The Hyalite Creek system, located south of Bozeman, contains the Hyalite Reservoir, a diversion structure on Hyalite Creek, with a settling basin, and 22 a 21-inch transmission line, approximately 20,000 feet long, that links Hyalite Creek to the filter plant on Bozeman Creek. The City of Bozeman has contracted with the Middle Creek Water Users Association for 2,905 acre feet of water stored in Hyalite Reservoir. Distribution. The distribution system (water mains 10 inches and greater) within the City is shown in Figure 4. Water is treated at a point six miles south of the City limits on Bozeman Creek, and can also be treated at the Lyman Reservoir, one mile northeast of the City limits. These two treatment facilities, Southside and Lyman, supply the City storage and distribution system. Future Needs. The northwest portion of Bozeman between Durston Road and Interstate 90 is serviced by dead-end lines. A 12-inch line on Oak Street from North 7th to North 19th, north on 19th to Baxter, then east on Baxter under the Insterstate would provide a loop for the system, thus providing a second source of water for additional fire protection in this portion of the City. The City of Bozeman needs to increase its available supply of water. This can be accomplished in part by better utilizing the water which the city has available. To better monitor the amount of water the city is using, inflow, overflow and outflow metering devices will be installed at the water treatment plant. The City also intends to install metering on all residences in the city that are unmetered. While the City of Bozeman had decreed water rights to approximately 13,000 acre feet of water, several factors combine to make the reliable yield of water rights much smaller. The low flows of later summer, winter, and drought periods are much smaller than the decreed rights so that supply is actually smaller than the right. The net result is that the reliable yield of water rights is substantially smaller than the decreed water rights the City owns. Freezing constricts water intakes so that water quantities are reduced during the cold winter months. Water demand is higher during certain times of the day. Since the intake gates can not be constricted or opened as demand rises and falls, water is lost during low demand periods. Reservoir discharge can not be reduced to store the lost water. The amount lost increases as demand increases. Although inadequate metering at the City intake, storage reservoir, homes and outlet facility make estimation difficult, losses in the distribution system through leakage are estimated to consume approximately 10-15% of the water entering the distribution systems. In 1980, the City diverted 7,695 acre-feet of water, but the reliable yield was approximately 6,566 acre feet (an acre foot is a measure of the volume of water). The deficit was made up by purchasing water from the Middle Creek Water Users Association out of Hyalite Reservoir. Purchased water is available only after the irrigation season and can not be depended upon. Since 1980, the City has acquired enough additional water rights to bring its total reliable yield to approximately 9,000 acre-feet. The proposed rehabilitation of the Hyalite Reservoir dam would result in as much as 2,334 acre-feet of additional stored water available to the City, with a reliable yield of 1,867 acre-feet. 23 A variety of potential sources of water needs to be aggressively investigated. Recent studies by several parties have suggested the following possibilities: 1. Repair of water leaks in the distribution systems, 2. Providing demand-surge raw water storage at the filter plant, 3. Active water conservation through economic incentives and education, transfer of agricultural surface water rights, 4. Construction of additional storage capacity on the surface at the distribution point or in the mountains, 5. Development of ground water storage using flood water in the spring, 6. Development of near surface or deep ground water supplies, and 7. A conservation/education program. Options for the development and maintenance of adequate quasi-public water and sewer services exist outside the City limits of Bozeman throughout Gallatin County. The Gallatin County Commission provides for the creation of community water and sewer districts in rural portions of the County. The creation of one of these districts will allow for the cost effective provision of central water and sewer services. The establishment of one of these districts allows the County to levy taxes, servicing bonded obligations for improvements in rural subdivisions. The Rae and Riverside water and sewer districts are examples of successful private community systems, located in the Jurisdictional Area. These systems have both provided opportunities for the development of rural subdivisions outside the City limits. Further investigation regarding the establishment and use of central community utility systems is necessary as Bozeman implements the Plan. Studies are needed to inventory and assess the potential sources of water for the City. To adequately assess the water needs of Bozeman, a good water metering system is needed at all major diversion, storage, and outlet structures as well as all residences. The data gathered from metering, the inventories, and studies should be integrated into a detailed plan which addresses the water shortage the City faces. Sewer System Existing Facilities. The Bozeman sanitary sewer system is made up of pipes of various sizes and materials terminating at the wastewater treatment plant on Springhill Road, north of Bozeman. The northern portion of Bozeman is served by a 20-inch collector that parallels the Burlington Northern tracks to a point just south of the new treatment plant. The western and southern parts of Bozeman are collected into a 24-inch line (Figure 4). This combined sewage is then brought into the plant in a 30-inch line. Future Needs. The Bridger Canyon trunk system was installed as a private sewer from Rouse Avenue north of Griffin Drive near the Humane Society building and extending eastward to include Bridger Industrial Center and the Bridger View Trailer Court. This system, when repaired to meet City standards, may be extended to provide collection for those areas along Bridger Canyon Road that are heavily developed areas now using private water wells and individual septic systems. The Sourdough trunk system, if and when constructed, will extend the system from Kagy Boulevard to include those 24 areas west of Sourdough Road and south of Kagy Boulevard that are not currently within the city limits. Annexation to the city will be a requirement for service. The University interceptor was installed along Durston Road and was then extended south to serve the Main Mall and part of the Triangle Annexation Area as well as intervening land. This system will eventually be extended to Lincoln Street and then east to 19th Avenue. The far west trunk has been extended from the intersection of Baxter Lane and 19th Avenue to service the Valley Unit area, and it will eventually be extended south to service the area south and west of Bozeman. Some older sectors of Bozeman contain deteriorating, undersized sewer lines which need to be replaced. This problem will become more acute in the future. It will be a very expensive problem to correct, and long-range financial plans are needed to help provide a strategy for correcting it. The Bozeman Wastewater Treatment Plant has been designed to serve a population of approximately 55,000 people, and is designed to be constructed in phases. Each phase of construction will be consonant with the needs of Bozeman as anticipated growth occurs. The addition of primary clarifiers and construction of additional sludge holding ponds will be important components of the eventual expansion of the Bozeman Wastewater Treatment Plant. It should, thus, serve the projected population of the City well into the twenty- first century. The study area for the wastewater treatment plant comprises about 6,000 acres outside the present city boundaries. Approximately 600 to 700 acres of this land are developed, primarily in large residential lots with individual wells and septic tanks. Nearly 4,000 acres are vacant but are subdivided into large, low density residential building lots and 20-acre tracts. The remaining land comprises about 2,000 acres in vacant or agricultural use. An immediate problem is to prevent the City from becoming hemmed in by large lot development to the extent that growth will be impeded and the central facilities underutilized. Municipal Solid Waste Existing System. The solid waste disposal site for Bozeman and much of the Bozeman area is a 200-acre site located northeast of Bozeman on Story Mill Road. Of the 200 acres, there are only about 80 acres that are usable for landfilling municipal solid wastes. The remainder of the parcel is traversed by two main drainages. The portion that is not now being utilized by active landfill operations is being leased for agricultural purposes. The city collects solid waste from 4,200 residences within the corporate limits. The remainder, primarily new subdivisions, Montana State University on- campus housing, and all commercial establishments are picked up by other haulers. All of the city-collected solid waste and Montana State University solid waste is brought to the landfill, as well as much of the surrounding area's waste not 25 collected by private haulers. The major private hauler utilizes the landfill facility at Logan. Current Operation. The Garbage Fund is an enterprise fund with two major revenue sources: collection assessments and "tipping" or gate fees paid at the landfill. Collection assessments are paid annually, the charge based on the number of rooms of the residence served. Tipping fees are based on the volume of waste brought to the landfill. More specifically, the charge is based on the size of the vehicle. The City operates two three-man packer trucks that operate five days per week. Solid waste is collected on a weekly basis. In 1989, the City purchased a landfill compactor for use in daily operations. The compactor's effect is an increased density of landfilled materials which will better preserve cell integrity, lessen the area landfilled and covered daily, and extend the useful life of the landfill. Future Operation. Major changes in the Garbage Fund are anticipated. First, the collection assessments are being revised to better reflect the actual quantities of solid waste generated by the individual residences. this volume- based rate structure, in combination with a City sponsored recycling program, is anticipated to cause a shift in consumers' attitudes regarding disposal of solid waste. Second, the tipping fees at the landfill are being revised from the current volume base to a weight base. Landfill scales installed in 1988 have been in continuous use since, providing an historical record of landfilled tonnages. The new fee schedule will provide for a better correlation between fee charged and materials handled and will allow for computerization of fee processing. Specialty items with extraordinary short and long term handling requirements will see a higher fee. The life expectancy of the existing landfill site is approximately 12 years. Options for the handling and disposal of municipal solid wastes are being considered through a joint effort by the City and County. Options include a county-wide solid waste landfill site and recycling program(s). All options will be considered in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency's hierarchy of waste management techniques. Namely, 1) Reduction; 2) Recycling; 3) Incineration; and 4) Landfilling. Capital expenditures planning ranges from the most expensive projects of new landfill site acquisition and incineration plant construction to lesser cost projects of transfer station construction and City-operated recycling program equipment. The direction of efforts will finally be determined through analysis of all available options as identified and the impending Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 Subtitle D revised rules. 26 F. TRANSPORTATION The Bozeman Transportation Plan was completed in 1982. The Plan's principal concept is a loop system comprised of Highland Boulevard, Kagy Boulevard, 19th Avenue, and Oak Street. With the traffic congestion currently experienced in the center of town, especially on Main Street and 7th Avenue, the completion of the edge arterials would create a significant benefit. Figure 5 illustrates this loop system, as well as the existing and proposed classification of streets in the Bozeman area. One of the implementation policies of this plan is to "review the current transportation plan and update to provide enhanced vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation". The community is actively pursuing this policy, and when completed will be integrated into the transportation planning information contained herein. Functional Classification Several systems are used to classify roadways. Systems have been developed which assign roadway construction/maintenance responsibility, funding distribution and administration, and numbering designations. For transportation network planning as well as specific design purposes, highways are most effectively classified by function. Roadways have two basic functions: ° Provide mobility from point to point, ° Provide access to adjacent land uses. From a design standpoint, these two functions have proven to be incompatible. For land access, low speeds are desirable, usually accompanied by inconsistent flows; for mobility, high speeds and uniform flows are desirable. For example, freeways are designed and constructed to satisfy demand from the traveling public for high mobility. Rapid travel between points in a safe and uniform manner is the primary objective. Access to land uses is tightly controlled, limited only to spaced interchanges to preserve the high-speed, high-volume characteristics of the facility. Extremely dangerous conditions would result if low-speed, land access traffic were permitted on these roads. Conversely, local roadways are developed with the primary objective to provide convenient access to the adjacent land areas. Between these two extremes fall the majority of all roadway mileage. This group is the most difficult to classify because the roadways must provide both land access and mobility. Roadway function establishes the type of transportation service that is provided. Directly related to the type of transportation service provided is the degree of access control. Increasing control of access allows traffic to travel in a more uniform manner, allowing design speeds to be .increased. Table 4 shows the relationship between categories, functions and access control. 27 Four basic functional categories are use to classify roadways. These categories are defined as: ° Principal Arterials ° Major Arterial Streets ° Collector Streets ° Local Streets These groups make up the hierarchy of functional classes which relate directly to the different levels of travel demand from the public. Travel demand is easily identified according to the types and lengths of trips which individuals attempt to make. TABLE 4 Functional Classification Definitions/Principles Degree of Private Category Primary Function Access Control Principal Arterials Mobility Freeways Total Expressways Very High Major At-Grade Arterial Streets Very High Major Arterial Streets Mobility High Collector Streets Mobility/Accessibility Transition Local Streets Accessibility Minimal Source: BRW, Inc. Principal Arterials. The Principal Arterial System is a system of streets and highways which can be identified as unusually significant to the region in which it lies in terms of the nature and composition of the travel which it serves. The Principal Arterial System should serve the major centers of activity of a metropolitan area, the highest traffic volume corridors, and the longest trip desires, and should carry a high proportion of the total urban travel on a minimum of mileage. The Principal Arterial System should carry the major portion of trips entering and leaving the urban area, as well as the majority of through movements desiring to bypass the central city. In addition, significant intra-area travel such as between central business districts and outlying residential areas, between major inner-city communities or between major suburban centers, should be served by this class of facilities. 