Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-06 Parking Commission Minutes Bozeman Parking Commission Meeting August 24, 2006 Parking Commissioners in Attendance: Chris Pope Larry Bowman Pam Bryan Paul Burns Steve Schnee City Staff in Attendance: Chris Kukulski, City Manager James Goehrung, Facilities Superintendent Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director Andy Epple, Planning Director Laurae Clark, Treasurer Guests in Attendance: Thomas Mosser, Business Owner, Developer Camden Easterling, Bozeman Daily Chronicle Colette Nelson, film student @ MSU Ken Glynn, Luminous Digital Film Company Raymond Craig, Luminous Digital Film Company Chris Pope called the meeting to order and introductions were made. The document from Thomas Moser was acknowledged. Chris Kukulski gave a brief overview of the parking commission and the documents provided at the last meeting regarding the sale of the “armory” parking lot—the lot on the SE corner of Willson and Mendenhall. He introduced Ordinance No. 1658 which pertains to acquisition and transfer of City property. This ordinance must be followed as we discuss this buy/sell agreement. He cited that as the city is growing these surface parking lots could become a high commodity. Interest in developing this and other city-owned lots is a “trend that isn’t going to go away”. Bozeman needs to consider under what terms it might sell public lots. One absolute requirement is there needs to be an appraisal of the property. He feels we need a master plan of how we are going to deal with this situation and parking as a whole. The question was raised, is the commission supportive of higher density downtown? Larry reminded everyone that parking is essential to a healthy downtown. Bozeman currently has a wonderful downtown—it is the heart of the community. When business owners on the outskirts of Bozeman bring clients to town, they bring them downtown. Our healthy downtown is an asset to Bozeman as a whole. We must maintain this vitality, and a good mix of uses and activities will do that. Larry stated he would strongly support further development in the B3 district. Chris Pope stated that as a commission we are looking over the fence to see what’s happening. He readily agrees that we need a master plan. He pointed out, however, that the parking commission had previously approved $30,000 for a master plan in conjunction with the DBA and other organizations, and it was voted down. Larry stated that the parking garage currently is our master plan. Until this is built we struggle to look beyond. We won’t know if we have built enough spaces for the existing businesses, or too many spaces and we can utilize those for future development. The key precept the parking commission feel we need at this time from development utilizing a public lot is a net sustained parking—development needs to at least replace quality level parking so we are not going backwards. Where this parking would be was not discussed. Until the garage is built and we know the impacts it will bring, we don’t want to count on that for future development. Chris K. responded that we can’t wait 3-5 years for answers to some of those questions. We can’t hinder development while we have this momentum going for growth downtown. This must be looked at as an opportunity. We don’t know what the future holds—this growth trend may not continue. Larry replied that if you allow the development to reduce the amount of parking it hurts the existing businesses. Developers must at least replace the parking in an acceptable manner to the parking commission. Chris K. explained that his experience comes from a number of other development agreements from Minnestota to Kalispel. He feels we need some assurance that the developer can perform and will do what is intended with the once public property. He doesn’t want to sell a piece of property, have the development fall through and then see the property sell for a profit and a completely different use. The City has then lost an asset to no benefit to the community. Under his draft response to the buy/sell agreement, if for whatever reason the project isn’t approved, the land reverts back to the City. If also, the development doesn’t generate the tax base that was intended, then the developer is responsible for filling that gap. Pay in lieu of tax bill. Performance assurance and the land returning to the City if the development does not occur gives the City security. By agreeing to those terms, it shows the developer is committed to building their project. Andy Epple stated that currently the city doesn’t have a performance bond requirement th for private development. This has proved to be a problem such as the hotel on 7, which when only partially completed, the developer walked away from, and now the property is for sale. This could be something that is implemented in the future. We do use them in public infrastructure type projects—such as roads. Chris P. stated we would like to be committed to good downtown development. Chris K. affirmed that the appraisal of the land is critical. If the land is sold, those funds as well as an agreement in place for the increment funds to be designated to parking, we could then worry about the parking in the future. Space for space exchanges will be different each time, and he does not want the commission to rely solely on that. The appraised value as a redevelopment site will bring in a better appraisal than for just 28 parking spaces. The commission asked if we can we ask for appraised value plus spaces? They didn’t feel that just getting the cash and then figuring out the parking later was their responsibility. They don’t want to recreate existing parking, but manage and improve the parking they have. And, requiring a developer to replace and pay appraised value seems to be a disincentive. Where the replacement parking spaces are is also an issue. The spaces need to be manageable and desirable—location and access. Chris K. stated that what he is taking away from the meeting is that we need a performance bond type tool, we need to create incentives—not disincentives to build downtown. We must start with an appraisal, but just cash doesn’t work. We need replacement of the 28 spaces. The land reverts to the city if the development fails. We would like some assurance of a minimum revenue stream into the increment district. Proximity of the replaced spaces is key, but not necessarily within the development. We must define the end result and leave the developer the creativity to make it happen. It was questioned when does the sale take place? Is it now or a year from now? If the sale is now, we need to have some type of lease back mechanism for a $1, so we don’t lose our parking until the development happens. It was reiterated that the parking commission is not in the development process. th This issue will go before the City Commission on August 28. James gave a brief update on the Garage. He handed out the Downtown Inter-model Facility Description, and a response, from Ryan Hammon from the Federal Transit Authority. The transfer site must be adjacent to the structure, on the Mendenhall frontage. Meeting adjourned @ 9:00.