HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-22-06 Parking Commission Minutes
Bozeman Parking Commission Meeting
June 22, 2006
Parking Commissioners in Attendance:
Chris Pope, Chairman
Pam Bryan
Larry Bowman
Paul Burns
City Staff in Attendance:
Laurae Clark, Treasurer
Guests in Attendance:
Thomas Mosser
Scott Bechtle
Ron Slade
Chris Pope called the meeting to order.
Worksession: Regarding the role of the Parking Authority assets, including future
Parking Facility, as it relates to future downtown development interests.
Chris clarified that the intention of this meeting was to create a process to assist
developers in downtown Bozeman.
Pam explained the change from the Advisory Board to the Parking Authority to the newer
members.
It was suggested that they all review the statute regarding the Parking Authority so all
had a good understanding. And, that they might ask Paul Luwe or Tim Cooper to clarify
their authority and present it at the next meeting.
Chris proposed a Parking Commission Checklist that the board can use to evaluate
projects. He wanted everyone to understand this was just a draft. This can be revised as
needed. But, thought it would help give some direction to begin their process.
Thomas Mosser asked about the comment from last meeting about needing to replace
public parking spaces if those that exist are utilized by a private developer. Does the
Garage change this theory?
Chris asked that he give the commissioners a chance to discuss the checklist and then
they would respond to his questions.
The commissioners reviewed and discussed the checklist. They all agreed they want a
consistent, fair, timely, and predictable process. At the next meeting the parking
commissioners will bring their changes and suggestions back to be discussed and to fine-
tune the checklist.
The Armory Lot has 28 spaces. Thomas Mosser has proposed an overnight perpetual
lease of this lot to help fulfill the parking requirements for his new development, the City
Hotel.
Larry reiterated that the parking commission does not want to give up use of spaces
without a replacement of those spaces identified.
Pam commented that the overnight lease would extend up to 11 a.m. due to the fact that
the clientele would be hotel guests.
Larry asked the other commissioners, “Are we going to designate parking for one specific
use?” He would not be in favor of this. We have an extensive waiting list for those same
spaces. He does not feel that we can give one business use of a lot.
Chris discussed perpetual leases in private lots. And asked the other commissioners if
they would be in favor of allowing this in the Parking Garage?
Larry stated that he feels the situation will change with Parking Garage. Paul agreed and
acknowledged the garage could be built with that in mind as part of the planning and
design process, but existing spaces are different.
Larry suggested that future developers could add another floor to the Garage, and that
could be designated for their use. He mentioned that it was feasible that the First
Interstate Bank lot could possibly add a ramp in the future and add one level above.
Paul asked if private developers who are providing their own parking come to us? The
other commissioners responded that no, they do not.
Chris summarized his understanding of their discussion so far. That until the Parking
Garage is built and underway; the commissioners would not be in favor of designating
public lots for private use by one business. Perpetual lease is a huge change of focus for
the Commission. They would need something to work with before we can consider this
type of request.
Thomas asked for clarification of the code. Can off street parking be satisfied by public
ownership? If no perpetual leases are available how do I satisfy the parking requirement
with public spaces?
Pam and Larry both responded that it does not mean we have to provide spaces for a
private entity, but we can if it is available.
Chris clarified again that the parking commission has decided not to provide perpetual
leases at this time.
Thomas replied with some final comments. He stated that you are implying that I’m
taking parking spaces. The whole idea is that we want to bring people downtown. They
are not just staying at my hotel. They are eating and shopping downtown. They provide
business to other businesses as well. They become the downtown consumers. It’s a net
gain for downtown, not just his business.
Chris agreed with that completely, and restated that it’s just that we don’t have the
parking capacity to do that at this time.
Chris asked the other commissioners if we had the ability to, would we want to issue
permits for day users and others for overnight users? The response was that we just are
not prepared to go there yet, but this may change once the garage is built.
Thomas suggested that it makes sense to be pro-active rather than wait if it facilitates
development.
Larry informed him that if he wanted to add a level to the Garage, the Commissioners
would say great!
Pam also reminded him that we have limited resources and only can build what we can
afford.