28 Due to the nature of the travel served by the Principal Arterial System, almost all fully and partially controlled access facilities will be part of this functional class. However, this system is not restricted to controlled access routes. Design types which are often included under the Principal Arterial System are: i. Interstate Highways ii. Freeway and Expressways iii. Partially Controlled Access Roadways The spacing of urban Principal Arterials will be closely related to the trip- end density characteristics of particular portions of the urban area. While a firm spacing rule cannot be established that is applicable in all circumstances, the spacing of Principal Arterials may vary from less than one mile in the highly developed central business area, to five miles or more in the sparsely developed fringes. For Principal Arterials, the concept of service to abutting land is subordinate to the provision of travel service to major traffic movements. It should be noted that only partially controlled access facilities are capable of providing any direct access to land, and such service should be purely incidental to the primary functional responsibility of this classification. Major Arterials. The Major Arterial Street System should interconnect and augment the Principal-Arterial system to provide service trips of moderate length and a somewhat lower level of travel mobility than Principal Arterials. This system also distributes travel to geographic areas smaller than those identified in the Principal Arterial System. The Major Arterial Street System includes facilities that place more emphasis on land access than the higher system, and offers a lower level of traffic mobility. Such facilities provide intracommunity continuity, but ideally should not penetrate identifiable neighborhoods. The spacing of Major Arterial streets may vary from 1/8 to 1/2 mile in the Central Business District (CBD) but not more than one mile in suburban areas. These streets are usually located along the sectionline grid system. Collectors. The Collector Street System differs from the arterial system in that the facilities on the Collector system may penetrate neighborhoods, distributing trips from the arterial system through the area to the ultimate destination, which may be on a local or collector street. In some cases, due to the design of the overall street system, a minor amount of through traffic may be carried on some collector streets. The Collector System provides both land access service and local traffic movement within residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas. The Collector Street System in the Study Area is in the process of evolving as development occurs. It is important that this evolution occur in such a manner to relieve the Principal, and Major Arterials of the private land access function which they are now providing. Such relief will result in greater efficiency in the arterial systems and reduce the lane and right-of-way requirements that would otherwise be needed. 29 TABLE 5 Functional Classification Characteristics PRINCIPAL CHARACTERISTICS ARTERIAL ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL Service Performed Traffic Move- Traffic Move- Land Access Direct ment, No ment, Minimal and some Land Direct Land Land Access Traffic Access Access Movement Typical Trip Inter-State Sub-Regional Within Within Lengths and Regional and Inter- Communities Neighbor Community Community roods and Business Centers Spacing 2-4 Miles 1 Mile 1/4-1/2 Mile Every Block Continuity Totally Inter- Inter-Connected Inter-Con- No Con- connected over with Principal nected with tinuity the entire Region Arterials and Major and Required Continuous WithinMinor Arterials Sub-Regions and Usually Continuous Within Neigh- borhoods Access Type Interchanges Signalized Signalized Stop Sign and Spacing at 1 Mile Intersections and Stop Sign Con- (freeway or at consistent Controlled trolled expressway) spacings, e.g. Intersections Inter- and Major 1/2 mile (1/4 at 1/8 mile. sections. Signalized if warranted). Some Restric- Unre- Intersections Private Access tion Private stricted (expressway only) Access Access. as warranted Restricted. Source: BRW, Inc. Local Streets. The Local Street System comprises all facilities that are not included within the higher classification systems. This system provides direct access to abutting land and access to the higher roadway systems with through traffic movement deliberately discouraged. 30 Future Needs In addition to the previously discussed completion of the Kagy, 19th, and Oak portions of the loop major arterial system identified in the 1981 Plan, other transportation issues have also emerged. These include: ° Completion of another portion of the loop arterial system in the northeastern portion of the City, from Oak to Highland/Switzler, through the railroad and industrial portion of the City. ° A 19th Avenue interchange at I-90, to provide alternative access to the northwestern portions of the City. ° Completion of 19th Avenue between Oak and Baxter Streets. ° Completion of a western truck by-pass route, from the proposed 19th Avenue/I-90 interchange west to Jack Rabbit (Highway 85), perhaps on Valley Center Road. All of these additional projects would relieve congestion in the center of the City, and help to reduce traffic on neighborhood arterials and collectors. G. PARKS, RECREATION. AND OPEN SPACE Park Standards and Definitions Different parks provide different recreational opportunities and services. Parks can be classified into one of five general categories: neighborhood, community, tot lot, specialty, and linear parks. Sometimes a park can be a combination of these park types. Tot lots provide a recreational facility designed for young children. Structures such as sandboxes, slides, swings, merry-go-rounds, monkey bars and the like are located here. This park's primary function is to provide an active play area for the pre-school to early grade-school-aged children of the neighborhood. Neighborhood parks provide a combination of active and passive recreation opportunities for all age groups in a defined neighborhood. The park should be centrally located and provide some forms of passive recreation, such as picnic areas, shade trees, or walking areas. Community parks provide a wide range of passive and active recreational opportunities for an entire community. An important asset for a community park is a focal point to attract users and to provide a special identity to the park. Community parks are more intensely developed than other types of parks, therefore requiring buffer zone spaces between active recreation areas and surrounding neighborhoods. Good auto access and parking must be provided. The park should be developed and maintained for intensive use. 31 Specialty parks provide a special type of recreational opportunity that capitalizes on a unique natural feature or on a population that is large enough to support a special type of recreational demand. Examples are golf courses, historic sites, zoos and sport complexes. Linear parks are corridors of land which provide public access between different locations for recreational or transportation purposes. Improvements can include facilities to aid walking, hiking and bicycling, and rest stations. Table 6 outlines park acreage standards. By the use of such tables, Bozeman's park needs can be determined. TABLE 6 PARK STANDARDS Acres per Recommended Population Potential 1,000 Maximum and Potentially Service Park Type Population Minimum Size Served Area Tot Lot 1.5 1/4-1 acre 500-2,500 1/2-mile radius Neighborhood 3.5 7 acre min. 2,000-6,500 1/2-mile radius Community varies 20-acre min. community community Specialty varies varies varies varies Linear varies varies varies varies In addition to formal parks and trails, open space plays an important role in softening urban areas. Open space is defined as any land which is provided or preserved for park or recreational purposes, conservation of land or other natural resources, historic or scenic purposes, or assisting in the shaping of the character, direction and time of community development. The definition includes agricultural land, parkland, floodways, stream beds, water sheds, and hazardous building areas (including slide areas, fault zones, and steep slopes). It also includes both public and private lands. Open Space is illustrated in Figure 6. Existing Parks Bozeman has developed a system of small neighborhood parks, largely dedicated as part of the residential subdivision process. There are also several parks which serve the larger community due to their size or special facilities. Existing City Park facilities are listed in Table 7, and located on Figure 6. The City currently has 8.4 miles in their trail system, including 2 miles in the Sourdough Nature Trail. The City has also designated a portion of the Gallagater Trail for use. The Gallagater uses the old Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad corridor between South Church Street and Story and Kagy 32 Boulevard, about 1.2 miles. The trails are available for walking, running, or mountain bike use. Also shown in Figure 6 are other public lands in the Study Area which may be available for recreation. These areas include Bozeman holdings outside of the City, County subdivision parks, State lands, and Federal lands (Gallatin National Forest). These public lands provide a wealth of passive recreational opportunities only miles from the City. Future Needs The following are the identified future needs of the community: 1. The City and County have an outstanding opportunity to create a linear open space network. The open space network could follow streams, drainages, old railroad right-of-ways, utility easements, and roads. The open space network could preserve some of the most important natural assets of the Valley, including the stream corridors. Moreover, the open space network would make recreational opportunities immediately available to City residents, including such activities as walking, running, biking, cross-country skiing, and fishing. Such an open space network would be a symbol of Bozeman's commitment to both environmental protection and outdoor lifestyles. 2. To create a large park for use by all residents of the area. The park would include athletic fields and other multi-purpose facilities. The park should be geared to all age groups. 3. Preservation of open spaces including prime natural areas is important to the Bozeman community. 4. The community needs a facility for all age groups for indoor and outdoor recreation. 5. A Recreation Master Plan emphasizing programming and facility development should be completed. 6. A Parks and Open Space Master Plan should be completed to include land acquisition, development of parks, renovations, equipment and maintenance. 7. In that the East Gallatin Recreation Area provides a unique opportunity to Bozeman, the area should be included as part of the park network. 8. The Bozeman Swim Center is a major emphasis of recreation in the area. It is important that the City continue its commitment to this facility. 33 TABLE 7 City of Bozeman Existing Park Facilities ^+aC11� Size (a.c.) Type/Potential Special Facilities *1. Christie Fields 6.5 Specialty Ballfields 2. ABC Park .17 Neighborhood Undeveloped 3. Annie 4.5 Community 2 acres undeveloped 2.5 acres linear 4. Lindley 12.6 Community Stream, Ponds, Pavilion 5. Bogert 6.8 Community Swimming Pool,Hockey Rink, Band Stand, Tennis Courts, Pavilion 6. Cooper 4.1 Community Open space 7. Beall 2.2 Community Ice Rink, Art Center 8. Southside 2.8 Community Tennis, Ice Rink, Warming Hut 9. Kirk 13.3 Community Ballfields, Covered Tables, Creek 10. New Hyalite View 47.50 Neighborhood Undeveloped 11. N. Grand 2.5 Community Ballfield 12. Centennial 1.8 Neighborhood Senior Center 13. Soroptimist .3 Community Mural *14. Wally Byam Grove 2.6 Neighborhood Pavilion 15. Old Elks/Highland Specialty 10K of trail Ridge Trail 40.0 Community Horseshoes 16. Sourdough Trail 2.0 (mi.) Linear 17. Langhor 8.9 Community Gardens, Pond, Undeveloped 18. Westlake 5.9 Community BMX, Gardens, undeveloped *19. East Gallatin 83.0 Community Glen Lake, Beach, Recreation Area Volleyball, Trails, Nonmotorized boating 20. N. Westridge 2.3 Neighborhood Undeveloped 21. S. Westridge 1.5 Neighborhood Undeveloped 22. E. Graf 15.4 Community Undeveloped, Creek 23. Jarrett 1.9 Neighborhood Tot Lot 24. Josephine 4.3 Speciality Undeveloped, Water Tower 25. N. Ninth 2.2 Neighborhood Undeveloped 26. Valley Unit #1 16.2 Creek, Undeveloped 27. Valley Unit #2 10.9 Creek, Undeveloped *28. Fish, Wildlife, Parks Ponds 16.0 Community Fishing 29. Gallagater Park 12.2 Linear Open Space Corridor 30. Sports Complex 14.6 Specialty Sports Fields 31. Bozeman Swim Center Specialty 50M Pool 32. Gardner Park 8.4 Linear Undeveloped 33. Senior Center 1.8 Speciality Building *Not City Source: City of Bozeman Parks Inventory 34 H. HISTORIC RESOURCES Historic Preservation Planning in Bozeman Significant preservation planning efforts in Bozeman first got underway in 1984 when an intensive architectural survey of the community was conducted. The survey identified over 3,000 buildings and rated them as being primary, contributing, neutral or intrusive for purposes of the inventory. Eight historic districts were then identified and subsequently listed in the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, 40 buildings (nominated both before and after the survey was completed) are individually listed in the National Register. To roughly characterize the architectural development of the community, commercial and institutional development is concentrated along Main Street and the adjacent Mendenhall to the north and Babcock to the south. Middle and upper middle class residents built their houses on the south side of this commercial area from the early 1880's on. Working class residents built their houses on the north side of Main to be closer to the industrial enterprises scattered along the railroad tracks on the north and east sides of town. National Register of Historic Places. Eight National Register historic districts are representative of this architectural development. The locations of these districts are shown on Figure 7, Historic Resources and Public Facilities. Residential architecture on the south side is particularly well represented. ° As the name implies, the Bon Ton Historic District incorporates some of Bozeman's larger and more prestigious houses. Wood frame and brick houses in the Italianate, late Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival and Bungalow styles line the wide streets. Willson Avenue is particularly distinctive because of its wide planting strip and concrete light poles. The canopy of street trees is an important streetscape characteristic throughout the district. ° Houses included in the Cooper Park Historic District represent more modest examples of the same styles found in the Bon Ton Historic District. Additionally, many examples of later 20th century styles such as Bungalow and Craftsman are prevalent. Despite its somewhat smaller scale, the canopy of street trees is also a significant streetscape element in this district, as is Cooper Park itself. ° With its location immediately south of the downtown commercial area, the South Tracy-South Black Historic District contains a wide ranging representation of Bozeman architecture dating from the late 1870s through the 1930s and including Italianate through Bungalow styles. Most of the houses are relatively modest in scale. Like Cooper Park Historic District, which flanks Bon Ton Historic District on the other side, the scale of houses and landscaping is somewhat more modest, but equally significant. 35 ° Two other small districts on the south side, the South Tracy Historic District and the Lindley Place Historic District, contain representative examples of 19th and 20th century Bozeman residential architecture. Lindley Place is notable because of its location some distance from contemporary development as well as having good examples of Bozeman architectural styles. In both districts, the street trees constitute a significant characteristic. ° Bozeman is fortunate to have a vital downtown that retains most of its historic commercial buildings, and these are included in the Main Street Historic District. Extending between two historic hotel buildings, the commercial district is comprised primarily of two story brick buildings dating from the late 19th century through the 1930s. Although some facades remain covered by modern aluminum fronts, the elaborate detailing of many of the buildings remains or has recently been uncovered and restored. Examples of Italianate, Romanesque, various historic revivals and Streamlined Modern are interspersed among simpler buildings. ° As mentioned, the area north of downtown historically provided more modest housing. Although many older houses exist in the area, more of them have been severely remodeled and many more post-1940 structures are interspersed. As a result of this mixed appearance, the only historic district, North Tracy Avenue Historic District, is quite small. Houses in the district are comparable to those in some of the south side districts, but detailing of these 20th century Bungalows and other styles tends to be simpler. Also noteworthy is the fact that the north side as a whole lacks the street trees that contribute significantly to the character of the south side historic districts. ° The Brewery Historic District is comprised of five buildings associated with the Bozeman Brewery owned and operated by the Lehrkind family. Foremost among the buildings is the brewery itself and a later bottling plant. These simple brick industrial buildings are typical of early industrial buildings in the community. The three residential structures represent a range of styles from elaborate Queen Anne to simple Bungalow. The approximately 40 buildings individually listed in the National Register include residences, institutional buildings and industrial buildings. Residences are primarily on the north side of town where the only district is small. In the downtown area are several historic churches, mostly to the south of downtown, and several public buildings, the Carnegie Library and City Hall, that are north of Main. Also listed individually are industrial buildings that include railroad depots, grain elevators, a dairy and various factory buildings, all built during the first few decades of the 20th century. 36 The historic districts and buildings now listed in the National Register are representative of Bozeman's historic architecture. Because of the comprehensive nature of the architectural survey,district boundaries have been drawn to include as many primary and contributing buildings as possible and still meet the National Register criteria. In the future, districts may be expanded and more individual buildings may be nominated to the National Register as the community sees fit. Consideration should be given to creating additional districts on the north side, particularly as more recent buildings come to have potential significance and as substantial rehabilitation activity occurs. Historic Preservation Advisory Board. Bozeman's Historic Preservation Advisory Board was created by ordinance in July, 1985 to make the City eligible to receive Certified Local Government (CLG) funds from the State Historic Preservation Office. The ordinance meets the minimum requirements for the certification by the State Historic Preservation Officer, which, in turn meet the minimum federal requirements for CLGs. Included among these requirements are: forming a preservation board to advise the city; maintaining a system for survey and inventory of historic and prehistoric resources; using the National Register criteria as a basis for local designation; participating in the National Register process by review and comment on nominations for properties and districts within the jurisdiction; reviewing planning programs that relate to historic preservation; and participating in efforts to carry out the National Historic Preservation Act and the State Antiquities Act. The guidelines recommend but do not require that design and demolition review be among the powers of the preservation board. Bozeman's preservation ordinance includes all of these requirements, so the community is presently one of eight CLGs in Montana; the creation of the half- time Historic Preservation Officer staff position has entitled Bozeman to a larger share of the state's CLG allocation each year. The Preservation Board's powers are such that its role is entirely advisory. In terms of program, the ordinance has set out several directions for the board. One is to participate in the state's historic preservation process by reviewing and commenting on all National Register nominations and compliance review activities within the City. Another is to maintain and expand the inventory of historic resources created by the 1984 survey. As a broader program element, the board has the power to promote historic preservation through educational programs and displays, and to advise property owners upon request. Voluntary design guidelines can be created to expedite this process. A final power is to review local zoning regulations for their applicability to historic areas and make appropriate recommendations to the City Commission. Since its creation in 1985, the Preservation Board has developed educational programs for Historic Preservation Week that have included house tours, a restoration workshop, preservation displays in downtown store windows and a preservation awards ceremony. In 1988, a newsletter was created which is circulated to a substantial number of households and businesses. 37 Historic Preservation Issues Preservation awareness has grown significantly since the program was initiated in 1984 and 1985. Downtown property owners have improved storefronts by stripping off the modernization of previous_years. Although much remains to be done, Main Street has a healthy appearance both in terms of economic and preservation activity. Within the Main Street area and for other historic buildings in commercial use, the major concern has been health and safety code review. Although section 104(f) of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) allows the inspector some discretion in review of historic buildings (designated by the National Register or local authority), the individual inspector must be knowledgeable about and appreciative of historic buildings for this to be useful. The inspector's understanding of historic buildings can be considerably increased with a new code created by UBC specifically for historic buildings. The Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UCBC) has been adopted by many communities and states that now use UBC. With this adoption, Section 104(f) can reference the UCBC. Preservation issues in the residential areas of the community are somewhat different. The first of these concerns is that many buildings, both inside and outside historic districts, have been altered. In fact, the architectural survey has a designation category "neutral" specifically for those buildings that would be contributing if they had not been severely remodeled. The most common of these changes are: replacement or covering of siding with aluminum siding, asbestos shingle or stucco; replacement of historic windows with sliding aluminum windows or some other window with a horizonal orientation; removal or inappropriate enclosure of the front porch; removal or replacement of historic outbuildings such as carriage houses, barns and garages; and additions that are out of character. In recent years, the public awareness of preservation has increased the number of residential properties that are being rehabilitated and returned to their historic appearance. This is particularly the case in historic districts; however, even in these areas, some remodeling has not been compatible with historic character. Many properties remodeled in previous years have not been rehabilitated, and much preservation remains to be done. One of the issues that emerges repeatedly when discussing rehabilitation in Bozeman neighborhoods is that older houses do not meet current development standards, particularly with regard to setbacks. Front setbacks vary considerably from 25 feet, which is the current standard, to as little as about 10 feet. The same problem exists for rear and side yards where the houses themselves or outbuildings do not conform with the standards. As a result, to obtain a building permit, a zoning variance must be obtained to do anything other than bring the property into compliance. While as a general policy the City is very much in favor of granting these variances as 38 painlessly as possible, the need for variance does present an obstacle to preservation activity. Concern has been expressed about the demolition of several older houses in a short period of time: two houses on Willson were demolished to make way for a church parking lot; three houses on Babcock to be replaced by a fast food delivery operation. As it turns out, none of these structures was actually located within an existing historic district, but all were just outside existing districts. Bozeman's 1983 Master Plan reflects land uses that are generally compatible with historic development patterns. The residential districts (Bon Ton, Cooper Park, South Tracy-South Black, North Tracy, Lindley Place and South Tracy) are primarily designated as medium-density residential with some pockets of low-density residential. The Main Street Historic District is designated commercial. Some commercial designations extending north and south from the one way pair (Babcock and Mendenhall) indicates the potential for commercial encroachment into historically residential areas. Actual zoning in effect as of August 1989 is not quite as appropriate: R-2 (medium-density residential) allows single-family residential units on moderately sized lots, and this district designation is appropriate for areas that retain this historical development pattern. Many more of the older residential districts (Bon Ton excluded) are zoned for R-3 use which allows smaller lots for single family houses and permits up to four units per property, as long as the lot is large enough. This zoning classification has allowed many of the larger historic houses to be converted into several units as well as permitting construction of new two-, three-, and four-plex units. The northern portion of Cooper Park Historic District and parts of the north side generally have been zoned R-4, which allows apartment development, as well as subdivision of existing properties. The use of the transitional zone in scattered locations indicates encroachment of commercial uses on traditionally residential areas. The B-3 (Central Business District) zoning is entirely appropriate for the Main Street area, although these commercial uses historically did not extend as far to the north and south. The B-2 (Community Highway Business District) accurately reflects uses along Main to the west of downtown; however, the one-block stretch included in the Cooper Park Historic District may be threatened by expansion of these commercial uses. Historically, both the north and south sides developed as primarily single- family. residential neighborhoods, equivalent generally to the R-2 zoning. Some greater variety of use is apparent because of the occasional small commercial buildings that once were corner grocery stores. While this variety of use is appropriate to these older neighborhoods, commercial encroachment may not be. Another issue is the R-3 zoning which allows conversion of these older houses into multiple units, which are often intended as student housing. R-4 zoning is more clearly inappropriate because it allows development of higher density apartment buildings and, therefore, threatens the existing older houses. 39 I. HOUSING Supply As previously discussed, the decade of the 19809s saw a dramatic increase, and then decline, in the construction of new housing units in Bozeman. From 1980 to 1986, multi-family housing greatly outpaced single family construction; from 1980-1988, multi-family permits accounted for two-thirds of all residential construction. Since 1987, the construction pace has dwindled to less than 50 units per year in the City, with single-family units dominating. Slower growth with more single-family units is expected to continue, especially with the expected decline and stabilization of the MSU student populations. Low and Moderate Income Housing In Spring of 1985 the City of Bozeman Housing Advisory Committee submitted a report addressing Bozeman's severe shortage of safe, affordable housing for low and moderate income people. Established by the City Commission in December 1982, the Committee studied the nature, causes, and impacts of Bozeman's housing problems and identified solutions to the problems. The report stressed that improvement of the local housing situation will only come through the active, cooperative involvement of all segments of the community - both public and private organizations and individuals. The Housing Committee identified ten basic needs that should be addressed by the Bozeman community in order to ensure safe, sanitary, and decent housing for all its residents. The list is based upon information compiled by the Housing Advisory Committee and the application for the 1984 Community Development Block Grant and includes: 1. To develop additional multi-family housing units to meet the needs of various income levels of the community. Particular emphasis should be placed on unit size that meet family size needs. 2. To "fill-in" available undeveloped lots to increase the density and reduce infrastructure and public facilities costs. 3. To work closely with Montana State University housing and planning staffs to anticipate and plan for housing needs of the students. 4. To rehabilitate the existing housing stock to bring the units up to building code standards. 5. To rehabilitate the existing housing stock to make the units more energy efficient. 6. To develop a greater city role in meeting local housing needs. 7. To institute an educational process to inform and sensitize the public to Bozeman's housing situation. 40 8. To stimulate creative solutions to transient and transitional housing needs through public education and involvement of community service organizations. 9. To provide additional housing specifically geared to the needs of the elderly and disabled/handicapped. 10. To provide additional housing and to rehabilitate the substandard housing units occupied by low and moderate-income families. Bozeman is addressing these ten basic housing needs through the administration of housing rehabilitation programs. In March of 1985, the City received a Community Development Block Grant from the Montana Department of Commerce which, among other things, financed the rehabilitation of 22 units of Rental Housing and 20 units of Owner-Occupied Housing. Approximately $145,000.00 of the $336,000.00 used for housing rehabilitation was .loaned on terms of ten years with interest at variable rates. At the closeout of the 1984 Grant, the City Commission adopted a Resolution stipulating that the income earned from these loans would be utilized to further the housing rehabilitation efforts. As of June 1989 the Revolving Loan Fund had a balance of $66,000.00. With the continual income received from loan payments and interest accrued, an average of three additional loans at a maximum of $12,000.00 each can be made per year for an indefinite period of time. The City of Bozeman has also received an annual allocation of Section 8 Rental Rehabilitation Funds since 1985. These funds are used for the rehabilitation of rental units which ensures safe and sanitary housing for the low and moderate income renter. The City has received an allocation of $60,000.00 for 1990, which will assist in the rehabilitation of approximately 12 units. The management of both programs is currently being coordinated by the City- County Planning Office. 41 IV. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES The beauty of the City of Bozeman, the Gallatin Valley, and our productive agricultural lands are valuable resources. The area is truly unique and fragile because of our high-mountain setting. However, with additional growth anticipated, some of the Valley's natural resources may be endangered. The success of the Bozeman Area Master Plan will come about through protecting our natural beauty, pristine environment, and healthy agriculture. The goals, objectives, and implementation policies necessary to maintain that environment are further described in this section of the Bozeman Area Master Plan. A. ENVIRONMENT, AESTHETICS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES GOAL 1. IDENTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND PRESERVE AESTHETIC RESOURCES OF THE BOZEMAN AREA. Objectives: a. Work with City and County Staff, MSU, State Agencies, Federal Agencies, and advisory groups to identify areas in the Bozeman City-County Planning Area with natural or human induced hazards which limit development potential. b. Identify and protect areas with special characteristics such as stream corridors and wetlands within the jurisdictional area. C. Protect the safety and welfare of the public by identifying areas with physical constraints (examples of such areas include floodplains, landslide-prone areas, steep slopes, fault zones, areas susceptible to severe erosion problems, fill areas, and areas of high water table) . GOAL 2. SUPPORT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF GREENBELTS AND/OR OPEN SPACE, INCLUDING THE PRESERVATION OF TRAIL AND OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS. Objectives: a. Investigate the acquisition and/or preservation of natural areas within the jurisdictional area. b. Through subdivision review, annexation, and zoning, emphasize the establishment of trails and open space corridors. GOAL 3. ENCOURAGE ADEQUATE DEVELOPMENT, MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE FOR PARKS AND RECREATIONAL AREAS. Objectives: a. Provide for the creation, development and maintenance of subdivision parks and open space, including large City and County Parks and recreational facilities. 42 b. Educate the public on the formation of park/open space acquisition, development and maintenance districts. GOAL 4. ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGH RECREATION AND LEISURE PROGRAMMING. Objectives: a. Provide opportunities for recreation and leisure programs for all age groups. b. Educate the public regarding the formation of recreation districts. Implementation Policies• a. The City-County Planning Staff and the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board will develop a park and open space plan. Recognizing that the open space and linked trails system shown on the current Master Plan Update Map are conceptual in nature, a new map should be included as part of the new plan. b. The City-County Planning Staff and the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board will develop a Recreation Program and Facilities Master Plan. C. The City-County Planning Staff will investigate strategies to develop large City and County park and recreation facilities in accordance with the Recreation Program and Facilities Master Plan. d. The City Staff, in consultation with the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, will design a Capital Improvements Program to develop park and recreation facilities and equipment. e. The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board will be represented on the Development Review Committee. f. The City and County should acquire land along creeks, such as Sourdough, and other open space corridors for eventual park and open space development. g. By the end of 1992, the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board will investigate the feasibility of forming Park Maintenance and Recreation Districts. GOAL 5. ENCOURAGE AGRICULTURE/AGRI-BUSINESS BY PROTECTING AND PRESERVING THE GALLATIN VALLEY'S PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS THROUGH WELL- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONAL AREA. Objectives• a. Identify agriculturally productive soils and investigate strategies to encourage development on less productive soils. 