Thomas commented on the armory building--it is now owned by a private developer. It
was not used for public use as it was initially designated for. That is not consistent with
what you are trying to do now.
Pam reminded him that there are other options for him--he could use on-street parking for
overnight guests, or look into using the bank or church lots.
Chris asked Scott Bechtle and Ron Slade from Bechtle-Slade Architects to introduce
themselves and explain why they were at the meeting.
Scott explained that they are developing a mixed use building on the Armory site. He
stated that they initially had asked about purchasing the armory lot and putting in an
underground parking garage. The lot isn’t really efficient for use as a lot due to the size.
He suggested that the Commission could use that money from the sale of the lot to
purchase more land for a lot elsewhere. The building they are proposing would provide
parking for their own use and not increase the demand too heavily in the area. It would
be a 7 story building, or maybe go to 6 story and end up needing about 9 spaces in Cash-
in-lieu. Another option if can’t buy the armory lot is to build only on the armory building
site. They could still build on that and reduce the demand on parking to only about 4
spaces in Cash-in-lieu. Their building would have retail, offices and residential units.
Because residential uses parking from approximately 6 pm - 8 am and offices use it from
8 am – 6 pm, it reduces the parking requirements. They estimate that 50% would leave
cars in the parking structure. They need direction from the Parking Commission. Can
they purchase the lot? If not they know which direction to go. They also asked if they
could come to some agreement to eliminate Cash-in-lieu if they purchased the lot rather
than do both.
Ron showed them the building design and discussed it’s uses.
Pam asked if the parking they were creating within the structure would be able to be used
by the general public?
They stated no, the money you receive for the purchase of the lot could be used to replace
those spaces.
The project is approximately 188,000 sq ft of parking, retail, office, and 3 residential
floors.
Scott stated that cash-in-lieu doesn’t work. Developers need parking for their businesses
to flourish.
Ron stated they had taken the Willson lot off the table. They thought it would be too
cumbersome. He asked that if there is still a possibility of using that lot as well, please
let us know ASAP!
Larry stated that any spaces we lose need to be replaced. We would certainly entertain
ideas on how that could be done. The commission thought it was important to have a lot
available for shoppers’ downtown. They do not lease any spaces in the armory lot for
that reason.
Ron reminded him that the ownership of the parking in the structure on Willson would be
condo’d and deeded back to the City. It would still be public spaces.
Larry stated his concern is that the lot would appraise for a lot less than what the cost of
building a parking structure would be. Only surface lots would be affordable and those
are very limited downtown.
Scott reminded everyone that the development would be an additional tax revenue
resource for downtown.
Chris said it might be worth taking a look at their project and cash flowing it a little. He
asked what is your timeline for this project?
Bechtle-Slade is ready to move ahead right now! They need a decision quickly. The
concept is good it reduces sprawl and adds density to downtown. They are asking for
assistance in helping this happen. Steve Kirchhoff was very supportive of them to
purchase the lot. There is a tax benefit and an aesthetic benefit for downtown. They are
willing to entertain whatever it takes to make this happen.
Larry stated they need to replace those spaces.
Pam acknowledged that cash is not a replacement for those spaces.
Paul asked if this would be an opportunity to increase parking?
Chris said yes, we want to increase parking, not just a net exchange of spaces, ideally we
would like to see a few extra--1 space for 1.2 spaces for instance.
Scott asked do we pay for the property or pay for the parking?
Ron stated he heard that they need to pay for the property and replace parking at 120%.
Larry said he thinks the commission needs to further discuss that. They should start with
how to replace the spaces. The parking commission needs to have that discussion about
where?
Ron stated that structure parking is much more expensive than surface parking, but not
the best long-term benefit for downtown.
Pam said one of the biggest struggles is that there are two great developments looking at
using the same lot.
Larry mentioned the Baxter lot is very under-utilized. He was told that they believe
security is an issue with the underground parking. David Losef now owns the Baxter,
they should talk to him about that use.
Ron confirmed that they need to come back with a plan to replace and add public spaces
downtown.
th
Scott said they would have a proposal at the next meeting on July 13.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Laurae Clark, Treasurer