43 b. Protect productive agricultural operations within the jurisdictional area but outside the urban service area. C. Encourage more efficient use of land through smaller lot size and increased densities throughout the urbanizing jurisdictional area. d. Encourage the more aesthetic and efficient use of land through the establishment of an effective noxious weed control plan. GOAL 6. PRESERVE, PROTECT AND PROMOTE HIGH QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE BOZEMAN AREA'S GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER AND AIR. Objectives a. Encourage stream bank buffer strips for sediment, erosion and water pollution control and to protect riparian areas. b. Protect air quality in the Bozeman/Gallatin Valley. C. Encourage development in portions of the Gallatin Valley where waste disposal and the storage of hazardous materials pose a minimal threat to the groundwater table. d. Cooperate and coordinate with State of Montana to ensure the development and adoption of clean air standards and the establishment of a monitoring program to identify the cumulative effects of on-site storage and on-site sewage disposal on water quality. Implementation Policies• a. Develop zoning and subdivision controls to protect water quality and riparian areas. b. Require storm water retention and detention facilities where applicable for any construction; require permanent erosion and sediment control facilities as needed for all construction, and require facilities for removal of solids and oils from storm drainage water. C. Develop guidelines for fireplace/stove air emission controls, and cause to be presented to the City Commission. GOAL 7. PROMOTE, ENCOURAGE AND ENHANCE AN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING QM► MTY. Objectives: a. Encourage area beautification through sign design and creativity that enhances the community and the surrounding environment. b. Require businesses and government to install and maintain landscaping. 44 c. Encourage the beautification of streets, parking lots, public lands, and if possible, state highways. d. Encourage beautification through landscaping of areas used extensively by the public, such as commercial, industrial, and governmental areas. e. Control the spread of noxious weeds in the Bozeman area. f. Develop a street tree planting and maintenance program/district. Implementation Policies• a. Pursue property exchanges and purchases that are aimed at preserving or rehabilitating historic sites, ridgelines, stream corridors, areas of natural beauty, viewsheds, and parklands. b. Require adherence to the City and County noxious weed control programs as a condition of annexation, subdivision review and zoning procedures. C. Develop and implement an appropriate sign code. d. Develop a City Landscape Plan e. Use zoning and subdivision review to require site landscaping. GOAL 8. PROMOTE AND STIMULATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESSES THAT COMPLEMENT OUR COMMUNITY'S GOALS, EXEMPLIFY CREATIVITY IN CONSTRUCTION DESIGN TO COMPLEMENT THE SURROUNDING LAND AND BEAUTY OF THE AREA, AND THAT ENCOURAGE A STRONG BUSINESS-COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIP THROUGH CREATIVE BUILDING AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN. GOAL 9. PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE AESTHETICALLY-PLEASING CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT ON THE APPROACHES TO THE CITY. Objectives• a. Identify entryway corridors to Bozeman inside and outside the jurisdictional area in cooperation with the City and County. b. Permit highway business only when clustered in planned commercial centers or other compact commercial nodes. Implementation Policies: a. Jointly plan entryway corridors to Bozeman. b. Develop corridor development standards for the entryways to the City. C. Use the Master Plan, subdivision regulations, and zoning to encourage clustered business development. 45 B. ENERGY AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION GOAL 1. ENCOURAGE INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT TO BE DESIGNED FOR MAXIMUM USE OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RESOURCES AND TO CONSERVE ENERGY, AND OTHER RESOURCES. Objectives: a. Promote alternate energy resources and conserve energy, land and other resources. b. Preserve and maximize solar access to existing and future development whenever possible. C. Encourage residential development within walking distance of employment, shopping, and recreation areas. Implementation Policies• a. Use the Master Plan, subdivision, and zoning regulations to further energy and resource conservation objectives. C. HISTORIC PRESERVATION GOAL 1. PRESERVE AND ENHANCE ALL OF THE FEATURES OF THE COMMUNITY'S HERITAGE THAT DEFINE AND CONTRIBUTE TO GALLATIN VALLEY'S UNIQUE "QUALITY OF LIFE". objectives: a. Continue to identify buildings, design elements and natural features that singularly and collectively contribute to the historic fabric of the Gallatin Valley. b. Undertake programs that will increase community awareness of, sensitivity toward and practical knowledge about its heritage and the economic as well as aesthetic value of preservation. C. Encourage HPAB to conduct activities directed toward stimulating private and public investment in the restoration of historic buildings, outdoor spaces and natural features. d. Strengthen the City's ability to foster preservation and conservation by supporting the efforts of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board. Implementation Policies• a. Direct all city agencies and personnel, when in contact with property owners or lessees planning or undertaking changes of buildings, outdoor spaces or natural features in Historic Districts, upon structures constructed prior to World War II or upon more recently constructed architecturally significant 46 structures, to notify the City Historic Preservation Officer of such change and encourage the party(s) to take advantage of the services offered by the HPO and Historic Preservation Advisory Board. b. Direct all city agencies and personnel prior to and early in consideration of any change to City owned or controlled property (including buildings, outdoor spaces, natural features, right- of-ways or facilities) , to seek comment from the Historic Preservation Advisory Board. C. Request and encourage all other governmental agencies (school district, county, etc. ) and general public related agencies (M.S.U. , Montana Power, etc. ) prior to and early in consideration of any change to property (including buildings, outdoor spaces, natural features, right-of-ways or facilities) to also seek comment from the Historic Preservation Advisory Board. d. Amend zoning and other codes and ordinances as necessary to eliminate provisions which present or discourage preservation actions; and, adopt provisions that will encourage and reward preservation and restoration sensitive to the history, design and neighboring properties. e. Adopt policies and implement measures as may be appropriate to protect the unique features of each of the several historic neighborhoods and individual historic properties. f. Issue such proclamations and directives as needed to support, publicize and encourage historic preservation. g. Provide financial support to the Historic Preservation Advisory Board as necessary and prudent. D. ADMINISTRATIVE/REVIEW PROCESS GOAL 1. DEVELOP A CLEAR LAND USE REVIEW PROCESS THAT PROVIDES FOR OBJECTIVE CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR ALL LAND AND/OR BUILDING DEVELOPMENT WHILE ENSURING PROVISIONS FOR ADEQUATE PUBLIC REVIEW. Objectives• a. Organize the regulatory agencies and area of jurisdiction to maximize administrative capabilities and efficiency. b. Revise and clarify land-use regulations to increase flexibility and strengthen enforcement. C. Require the City-County Planning Board to prepare a prioritized five-year long-range program of work, annually review the program, and prepare a program budget each year which prioritizes 47 implementation activities and identifies funds to help pay for these activities. d. Require that the program budget and long-range program of work be based on the goals and policies of the adopted master plan. e. Require that the program budget include comprehensive review of the adopted master plan at least one time every five years. f. Establish an educational program to assist in a better understanding of all parties regarding the Master Plan and its operation. Implementation Policies: a. Develop and present a proposal for action by the governing bodies to combine the membership and functions of the Bozeman City-County Planning Board and Bozeman Zoning Commission. b. Encourage the joint utilization of the City-County Planning Office and County Subdivision Review Office to undertake special projects. C. Develop procedures to insure cooperation and interaction between local governments, advisory boards, public officials, and M.S.U. d. Develop and present a proposal for re-aligning the City-County planning jurisdictional boundary. This proposal should reflect anticipated growth patterns in the jurisdictional area, and ultimately, sewer and water service area boundaries. The proposal should also reflect aesthetic considerations for entryway corridors to the Community and quality of life considerations for people living around Bozeman. e. Encourage the County Commission and County residents to develop additional citizen-initiated planning and zoning districts surrounding the present and/or proposed jurisdictional boundary. f. Upon completion and approval of the Master Plan Update, re-write the Bozeman Zoning Code, including: i. Development of clear, objective, and specific performance standards that guide the Planned Unit Development process within residential, commercial, and industrial areas. ii. Development of general performance standards for identified "historical mixed-use" and "entryway" areas of the community. iii. As performance standards are adopted for each broad land- use category (residential, commercial, industrial, multiple- use, and entryways) eliminate "T-District" regulations in that category. 48 g. Develop a design-compatible review process which involves the public in the conceptual stage of a development proposal, and which utilizes staff expertise to address detailed standards after conceptual approval is granted. h. Establish and utilize a Development Review Committee (DRC) to advise developers at both the conceptual and detailed level of review. i. Staff shall prepare a development guidebook regarding the planning process, policies, time frames, and all relevant requirements. j. The City-County Planning Board shall establish a regularly scheduled orientation program for the members of the Zoning Commission, Board of Adjustment, Gallatin County Commission, and City Commission to acquaint them with the contents of the plan and to encourage adherence to the Plan's goals and objectives. E. RESIDENTIAL GOAL 1. ENCOURAGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN WHERE THERE IS ADEQUATE ROAD, BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, WITH PROVISIONS FOR SHOPPING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. Objective a. Provide for residential development in and adjacent to the Central Business District and near appropriate commercial nodes. GOAL 2. ENCOURAGE CONSTRUCTION OF A FULL RANGE OF HOUSING TYPES, SIZES AND COSTS, INCLUDING MANUFACTURED AND MODULAR HOMES, TO ASSURE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS TO OBTAIN A CHOICE OF LIVING ENVIRONMENTS. Objective: a. Allow for City residential developments that compete on a cost and style basis with rural subdivisions. GOAL 3. ENCOURAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AND CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES THAT FEATURE A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES, DESIGNED TO ENHANCE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, CONSERVE ENERGY AND TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES. Objective: a. Investigate the feasibility of transfer of development rights within the jurisdictional area. GOAL 4. ENCOURAGE THE PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN AND ITS JURISDICTIONAL AREA, REGARDLESS OF INCOME LEVELS. 49 Objectives: a. Assist the revitalization of neighborhoods in designated areas that have deteriorating and substandard living conditions. b. Residential neighborhoods shall be revitalized as funding becomes available for such purposes as renovation of neighborhood residences and buildings, public facilities, litter control, and development of parks and playgrounds. Implementation Policies• a. Make low interest loans to low and moderate income persons for neighborhood revitalization, when available. GOAL 5. RECOGNIZE AND, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, PRESERVE AND PROMOTE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN THROUGH LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND ZONING. Objective• a. Discourage conversions of single family residences to multi-family residences including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes) in Bozeman's older neighborhoods, where parking facilities and other infrastructure elements are inadequate to serve higher density populations. Implementation Policies• a. To protect viable single family neighborhoods, utilize the zoning regulations to prevent inappropriate single family residence conversions and encroachments of multi-family housing. b. Evaluate zoning and subdivision regulations to ensure that the City can attract a variety of residential development cost levels and styles. F. COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL. AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOAL 1. MAINTAIN AND STRENGTHEN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AS A COMMERCIAL, CULTURAL, AND SYMBOLIC CENTER FOR THE BOZEMAN AREA. Objectives: a. Stimulate office/business development, high density residential development, and cultural and entertainment facilities in and near the central business district (CBD) . b. Encourage, maintain and enhance the growth of Bozeman as a regional retail, service and shopping center. Implementation Policies• a. Develop regulatory and economic incentives to stimulate higher density development near the CBD. 50 GOAL 2. PROMOTE AND STIMULATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOZEMAN AREA AS A CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL CENTER. Objective: a. Encourage and support activities, such as the proposed Performing Arts Center, which will enhance the cultural and recreational opportunities within the Bozeman area and throughout Gallatin County. GOAL 3. CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE LONG-TERM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND SUPPORT THE PROGRAMS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THESE GOALS. Objective• a. Encourage and support activities which will implement adopted strategic economic development plans, and coordinate said plans with the area's land use planning efforts. Implementation Policies• a. Develop a procedure in cooperation with the Gallatin Development Corporation, Chamber of Commerce, community design professionals, and City-County Planning Staff to guide new businesses through the review process. GOAL 4. ENCOURAGE IMPROVEMENT OF THE APPEARANCE OF EXISTING DESIGNATED INDUSTRIAL AREAS AND ENCOURAGE INFILLING OF DESIGNATED INDUSTRIAL AREAS. GOAL 5. ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATIONS TO PROMOTE THE EXPANSION OF EXISTING BUSINESSES AND THE LOCATION OF NEW BUSINESSES THAT WILL PROVIDE A VARIETY OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, PROVIDING THEY ARE HARMONIOUS WITH OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. Objective: a. Encourage the economic development associations to coordinate planning issues between local businesses and the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County through public/private assistance and awareness programs. GOAL 6. SUPPORT THE GROWTH AND STABILITY OF THE UNIVERSITY. Objectives: a. Encourage the City, County and University and the adjacent neighborhoods to cooperate in coordinating economic goals and long-range planning. b. Support legislative efforts to maintain adequate funding for Montana State University. 51 GOAL 6. PUBLIC FACILITIES (BUILDINGS) SHOULD BE PLANNED FOR FUTURE CAPACITY, LONG-TERM SERVICE, DEPENDABILITY, AND SAFETY. Implementation Policies• a. Develop and implement a comprehensive public facilities plan which includes an assessment of future capacity, long-term service dependability and safety. b. Develop a public facilities Capital Improvement Plan to implement the public facilities plan. C. Review the Bozeman and Gallatin County Subdivision Regulations, and update as necessary to continue good quality public facility planning and construction standards. GOAL 7. ENCOURAGE IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT WHERE APPROPRIATE TO ASSURE MAXIMUM USE OF EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITIES WITHIN THE BOZEMAN URBAN SERVICE AREA AND MAXIMUM COST-EFFICIENCY TO THE CITY AND THE USERS. ObJ ect ive• a. Adopt zoning procedures which encourage cluster developments that make efficient use of facilities, and encourage development where facilities can be economically provided. H. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION GOAL 1. DEVELOP A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WHICH CAN ACCOMMODATE BOTH CURRENT AND PROJECTED GROWTH PATTERNS, TIED TO A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES. Objectives• a. Combine the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC) and coordinate their recommendations with the City and County Planning Staff and citizen representation. b. Reduce through truck traffic through downtown Bozeman; C. Cooperate with Montana State University to solve traffic related and parking problems in and around campus; d. Provide a plan for safe bicycle movement, including designation of appropriate bicycle routes, development of a comprehensive bicycle safety program, and construction of an off-road bicycle trail system along open space corridors. e. Provide for safe pedestrian walkways, whether paved or unpaved. 54 f. Develop the arterial roadway system at the edge of existing urban development to relieve congestion on the inner portions of the City's arterial system. g. Provide a plan for designated bicycle lanes on the streets of Bozeman which will assist in facilitating traffic flow, especially between the Central Business District and the campus of Montana State University. h. Recognize the fabric of existing neighborhoods and provide a means of maintaining existing neighborhood characteristics in the transportation planning process. Implementation Policies• a. Develop a prioritized Capital Improvements Program to construct and maintain the transportation network as specified in the transportation plan. b. Review the current transportation plan and update to provide enhanced vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation. C. Develop and consider alternative implementation strategies to fund construction of the Transportation Plan. d. Use subdivision and zoning regulations and PUD standards to minimize the number of approaches onto designated collectors and arterial highways. 55 V. MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS Based on the preceding inventory, analysis, and establishment of goals and objectives, this section of the document sets out the major master plan elements needed to achieve a future vision for Bozeman. While previous sections of the plan addressed a wide variety of topics, this section focuses on ,just four critical areas needed to accomplish the major recommendations of the plan. These four areas are: ° Land Use ° Parks and Open Space ° Transportation ° Historic Resources Preservation While related elements of the plan are important, such as water, sewer, and other public facilities, it is these four elements which will have the most dramatic effect on the Bozeman area. Generally, a slower growth rate is expected than was experienced in the mid-1980's, and the City's ability to stay current with public facilities should not be stretched. Steady, programmed attention to these elements, as proposed in the Goals and Objectives, should allow the City to keep pace with needs. However, to preserve and enhance the essential qualities of life in Bozeman and the Gallatin Valley, the City and County must take actions in land use, open space protection, transportation, and historic resource preservation to prevent further loss of the essential natural characteristics of the area. A. LAND USE The proposed land use delineations for the City-County Planning Area are shown in Figure 8. The land use element focuses strongly on 1) preserving natural systems (especially stream corridors and scenic views) ; 2) designating ample land for urban expansion and infill; and 3) delineating a clear Urban Growth Area where City water and sanitary sewer service will be available during the next 20 years. Inside the Urban Growth Area, urban development densities will be encouraged with the immediate or eventual provision of City services. Outside of the Urban Growth Area and Rural Residential Nodes, no more than one dwelling unit per 20 acres will be allowed unless clustered. The major reasons for this approach are to 1) preserve the scenic character of the Gallatin Valley floor backdropped by the mountains; 2) reduce the long term potential of ground water pollution; and 3) encourage continued agricultural use; and 4) to encourage the implementation of a density bonus system in the appropriate zoning areas to further additional infill development and contribute to orderly growth within the Bozeman planning jurisdiction. The land use delineations shown in Figure 8 are not intended to be implemented by an appropriate zoning classification until the necessary infrastructure is in place to accommodate the planned land use. In this respect, the Master Plan map (Figure 8) represents a long range vision of community development, rather than an "existing land use" map or.short-term development picture of the area. This "long-range vision" concept would 56 also apply to certain street alignments and open space corridors depicted on the Master Plan map. Land Use Classifications Public Lands and Open Space: Public Lands and Open Space are existing public lands, including school sites, Montana State University, other state and federal lands, community-scale parks, Sunset Hills Cemetery, and the County Fairgrounds. This land use classification also depicts a conceptual network of linear parks and trails throughout the Jurisdictional Area and beyond. However, specific elements of the network of linear parks and trails as depicted are not necessarily in public ownership at this time; they are shown on the Land Use Map only to illustrate the community's expressed desire for a wide range of outdoor recreation activities in natural settings. Also, for visual impact, the open space corridors are depicted at an exaggerated scale, and do not indicate actual or proposed locations of possible future corridors. ° Urban Residential Infill: Urban Residential Infill areas are areas within the current City limits where residential development at urban densities is appropriate; primarily, these areas will develop at single family densities of 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre; multi-family residential development (6 - 15 dwelling units per acre) may be appropriate where: 1. part of a mixed-use planned development, 2. fronting on or near to principal or major arterials, 3. acting as a buffer between single-family residential and commercial/industrial uses, 4. near Montana State University, but not adversely affecting the character of existing single-family neighborhoods, or 5. concentration of residential density on a parcel will preserve sensitive natural resources such as stream corridors or steep slopes. In certain portions of the urbanized area of Bozeman, densities in excess of 15 dwelling units per acre may be allowed. A density bonus of 33% above 15 dwelling units per acre may be allowed, but would be available only when a proposed project exceeds established design standards for the development. The density bonus may be allowed only when the proposed project is compatible with adjacent neighborhood development. Building height and footprint configurations, superior site planning, landscape and buffering requirements would ensure compatibility with adjacent development. Increasingly dense development is appropriate for certain portions of the urbanized area. 57 ° Urban Residential: Urban Residential areas are undeveloped areas outside of the existing City limits, but within the identified "Service Boundary of Existing Sewer System" (see Master Plan Map) . Residential development in these areas must connect to City services and may develop at urban densities up to six (6) dwelling units per acre; multifamily development (6-20 dwelling units per acre) may be appropriate under the same conditions as the Urban Residential Infill category. ° Suburban Residential: The intent of the "Suburban Residential" Density Area is to permit the subdivision of land at a variety of densities while insuring an overall density and configuration of development that will accommodate the extension of urban services at an affordable cost to each dwelling unit. Within the area generally delineated as "Suburban Residential", three land development options are available: 1. At "Rural Residential" density of one dwelling unit per twenty acres, until urban services become available. 2. At "Rural Residential" density utilizing the sliding scale density bonus procedure (see Graph 8, page 59a). Subdivision of the open space remainder of the clustered parcel may occur when urban services become available. 3. At an average gross density not less than one unit per acre, nor greater than six units per acre, provided the development is designed utilizing a PUD procedure. Appropriate assurance must be provided by the developer that an equal share of the cost of all urban services that may be eventually provided to the development will be paid by every property owner within the PUD. ° Rural Residential Node: Rural Residential Nodes are areas outside of the Urban Growth Area where residential development patterns have been established; development may continue at one dwelling unit per acre, or at the maximum density allowed by State Department of Health regulations. Rural Residential Nodes generally exhibit several characteristics. The nodes are composed of large lot homesites, usually one (1) acre or larger. Lots may have been created either through the subdivision procedure or through the use of exemptions. On-site water and sewage disposal systems are generally used, however, community systems may be appropriate depending on soil conditions. Small scale animal husbandry is often practiced. Rural nodes are separated from one another, and in most cases, from the City of Bozeman, by agricultural land. ' The intent of the Rural Residential Node designation is to provide for the inf ill of land that is already subdivided into tracts less 58 than 20 acres in size, and to encourage the resubdivision of existing parcels that are less than 20 acres in size. This category recognizes that development outside the Urban Service Area has occurred in scattered clusters and that some homeowners prefer rural living. Rural nodes are intended to discourage unreviewed divisions of land and ease development pressures on agricultural land. Boundaries for Rural Residential Nodes as depicted in the 1990 Master Plan Update have been established using the characteristics above and according to the following criteria. CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL NODES IN 1990 MASTER PLAN UPDATE: * Adjacent to nodes established in the 1983 Bozeman Area Master Plan. * Water and sewer are available either by on-site systems or private community systems. * Areas characterized by an established pattern of tracts less than twenty (20) acres. * At least 50% of existing lots are built on. * Access to county maintained roads or public roads maintained by a homeowners' association. * Compatibility with surrounding area. * Proximity to community and public services such as schools, fire, police. With a variety of alternative development options available throughout the Planning Jurisdiction (including cluster developments and Planned Unit Developments) , it is not anticipated that Rural Residential Nodes will be expanded beyond those boundaries which are depicted in this 1990 Master Plan Update. ° Rural Residential: Rural Residential areas are areas outside of the Urban Growth Area which are encouraged to remain undeveloped and in agricultural production. There are three (3) development options available in the rural residential area. First, residential development will be permitted at a density of one (1) unit per twenty 20 acres. Second, through the subdivision review procedure, density bonuses may be available on a sliding scale basis (see Graph 8, page 59a) , in accordance with Zoning provisions, where a developer controls at least twenty-five (25) acres, and where the average net size of residential lots is limited to not more than one (1) acre, 59 120 100 Continued as a Straight Line size 80 Pro action of Tract to s be o Devel- oped (in 40 acres) I 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 Number of Dwelling Units Permitted Cluster Driven Density Bonuses GRAPH 8 . _j 59a thereby maximizing the amount of land remaining in agricultural production or open space. Additional density bonuses may be available where the proposed development enhances and/or preserves identified community interests such as wildlife habitat, open space corridors, ridge lines, or riparian areas. This option is intended to encourage land reassemblage, cluster development, or other planned development meeting the intent of this classification. Finally, through PUD review, bonus densities on any size parcel may be achieved where at least fifty percent (50%) open space is preserved and where central water and/or sewer service is provided, and when any adopted off-site impact policy standards are met. This option is intended to encourage creative planned developments. ° Commercial: Commercial areas are areas where the most intensive types of commercial and high density residential development may take place; while Commercial areas may include either commercial or multi-family development, adequate but controlled access to arterial streets is essential; the commercial areas are intended to develop as the major commercial and service activity centers of the community; residential densities may range to 27 dwelling units per acre. ° Business Park/Industrial: Business Park/Industrial areas denotes employment, wholesaling and utility centers for the community; the particular type of use will be determined based upon its potential impact upon adjacent land uses and the intensity of development; in particular, the development of business park/industrial areas shall be such that the least intense uses shall be located along arterial streets, where visibility to the public is likely; more intense uses shall be located away from the arterial streets, buffered by the other uses. Land Use Implementation Guidelines When utilizing the Bozeman Area Master Plan, certain interpretations will occasionally be necessary due to the flexibility and policy-oriented nature of the Plan itself. Therefore, when implementing the Land Use Plan, the following guidelines will aid in interpreting any discrepancies, extraordinary conditions, or unusual circumstances. Residential Land Use Guidelines. The following guidelines shall aid in governing all land use planning pertaining to the development of land designated as residential in the Land Use Plan. 60 ° Residential Density Calculations The formula for calculating gross residential density shall be: D = du/A The formula for calculating net residential density shall be: du D = A-(c+i+s+a) where D = Residential density du = Total number of dwelling units in project A = Total site area (acres) c = Total commercial land area (acres) i = Total industrial land area (acres) s = Reserved but undedicated school and park sites (acres) a = Street rights-of-way (acres) ° Allowable Net Residential Densities - Urban Residential Infill: Single-Family: 3-6 D.U./acre Multi-Family: 6-20 D.U./acre - Urban Residential: Single-Family: 0-6 D.U./acre Multi-Family: 6-20 D.U./acre - Suburban Residential: Single-Family: 0-.05 D.U./acre or up to 6 D.U./acre with bonus - Rural Residential Node: 0-1 D.U./acre Rural Residential: 0-.05 D.U./acre, or up to approx. .25 D.U./acre with bonus Commercial: 6-27 D.U./acre ° Conditions Allowing Commercial Uses Within Residential Areas In an effort to create quality neighborhoods in Bozeman, retail and service commercial uses will be permitted as part of the neighborhood pattern. However, any commercial development must be sited and designed such that the activities present will not detrimentally affect the adjacent residential neighborhood. To this end, the following guidelines will influence the siting of commercial uses. 61 ° Commercial uses will be located only at the intersections of arterial streets, or arterial and collector streets where appropriate. ° Professional offices, retail and service commercial uses may be permitted in commercial centers, but only at a development scale compatible with residential development. Commercial Land Use Guidelines. The following guidelines shall aid in governing all land use planning pertaining to the development of land designated as commercial in the Land Use Plan Element. ° Allowable Land Uses Commercial activities in areas designated commercial include all service, light manufacturing, retail, professional office uses and multi-family development. ° Conditions for Allowing Residential Uses High density residential uses will be allowed to locate in areas designated as commercial areas in the Land Use Plan providing: Densities may range up to 27 dwelling units per acre. However, densities greater than 20 du/acre may be allowed only for developments of exceptional or unique design. Qualifications for exceptional design may include: 1. Landscape and architectural design integration with commercial development; 2.. Elimination of residential parking from public view; 3. Extensive open space to lessen density appearance; 4. Provision of recreational center(s) ; and 5. Provision of internal and external transportation system management techniques and design to maximize traffic efficiency and minimize traffic congestion. Business Park/Industrial Land Use Guidelines. The following guidelines shall aid in governing all land use planning pertaining to the development of land designated as business park/industrial on the Land Use Plan Element. ° Allowable Uses Land use activities in areas designated business park/industrial include office uses, industrial uses, commercial uses and warehousing. 62 ° Relationship to Arterial Streets Light industrial uses and business parks may be located along arterial streets. Heavy industrial uses and warehousing activities will be located away from arterial streets, allowing the garden-type light industrial and business park uses to buffer the general view of heavy industrial activities. ° Landscaping All business park/industrial development shall be landscaped utilizing consistent landscaping themes that will tie adjacent projects together. Landscape easements along public rights-of- way using shrubs, trees and earth berming will be provided and installed at the time of street construction. ° Master Planning To assure compatibility between business park/industrial activities and adjacent sites, master planning of business park/industrial developments may be required. Additional Land Use Implementation Guidelines In addition to the previous implementation guidelines pertaining to specific land use designations, the following policies shall also be used when determining land use planning issues. ° Buffering and Transitional Land Use When any two different land use types are shown on the Land Use Plan Map, or are approved as part of a development master plan, buffering or a transitional land use between the two land uses may be required, particularly if there is substantial reason to believe that the two land uses will be incompatible. Buffering consists of the placement of neutral space between two incompatible uses and will be required of the more intensive use where a less intensive use already exists or where the Land Use Plan shows that a less intensive use is intended adjacent to the more intensive use. Transitional land use consists of the placement of a compatible land use between two dissimilar or incompatible land uses. Situations requiring buffering or transitional land uses may include: - Large-lot single family development adjacent to higher density single family or multi-family development; - Residential uses adjacent to industrial or commercial uses. 63 ° Buffering Techniques In cases where the above situations exist, the following techniques may be required. - Areas consisting of landscaped open space; Arterial and collector streets with landscaping; - Fences, landscaping, earth berms; or Combinations of above. ° Interpretation of Land Use Boundaries The land use boundaries, as shown on the Land Use Plan, utilize natural or man-made demarcations where possible. The intention here is to create a soft and flexible approach to land use demarcation and to the differentiation of land use potentials within the overall planning area. This softer-edged approach to proposed land use distinctions will serve to create more flexibility as Bozeman proceeds with creative and effective implementation to the Plan. Where softer-edged boundaries are not readily distinguishable_, variations may be allowed, provided the overall intent of the Land Use Plan is not compromised. With appropriate buffering, site lighting, landscape and site planning techniques, substantial variations may be allowed without compromising or diminishing the intended purpose of the Land Use Plan. ° Pre-existing Nonconforming Uses and Facilities Certain land use and development patterns exist in the Bozeman- Gallatin County planning jurisdiction, as in virtually every urban area, that do not conform to currently accepted land development planning and use classifications. These "problem areas" are the result of such circumstances as changes in transportation systems, land use control procedures and decisions, or are conditions that predate community planning and zoning. This Master Plan recognizes the existence of these anomalies, without specifically identifying, locating or describing them, and shall be construed to permit and encourage any appropriate means taken to resolve or mitigate the issues and problems attendant thereto. A Master Plan amendment will not be required to accommodate land use or facility changes in connection with the mitigation of these issues; however, any such action, if appropriate, shall be reflected in subsequent Plan updates. Amendments to the Master Plan The Bozeman Area Master Plan, including the Land Use Plan Element, constitutes a land use policy statement that was created based upon 64 prevailing needs, the existing development pattern, underlying zoning, considerations of both man-made and natural constraints and opportunities for development, and accepted planning practices. Over a period of time, any of these variables are subject to change. Consequently, the Plan must periodically be reviewed and occasionally amended if it is to remain effective. However, amendments to the Plan should never be allowed to occur in a haphazard manner. Amendments to the Plan should only occur after careful review of the request, findings of the fact in support of the revision and a public hearing. The statutory requirements which guided the adoption of the Master Plan shall be followed for all amendments as they pertain to public hearings and otherwise. The term amendments shall apply to both text and map revisions. Written findings of fact shall be issued which weigh the following criteria: 1. Whether the development pattern contained in the Land Use Plan inadequately provides appropriate optional sites for the use proposed in the amendment. 2. Whether the amendment constitutes an overall improvement to the Master Plan or would be solely for the good or benefit of a particular landowner or owners at a particular point in time. 3. Whether the amendment will adversely impact the community as a whole or a portion of the community by: ° Significantly altering acceptable existing land use patterns, ° Requiring larger and more expensive improvements to roads, sewer or water systems than are needed to support the prevailing land uses and which, therefore, may impact development of other lands, ° Adversely impacting existing uses because of increased traffic on existing systems, or ° Affecting the livability of the area or the health and safety of the residents. 4. Whether the amendment is consistent with the overall intent of the Master Plan. Amendments to the Master Plan may be initiated by the City or County in accordance to the procedures set forth by State Statutes or may be requested by private individuals or agencies. It shall be the burden of the party requesting the amendment to prove that the change constitutes an improvement to the Plan. 65 B. PARKS/OPEN SPACE As in many western towns with mountain recreation nearby, the City of Bozeman has a modest park system with relatively few facilities for active recreation. A trail system to accommodate the fastest-growing recreation activities, walking, running, cross country skiing and biking, is in its infancy. In the related area of open space protection, the City has not been able to consistently preserve the very natural assets that define the character of Bozeman. Most stream corridors are in private ownership, and are not accessible to the public; Bozeman Creek has disappeared altogether in the downtown area. Scenic ridgelines, like Sourdough and Story Hills, have been partially developed. And scenic views of the agricultural floor backdropped by the mountains are being degraded along the main City entryway corridors by commercial development. The Master Plan has taken a clear position on the importance of urban open space to the basic quality of life in Bozeman. Figure 8 illustrates the public open space and trail corridors which could form a network in Bozeman to protect environmental resources and support a recreational trail system. In addition, parks and other public lands (e.g. MSU) are also shown to demonstrate linkage opportunities. Land Acquisition Acquisition of land for future City park sites is vital in order to insure availability of land for park development as the growing community demands new facilities. Parkland dedication in subdivisions will be accepted if the land is well located, is needed for the overall park and recreational program, and is physically suited for park and recreation use. Cash-in- lieu or land trades will be considered if necessary to obtain centrally- located land or land adjacent to existing parks. Parkland will have higher priority than cash-in-lieu whenever possible to provide land for parks and open spaces. An important factor to consider when, approving parkland dedications is the lack of useable active recreation park areas. There is an increasing demand for all parkland including practice fields and ballfields of varying kinds and an increasing shortage of these fields. Consideration must be given to the development of these facilities. Therefore, acceptance of parkland dedications unsuitable for this type of development will be carefully evaluated to insure adequate supplies of land suitable for active development. To acquire stream corridors and rights-of-way to establish a trail system, many techniques are appropriate. Subdivision and other development negotiations can be successful in securing corridors. Some communities have also received some donated right-of-way or easements to get trail systems underway. More often, though, financial resources will be needed to acquire and develop continuous trail and open space segments. Easements should be 66 acquired where less expensive than fee purchase, and easement acquisition should also include ridgelines. Maintenance and Development of Existing City Parks There is a need to improve the appearance of City arterials, especially in commercial areas. The City shall begin a street tree planting program to improve commercial area appearance and enhance existing neighborhoods. As in many western cities, street trees planted by earlier generations are being lost to age and disease more quickly than they are being replaced. There are many areas of undeveloped dedicated parklands within the City's jurisdictional area. These parks need to be developed in order to serve the surrounding area. Some of this development and maintenance can be encouraged to be done by the neighborhood served by the park. Continued maintenance and upgrading of existing parks shall be pursued to insure against deterioration in plantings and equipment. Currently, the City of Bozeman is providing all of the recreation areas, parklands, and open spaces within the city limits, but the City is incapable of making changes outside the city limits that will assure the quality of recreation in the Bozeman area. A mechanism requiring all users of the City recreation facilities to help pay for these facilities is needed to assist the City in maintaining and developing a recreation system that is satisfying to us all. C. TRANSPORTATION The major issues related to transportation facilities in Bozeman are well documented. The primary recommendations have been developed to relieve congestion in the center of the City and to protect existing residential neighborhoods from traffic encroachment. The loop or edge arterial system long-proposed in Bozeman is the critical element necessary to solve these problems. Arterial Facilities Plan Figure 8 illustrates the major arterial system needed to support future City development, protect inner-city neighborhoods, and promote economic health and development. The major facilities recommendations include: Loop Arterial System Elements 1. 19th Avenue (Durston to Oak) 2. Oak Street (19th to 7th) 3. Kagy Boulevard (19th to 3rd and Willson) 4. Oak/Highland Connection 67 Arterial System Elements 1. 19th Avenue (Oak to Baxter) 2. 19th Avenue/I-90 Interchange 3. Valley Center Road (19th to Hwy. 84) Residential Collector and Local Streets There has been substantial discussion of the reasons why the County continued to experience larger numbers of single family home development, while single family construction in the City has slowed to almost no development. Part of the answer is the higher one-time cost of development in the City, whereas the costs of living in the County tend to be less obvious. However, part of the reason for slowing single family development in the City is the inability to deliver a product which meets the desires of consumers. Residential subdivision streets built to urban standards create the appearance of urban living, contrary to the preference of many of those who chose to live in the Bozeman area. The City shall reevaluate its residential roadway standards to allow a more flexible approach to development. Such urban standards as street width, curbs, storm drainage, and sidewalks may not be necessary in parts of Bozeman. Relaxation of these standards, with sound design, should only be considered to promote the basic goals of the Master Plan and where future needs and uses would not be compromised. Modified standards could thereby create a more rural residential area, more appealing to prospective residents. Other benefits of changed standards would be a decrease in the cost of development, and improved stormwater drainage mitigation and groundwater quality improvements. D. HISTORIC RESOURCE PRESERVATION Recommendations in the historic preservation plan element are intended to address many of the issues that have emerged from the inventory and analysis phase of the project. These actions fall into four areas: code enforcement, alteration and demolition of historic buildings nonconforming structures and zoning designations. Each of these will be addressed below. Code Enforcement The City of Bozeman adoption of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UCBC) will assist the Building Official in code enforcement for historic buildings. Applicants seeking building permits for preservation of historic buildings in commercial use have often had difficulty in obtaining interpretations more compatible with historic preservation activity. This code should assist city officials and applicants alike in negotiating solutions that promote health and safety and preservation alike. 68 Alteration and Demolition of Historic Buildings The Historic Preservation Advisory Board shall have the power to review proposed alterations to structures within areas of Bozeman deemed to have architectural, historical and cultural significance to the community. Within the area of the City designated "Conservation", most of which was platted and built out prior to World War II, the Preservation Board will recommend steps necessary to maintain and enhance the special character of the neighborhoods and individual properties therein. Properties and districts, either within or outside of the "Conservation" area(s), that have been or are eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, are designated as "Landmarks" or "Preservation Districts" shall be subject to certain mandatory requirements by the Preservation Board designed to enhance and preserve their historic qualities for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The boundaries of Conservation and Preservation Districts are shown on Figure 9. Conservation and Preservation District design review procedures will be implemented through the use of "overlay" zoning districts. Properties within the overlay districts will be subject to the underlying zoning district requirements as well as the overlay design review procedures. However, the overlay district statement of intent and purpose takes cognizance of the fact that the vast majority of the buildings located within these neighborhoods and areas were constructed prior to the adoption of any zoning or other land development standards. To encourage restoration, the overlay district procedures permit substantial variations from the underlying zone requirements provided design review recommendations are followed. This quid-pro-quo process will be carefully governed to ensure overall community improvement when meeting the needs of the subject properties. Alteration of properties shall be construed, in addition to normal construction activities, to include the destruction of buildings by any means and the movement of structures into or out of the overlay districts. The overlay zoning district text calls for a one year delay of demolition of historic buildings. The intent of the delay period is to persuade the owner to seek alternative means of utilizing the property or assist in locating a buyer that will renovate the property in a manner compatible with the building's historic character. The Preservation Board will offer assistance in this effort to the extent possible. As buildings reach 50 years in age and as restoration and rehabilitation activities that meet National Register criteria occur, the Preservation Board shall continue nominations to the Register and seek to expand the historic districts. Nonconforming Structures Many of the properties in the conservation and preservation overlay districts do not conform to contemporary zoning and development standards because of inadequate setbacks or excessive height. This resulted from their construction prior to the adoption of zoning codes. In order to expand or change various aspects of these structures, it is necessary to obtain a 69 "hardship variance", a time consuming and sometimes frustrating procedure. As described in the preceding paragraphs, these problems will be mitigated by the design review procedures permitted in the overlay districts. The principal difference in the application of procedures within the two overlay districts will be that design review recommendations on landmark or historic district properties will be mandatory, but underlying zoning requirements may be relaxed by the Preservation Board. Within the conservation district, Preservation Board recommendations will be advisory only and deviations from the underlying zoning requirements must be sought from other City boards or commissions. The latter process will be somewhat more time consuming and is likely to be less flexible. The intent of this dual procedure is to provide further incentive for conservation district property owners to seek historical district status, thus expediting the further enhancement of the neighborhoods and areas involved. Zoning Designations Within the historic neighborhoods and areas of the City, as illustrated on Figure 9, zoning district density classifications shall in so far as practical, match the historic development patterns to minimize conflicts in land development intensity and use. R-2 zoning is appropriate to most of the older residential areas and B-3 zoning is the most suitable for the historic central business area. R-3 can be appropriate to certain older areas that have a substantial number of multiple dwellings originally designed and constructed for this purpose. R-4 would normally be appropriate for certain areas in or adjacent to the central business area, close to the University or adjacent to major thoroughfares when and where negative impacts on lower density neighborhoods can be mitigated or prevented altogether. In certain instances, historic buildings can be adapted for a reuses of a totally different type, i.e., industrial buildings as commercial facilities, or hospitals as apartments. This practice, when impacting a surrounding neighborhood can be handled in a positive manner and shall be encouraged as a means of protecting and preserving historic resources. Planned Unit Development (PUD) or other creative zoning mechanisms shall be utilized to accommodate this process. E. ENTRYWAY CORRIDORS Entryway corridors are arterial roadways entering the community that introduce both visitors and residents to Bozeman and the Gallatin Valley. Entryway corridors are a community's "front door". It is acknowledged that the corridor's trees (or lack thereof), commercial signage, and building character provide the first, and oftentimes, the most lasting impression of the entire community. This impression is much greater than simply how "pretty" the community may or may not be. Strong subliminal messages are delivered to the travelling public and to local citizens alike. The community's economic vitality, its willingness to insure the safety and well being of its citizens, its degree of concern for the natural environment, and the respect citizens have for one another are but a few of these messages. Therefore, the entire community, and most specifically its governing bodies, have the right and the responsibility to guide the development and redevelopment that occurs along entryway corridors. 70 A community's arterial corridors have one' fundamental and overriding purpose, the provision of safe, efficient means of moving people and goods. They are paid for by the general public through local, state, and federal taxes. Because they carry vast amounts of traffic, they are magnets to commerce. The right to do business along these corridors is well established and, indeed, Main Street America resulted from this practice. However, the right to destroy the usefulness of the roadway's capacity to move people and goods, the right to endanger lives by unrestricted access and egress or signs that obscure traffic signals, regardless of how many time this unfortunate circumstance has occurred, has never been accepted as an absolute right. This Plan defines two classes of entryway corridors which are delineated on Figure #9, an element of the Master Plan Map. The Class I corridors include all development wholly or partially within 660 feet of the centerline of certain arterial routes on the periphery of the City within the Jurisdictional Areas. The Class II corridors include all development wholly or partially within the lesser of 330 feet or a city block of certain arterials within the City. Within these corridors, certain additional design review procedures will be implemented through zoning that will provide a means of guilding future development, and redevelopment of existing uses, when appropriate. Depending on the class of entryway and configuration of existing streets, land uses and buildings, more extensive landscaping, fewer points of access, or greater concern for building character than called for in underlying zoning may be required. Conversely, the design review process will afford the opportunity to address the special features of each property and facility on a case-by-case basis. It shall be the policy of this Master Plan, together with its implementing ordinances and regulations, to permit and encourage the flexible application of all underlying standards and requirements in a manner which will best address the overall intent and purpose of the Plan, implementing codes, and parts thereof. 71 VI. IMPLEMENTATION A. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING STRATEGY The purpose of this discussion of capital improvements funding strategies is to provide the City with parameters to guide capital improvement project programming and prioritization. Just as the Master Plan itself presents an image of what the City wants to be at some point in the future, so too, these strategies describe the overall improvements that will be necessary to achieve the Plan. Capital improvements programming (CIP) is the multi-year scheduling of public physical improvements based on studies of available fiscal resources and the choice of specific improvements. Capital improvements are typically defined as large construction projects such as streets, water and sewer extension or replacement, bridges, libraries and recreation centers. In smaller communities, major equipment such as fire trucks may also be considered capital improvements. Regardless of the definition, capital improvements should have a relatively long-term life and usefulness. In most local governments, the capital improvements program is enacted as a guideline for spending, and each year a capital improvements budget is authorized by ordinance. Bozeman has had an established capital improvements program of sorts for several years and, of course, both the City and Gallatin County have always made capital expenditures, with or without a formal CIP. This section will present background on capital improvements funding and programming of the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County. It will also summarize capital funding options. The section will conclude with capital funding strategies that will provide a context for setting priorities to schedule major capital construction projects,, whether included in the existing CIP or not, given the Master Plan recommendations and financial constraints imposed by Montana municipal finance laws. Bozeman Capital Improvements Programming Until this year, City budgeting for capital improvements was not formalized. At the end of each fiscal year, a portion of the budget surplus was transferred into the capital improvements fund for the coming fiscal year. The 1990 fiscal year budget is the first in which a specific transfer amount ($100,000) is set out as a line item of the budgetary process. Capital improvements are paid for either from a general fund allocation or from utility enterprise funds. The CIP currently in force covers the fiscal years 1989 through 1993 and beyond, with projects rated as "critical", "essential" or "desirable". The document details equipment purchases as well as specific construction projects. The FY 1989 capital improvements budget of $2.3 million includes several small projects: swim center remodeling, a band shell, and design of several street improvement projects. The largest projects are designated for water, sewer, wastewater treatment and garbage services. 72 Major capital improvement projects programmed for FY 1990 and beyond are shown in Table 9. Major projects for the purpose of this analysis are defined as those estimated to cost $100,000 or more. Funding sources for the estimated $25 million in improvements vary, and, in fact, few of them actually have funding appropriated or even scheduled. Sewer, wastewater treatment plant and water projects will generally be funded through the City's utility enterprise funds or through federal and state grant programs. The most costly roadway improvement, the North 19th Avenue interchange, would be funded through the federal and state interstate highway (4R) program if funds are made available. Major street construction and widening projects have been in the past, and will continue to be, funded primarily through Federal Aid Urban (FAU) system channeled through the state highway department for those major arterials on the system. The portion of 19th between Durston and Oak is designated as the city's number- one priority for FAU funds. Street improvements, which include sidewalks, curbs, gutters and storm drainage are also proposed for several of the street widening projects. Funding sources for street improvements and storm drainage remain to be identified. Several general fund and enterprise fund projects will be on-going with an annual appropriation. Gallatin County Capital Improvements Programming Gallatin County schedules major capital improvements throughout the unincorporated area, and only a portion are made within the Bozeman urban influence area. Because the County provides no utility services, its primary capital construction activity is roads. The Montana Department of Highways is responsible for upgrading and maintaining primary roads, which are the designated U.S. and state highways -- U.S. 191 (Bozeman to Yellowstone); U.S. 86 (Bridger Road); U.S. 10 (parallels I-90); Montana 291 (Jackrabbit Road); and Montana 289 (Norris Road). Secondary roads are maintained by the county and improved with funding from the Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) program. Improvements to Springhill Road, Kagy Boulevard, Oak Street the extension of 19th Street, coupled with development of the 19th Street interchange and the improvements to Valley Center Road, all within the urban influence area, are scheduled for construction with FAS funds. The County does not have a parks and recreation department, but it has been collecting fees from developers in accordance with subdivision regulations. This parks and open space fund now has a balance of about $45,000. Gallatin County adopted an Updated Open Space and Recreation Plan in December, 1989. The Plan will contain guidelines for the use of park funds. These guidelines will begin to address the needs for the additional parks, recreation and open space amenities that are now emerging within the urban influence area of Bozeman, and could tie into Master Plan recommendations. Capital Funding Sources The funding options available to municipalities in Montana has always been limited. In 1986, the voters of the state approved Initiative 105 which further restricted the options by, in essence, capping a local government's property tax levy (millage) at 1986 levels. Local property tax revenue can increase only 73 Table 9. MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, BOZEMAN, FY89-FY93 (to be updated annually) Tp Priority* Cost Schedule Funding Source Streets North 19th Interchange Freeway Improvement Critical $3,200,000 After FY93 Interstate Hwy Citywide Storm Sewer Storm Drainage Critical $50,0001/ Ongoing Various Kagy Ph. I-11th to 19th Street Construction Essential $475,000 FY91 Local/FAU Kagy Ph. II-3rd to 19th Street Construction Essential $1,100,000 After FY93 Local/FAU 19th - Oak to Baxter Street Construction Essential $1,545,000 After FY93 FAU/G.O. Bond Durston - 7th to 9th Street Improvement Critical $135,000 FY91 Gas Tax 19th and Oak Street Improvment Critical $3,000,000 FY93 Local/FAU 3rd/Willson/Kagy Inter. Street Improvement Critical $100,000 After FY93 FAU Perkins Street Improvement Critical $112,500 FY91 Special Impr Dist Northeast Sector R/W Improvements Essential $1,000,000 After FY93 G.O.Bond/Local Durston - 9th to 15th Street Widening Critical $200,000 FY92 G.O. Bon/Local -4 3rd - Graf to Kagy Street Widening Critical $100,000 FY91 SID/Local Lincoln - 11th to 19th Street Widening Essential $1,200,000 After FY93 G.O.Bond/Local Highland - Kagy to Main Street Widening Essential $901,000 After FY93 G.O.Bond/Local College - 11th - 19th Street Widening Essential $102,000 After FY93 G.O.Bond/Local Oak - 7th to Highland Street Improvement Essential $4,500,000 After FY93 G.O.Bond/Local Utility Enterprise Funds North/South Sewer Impr. Sewer Critical $2,000,000 FY93 Revenue Bond Rouse Ave. Line Replace. Sewer Critical $150,000 FY89 MCOP Repair of IP Beds Sewer Critical $693,000 FY89 Federal Pipeline Replacement Sewer Critical $50,0001/ Ongoing Sewer Enterprise Sludge Ponds, Phase II Wastewater Treatment Critical $200,000 FY90 Revenue Bond Clarifier Wastewater Treatment Desirable $100,000 FY91 Revenue Bond Sludge Dewater System Wastewater Treatment Desirable $214,000 FY92 Revenue Bond Bozeman Creek Dam Water Critical $7,500,000 After FY93 Revenue Bond Lyman Creek, Ph. II-III Water Critical $400,000 FY90 DNRC Water Plant Expansion Water Critical $600,000 FY90 Revenue Bond Continued on following page Table 9. Continued Type Priority Cost Scheduled Funding Source Utility Enterprise Funds Hyalite Dam Raising Water Critical $3,400,000 FY91 DNRC Southside Water Improve. Water Critical $1,050,000 FY92 Revenue Bond Pipeline/Valve Replace. Water Critical $50,0001/ Ongoing Water Ent. Fund Pretreatment Basin Water Critical $1,700,000 After FY93 Water Ent. Fund Highland Blvd Main Water Essential $100,000 FY93 Water Ent. Fund Lead Services Renewal Water Essential $450,0001/ Ongoing Water Ent Fund Landfill Alternative Garbage Essential $2,500,000** After FY93 Carbege Ent Fund 1/ Estimated annual cost over several years. * Priority order is: 1) Critical; 2) Essential; 3) Desirable. Amount would cover most expensive contemplated alternative. Source: City of Bozeman and Hammer, Siler, George Associates if property or value is added through new construction, remodeling or change in classification (e.g. from farm land to subdivision) and even then it is taxed at 1986 millage. No adjustment for inflation can be made either in the dollar value of the property tax levied or in the value of the property. In essence, a community's property basic tax revenues will remain at 1986 levels unless and until the legislature broadens local government financing powers through enactment of a sales tax or other such mechanisms. Special assessment categories such as improvement districts, repayment of bonded indebtedness and tax increment finance districts (among other minor exceptions) are exempted from the limitation. Revenues to the City of Bozeman in the 1990 fiscal year are estimated to be about $8.6 million. Of this, about $3.0 million will be received from property taxes based on a Citywide levy of 127.06 mills and a mill value of $23,586. About 66 percent of the revenue will go to the general fund and the remainder to special revenue and debt service funds. Another $1 million comes from motor vehicle fees and taxes. Some portion of gas tax monies is being used for street improvements and maintenance. Other revenue include licenses and permits, intergovernmental transfers and charges for services, primarily utilities. Excluding special and proprietary funds, the City's general fund revenue is about $4.1 million of which $2.2 million is obtained from property taxes. Capital funding options are somewhat limited given the fiscal constraints imposed on cities and counties; nevertheless, several options described below are available: ° Funds within the budget can be diverted from other uses, and then used for capital improvements on a pay-as-you-go basis or accumulating reserve funds for several years to pay for larger projects. This is a part of the annual budget process and should be considered when determining the share of the total budget which can be devoted to capital improvements. ° The local government could charge for more current services thereby freeing up some monies that could be diverted to capital improvements on a pay-as-you-go or reserve fund basis. This is likely to produce only minor additional funds and even then only after considerable public discussion and staff evaluation. ° General obligation bonds could be used to finance capital improvements such as parks, open space, roads and public facilities with approval from the voters. The bonds would be repaid through a special property tax levy paid into a debt service fund for the bond period. The City of Bozeman has two such bond issues now being repaid: bonds for the $900,000 senior center will be repaid in early 1994 and bond for the $1.5 million library will be repaid in mid 2000. Both bonds were issued for a period of 20 years during which time an additional levy was collected, about two mills for the senior center and five mills for the library. As each bond is retired, property taxes will be reduced; however, small amounts of motor vehicle fees and taxes 76 will be available for other uses. Each local government has a pre-set bonding capacity based on its revenue stream, but even more restrictive is the voters' willingness to approve a bond issue representing anything more than a modest increase in taxes. This is the most likely vehicle to provide any significant increase in capital expenditures. ° A local option Gas Tax could be instituted. ° The City and County could develop a system of requiring Impact Fees and/or Development Exactions through the Development Review Process. Initiative 105 exempts various other financing mechanisms from the 1986 cap. Among these are special improvement districts and tax increment finance districts. Special improvement districts are frequently used in new developments to pay for infrastructure, thereby allowing the benefitted property owners to pay for these improvements. Tax increment finance districts are based on a property tax increment created by new construction within a specific area. Given the 1986 value for property, any increment is likely to be small and collection of this increment is a local government's only hedge against inflation. Generally speaking, population and employment growth projected for Bozeman is not great enough to generate new construction that would keep pace with inflation, so the City is even less likely to propose a tax increment finance district except in a very focused manner and for specific projects designed to create the increment itself. Local government can also levy special assessments to pay for public improvements on private property; such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street trees. The cost of the improvement is a one-time charge to the property owner based on his portion of ownership, frontage or other equitable measure. In the County, Rural Improvement Districts can be and have been established to fund specific improvements. Other sources of funding for capital improvements include the federal and state governments and private sources. The federal government in particular has long been a partner with local government in construction capital projects. Although the federal government's role has been reduced in the last few years, it is still an important source of funds for transportation, water and waste treatment related facilities. States have also participated in funding improvements, particularly streets and highways, but to a lesser extent than the federal government. Most federal funds are made available on an application basis and selection is competitive, such as EPA funding of the wastewater treatment plant. Gallatin County also receives about $500,000 per year from the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service in lieu of taxes based on the amount of and production on federal land in the County. About half of this has been directed toward capital construction projects although not as yet for road construction. Federal funds are an important source for road improvements and construction. The Federal Aid Primary (FAP) funds are allotted to state highway departments for improvements to designated state and federal 77 highways. The previously mentioned Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) funds are assigned to improve designated roads in rural areas, and the Federal Aid Urban (FAU) funds are for improvement of urban arterials. Currently, Bozeman receives about $275,000 per year in FAU funds and Gallatin County about $300,000 per ,year in FAS funds, and each local government may accumulate the funds over a period of years to pay for a major segment of road construction or improvement. Gallatin county has committed its funds through 1990 for improvements to Springhill Road and intends to accumulate the 1990 through 1995 funds for Valley Center Road. The city has prioritized its FAU funds for the Kagy-to-19th and North 19th (Durston to Oak) improvements, both of which are appropriate and recommended improvements for the implementation of the Master Plan. Private sources are also available, generally not in the form of cash, but in other important ways such as land dedication for right-of-ways and public facilities and participation in special improvement districts. It is up to the local government to orchestrate these dedications and improvements in such a way as to contribute to the master plan. Capital Improvement Protects The vision presented in the Master Plan requires that investments be made in the community in the form of capital improvements. These improvements fall into three general categories: 1) water and sewer, 2) roads and streets, and 3) parks and open space. City officials have indicated that public facilities such as the library, city hall, senior center and recreation facilities are adequate for the foreseeable future and will not require major improvement. Water and Sewer Improvements. Water and sewer improvements are made through the enterprise funds, which, in total, have a projected budget in fiscal year 1990 of $4 million. About $500,000 of this is set aside for capital expenditures or debt service. Because the enterprise funds are intended to run on a break even basis, these funds can be expected to pay for needed utility extensions within the city limits. Additional funding has been secured from DNRC which will provide loans to the city for the Hyalite Dam and Lyman Creek projects. Table 9 sets out utility improvements already scheduled in the CIP. Comparison with the Master Plan reveals that extensions of several lines would be necessary to accommodate new development within the Master Plan area. Scheduling depends on when development occurs in specific areas. The capacity of the water and wastewater treatment systems is adequate for the additional growth represented by these extensions. Streets and Roads. As described above, both the city and county utilize primarily FAU and FAS funds to pay for arterial street and road improvements. Other improvements and maintenance are paid for through RIDs, SIDs, or gas tax and registration fees. The Interstate interchange, the single largest planned improvement in the area, will be funded through the federal and state interstate highway program, but it is not in the current five-year plan. The city is funding some of the early design work to hasten 78 approval and funding of the construction. Other street construction recommended in the Master Plan would be eligible for the City's FAU allocation, but the $275,000 per year will not stretch that far. Generally, the street construction and improvements represented in Table 9 will serve all areas of the city represented in the Master Plan and alleviate current traffic problems; however, several additional segments are needed. The major recommendation of the Master Plan is the completion of a "loop" system of arterial around the built-up portion of the city. This would include: 1) the connection of North 19th to the new interchange (or at least from Durston to Oak until the timing of the interchange is established); 2) completion of a northeast loop road, preferably an Oak to Highland connection, that takes the pressure of residential streets on the north side of town; and 3) extension of Kagy from 11th to 19th. In addition, citizens have expressed a desire for attractive gateway streets, primarily those connecting with the interstate and Yellowstone. These designated arterials should be beautified with street tree plantings and landscaped medians. To the extent possible, these beautification projects should be integrated with street construction or widening projects. Unfortunately, many of these segments are outside of the city's jurisdiction. Within the urban influence area of the county, the most significant need is to serve areas to the west which are represented in the Master Plan as the area of growth. The planned improvement of Valley Center would achieve this objective. Parks and Open Space. Creation of additional parks and open space is key to enhancing the quality of life enjoyed by Bozeman's residents. Neither the city nor county has scheduled any major projects for park and open space land or acquisition or improvements. One priority of the Master Plan is creation of greenways along the streams that cut through Bozeman and along the Galligator railroad alignment. These greenways would be protected open space areas with trails for walking, running and biking. Within the developed areas of town, the community has turned its back on this potential asset. As stream segments become available as public rights-of-way (through easement, dedication or purchase), the trail system and green belt can be created incrementally. As long as development standards are established, various groups could donate land, labor or materials to help accomplish the project. Within undeveloped areas, the greenway land can be donated when development occurs or the owner could construct and maintain each segment as part of an open space requirement. While the extent of trail acquisition and development will depend on the extent of dedication, private contributions and the level of capital improvements funding, costs can be expected to run as high as $200,000 per mile. Funding Strategies The capital improvement projects presented in the above section and Table 9 represent a significant capital investment on the part of the City of Bozeman and, to a lesser extent, Gallatin County. All of the projects represented will have to be carefully staged through the capital improvements programming 79 process as the citizens and City government agree on priorities and funding mechanisms. Funding for capital improvements is very limited. The city should continue its capital projects set aside each year. The fund can then be used for smaller projects, those costing less than $100,000. Larger projects would best be funded through a general obligation bond issue for streets and parks and open space. Some portion of the future projects could also come from the continued use of current funds for capital improvements once the currently prioritized projects are complete. Such funds include: For the City: FAU $275,000/year Gas Tax $315,000/year (about 33% to capital projects) General Appropriation $100,000/year For the County: FAS $300,000/year Gas Tax $185,000/year (mostly maintenance to date) BLM/USFS $500,000/year (portion available for capital projects) The extent to which -these funds can be supplemented with a capital improvements bond issue to implement the major elements of the Master Plan will depend upon the mill levy and geographic coverage of such a program. A road program could be done, as now, separately by the city and the county or as a countywide measure since a great portion of the residents of the unincorporated county live in close proximity to Bozeman. The institution of maintenance districts, particularly for streets and the upkeep of public parks, would allow for more capital allocations for planned improvements. In order to effectively implement the Master Plan, a City-wide street maintenance district is currently being considered. Likewise, the parks and trails components connect and weave through portions of both the city and unincorporated county and, wherever located, serve residents at both areas, so a joint city-county program (and funding) would be justified. Of course, the size of any bond issue and the capital construction program supported thereby will depend on the public's willingness to authorize such a program which, in turn, will be influenced by the mix of projects covered. By way of illustration, the chart below shows the level of capital improvements that could be supported by a bond issue with various mill levies and coverages. Annual Supported Citywide Issue Amount Capital Expenditure 10 Mills $236,000 $2,216,000 20 Mills $472,000 $4,431,000 80 Countywide Issue 5 Mills $328,500 $3,084,000 10 Mills $657,000 $6,168,000 The level of supportable expenditure in the above illustration is based upon a 20-year bond at 7.2 percent with 10 percent of the proceeds used for costs of issuance and reserve requirements. The mill levies in the illustration would result in tax increases ranging from 1.7 percent to 5.0 percent of the total tax bill for an individual property. While sales taxes are not allowed under Montana laws, it is worth noting that in many communities, citizens have supported a dedication of sales tax revenues to parks and open space programs. This tax is in many ways preferable and more productive than a property tax (one major advantage is that it collects tax from tourists and other nonresidents). As a rough indication of productivity, a one-half percent sales tax on nonautomotive retail sales in Gallatin County would support a Capital Improvements package of about $17.3 million, three to eight times the amount described above for property tax supported projects. B. REGULATORY STRATEGY First and foremost zoning has become a governmental process for controlling and regulating the use of land within a community for the purpose of protecting community values. Many professional planners and elected and appointed public officials involved with zoning will argue that zoning has, as its roots, the following two purposes: ° Protecting and maintaining property values, and ° Implementation of the Community Master Plan While this premise is to a great extent true, zoning has evolved well beyond being merely a tool that is used to guide orderly, physical development of the community. Zoning has developed into a process whereby communities not only direct and regulate the physical order of land patterns, but also apply more intangible community goals and values to property development, such as protection of the environment, preservation of the community's past and scenic appeal and, often as not, the social and moral values of the community. Zoning as a process has become more complex than mere consideration of the relationship, by location, of differing land uses. It is now widely accepted that the zoning process encompasses consideration of community values and protecting property values; and it encompasses master planning (community) objectives when used to implement the land use plan. In short, zoning has evolved from a legal technique for regulating land development in the interest of protecting property values to a complex governmental process that has as its objective the promotion of the goals, objectives and community values which have been traditionally identified in the community master plan. 81 The Relationship of the Zoning Process to the Bozeman Master Plan The Bozeman Area Master Plan has been developed to reflect community objectives and values relative the area's quality of life and image. As a reflection of those community values the Bozeman Area Master Plan can only be a guide for future growth and development. The land use plan of the Bozeman Area Master Plan reflects this "guidelines" approach. The land use plan suggests that certain areas of the community be developed in a general character, such as residential, commercial or industrial. In an economically balanced community, all of these land use types are necessary. As a guide to appropriate land use character, the Bozeman Area Master Plan acknowledges community values as more important than the developing land use patterns. For Bozeman to effectively implement its master plan and community objectives and values, a zoning process that promotes flexibility in determining land uses will be essential. Bozeman's zoning process must be able to allow the application of community values and objectives to the land use decision making process. Zoning in the Bozeman Area must become more concerned with "how" a project is developed than "where" it is being developed. The "how" of a project will always depend upon the existing and/or future characteristics of the vicinity of the project. Because the vicinities of similar land uses will vary, the design, or "how" of a project will also vary. To accommodate different design strategies through a fair and equitable process; the zoning in the Bozeman area must allow for a project evaluation that is flexible, yet predictable. Therefore, the zoning process used within the Bozeman area should recognize the following: 1. Both the general public and the development industry can benefit from a zoning process that is more flexible in its application, yet reasonably predictable in its result. 2. The City of Bozeman should become more concerned with the performance of particular development projects rather than their location on the Bozeman Area Zoning Map. 3. Site design and architectural design are critical for all development and are often more important than land use in determining a pro ject's compatibility within a given area. 4. Through careful site design, architectural design, buffering and screening, most land uses likely to occur within the zoning jurisdiction of the City of Bozeman can become compatible with any adjacent land use. 82 5. Through the application of poor site design, architectural design, buffering and screening concepts, otherwise compatible land uses can become incompatible. 6. The zoning process must recognize that certain private sector objectives may be compatible (if properly planned, reviewed and approved) with seemingly incompatible adjacent uses. Project evaluation must consider compatibility on a case by case basis. 7. The private market is capable of determining the appropriate location of major activity centers (e.g. shopping, industry, offices) and must be included in the planning process to assure that future land use decisions benefit the citizens of Bozeman and all of Gallatin County. 83 wt � III.�II OWN" u �• � .....� ; �,rr �.II44btl t �Jti�:,;, �:��". �I'■ � ./ � �_ I \III�InIlmllllf-ter ` 'r--��_ • i.� y:, +�. _A / �r 11 ''�� — ��■�I�II'llUl�li�� rwy.�■ / .1 �.u■■■ �, Era:- ��� Y �{� i '�1� , 4. � •�• SEEN NONE + • u ys .•' ' s s t rau�u � - �u �'�,J - SEES � I ` , ; � •r �Illl u■ �i ii/ now -■ .. r _ ►'�^��_ _ `�1�� !,��~ Y ONES ��'+- I �� �,► - ��=-`� r. �y+' , _ 1.. �.�..ih NONE ►, inMR �r ol —_ AM, now- MIS, ■ �° � milli r r>■ V 1 \ 1► ���E?':;f1"i� '�C�C � �_ "��11: ..r�f �y ' mi Did MCI, n *' 4 ral i oil Mv NONE MR ��11�■ ,.�a'��/ *i �� � � 1 �IIIIIIIIfiIIII � }.�.� �r�: ■_II ' ,•dl.•. . :.ill � . � :•=: � � ._ .� — . I■■' .=III= i� ..�■- �•_��;` f�■i � ' .. : . , :► !r • ! J _� - n - ,•u •l�.� � � —jai -- #a��$'�r ► • ° • I �5 :nmiu i ■u • / I tiwS� Rom.., pIGNO �it,�� ,IY =+ :emu /. 'Ue: + ■■ r` 'ram/� �,IN� �j� ■■■■ 06115 sun" ble a ras so as 16M .. III ' � ,� ��: �.!!!L . �!�����;�� . �" � i .. ��� �Uu�+,��illllf IC • /�� ��'r�N°�•_~ '�_ � _ ��+irk ��1, '`-:► ®R son w mlirm po EW*'- ��%� - ,f r tea. �� \7 BOZEMAN A R E A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 1 1/4 MILES LYMAN CREEK RESEYIOR 1/4 MILE(5.3 MG CAPACITY) A S T E R - -� PL A N FIGURE 4 OCT. 1990 UTILITIES r LEGEND _ - - �rJ --- WATER I J I ]OR 111 S cJrDtcL�[ar Ir n, _tip 1 L��L7ULe Crrl SANITARY SEWER POWER LINE 161 kV 1 i r Y. -' o� _ �- POWER LINE 50 kV 2.0 MG RESERVOIR ELECTRIC SUBSTATION - r i JI 4,0 N.0. f IILIERVOIR era' � WATER TREATMENT PLANT 2 MILE! .r• r 0 1,000 2,000 4Aoo 8.000 ■- ���,�,�II_,.. w�� - �. -- .��!' � III _ � � ' '� 01 aw.,:����- 1 ,qr I �wwl sooncc cc 0 ul P.MVP Lu LU cc R in Ron .,►;.. .N._ 1 ` ' • s ,. tea■ IIIIII - � � f ; .p EI jai = Nil �h tmj ��� ■1 ilk � � ` � -- � '�' �� � :1111■� - � �iil►�■■■ _ � .� r t• � � F ® — ��■ _ ��lu�I�pp'�ir�llq����- �<16 �b �i■.��""i _ ■■ten■■■`. I �, +���.DUI � � ♦+� f'�.��r� 1� �1.. ■ , �A�^=.;��� `� -_..�. � � �III-���� ■■■■ 4 ��' .����■ ��■ _ � ��� �� mot. BOZEMAN A R E A- 7 J t - M A S T S R P L A N FIGURE T OCT, 1990 JL ��� � ,�. _ ;, HISTORIC �� '--- � --�-- RESOURCES/ F_e A dd � PUBLIC -7-, 4 FACILITIES -- G ��Q�- off- _ , e LEGEND HISTORIC DISTRICT p <1N S� _ 1. BON TON �a _ ��` 2. BREWERY 3. COOPER PARK 4. LINDLEY PLACE i rl Jill S. MAIN STREET 6. NORTH TRACY 7. SOUTH TRACY L�.-•- 1[/ \ � . 8. SOUTH TRACY- SOUTH BLACK HISTORIC BUILDING F JL" 5 1i1�11� 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 8,000 ■■ �":..� � � `ice�' i I , I ■�ti -v �i oil woo 07, MEN 10 1, 4 N4 — Pll nommummig I at iWf glans NT• �,•` n,I' I 0, ;■. OR IN MEN WX . TITIlion 1 +1i ' j'. '�' Ia i / •' I ` t- "' '9'1 .--L-I s i■�aa■d�.a.■ �_. -j _ v +t I • I _ — . ..:■ ,.• 1 I I • � -fir 1 i CAI �= = ..� -�.r�';x —,_— • =`•ram_: -1—� � ! , ,,+�R .}•• -- 7-1 :.nIL m..t— r.'. • -"fir' . I. i ;_ t �� . ' \ 3 LU > n.wn.mrm.T: 1'Z' W U a = uj I t Ywu f O