Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-24 TB Agenda and Packet MaterialsA. Call to Order - 6:00 PM B. Disclosures C. Changes to the Agenda D. Approval of Minutes D.1 I move to approve the January 24, 2024 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes (Ross) E. Public Comments THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA TB AGENDA Wednesday, February 28, 2024 General information about the Transportation Board can be found in our Laserfiche repository. If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to agenda@bozeman.net or by visiting the Public Comment Page prior to 12:00pm on the day of the meeting. Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through Video Conference during the appropriate agenda items. As always, the meeting will be streamed through the Commission's video page and available in the City on cable channel 190. For more information please contact Nick Ross, nross@bozeman.net This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online videoconferencing system. You can join this meeting: Via Video Conference: Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting. Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in- person United States Toll +1 346 248 7799 Access code: 982 5865 6090 This is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the Transportation Board. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that item but you may only speak once per topic. Please note, the Board cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the Board shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your name and place of residence in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to three minutes. 1 F. Special Presentations F.1 Engineering Design Standards Update – Transportation Standards and Compact Development White Papers(Kohtz) G. FYI/Discussion G.1 Development of Lane Occupancy Fees for Engineering Permits (Lonsdale) H. Adjournment General public comments to the Board can be found on their Laserfiche repository page. This board generally meets the fourth Wednesday of the month from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Citizen Advisory Board meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Mike Gray, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301). 2 Memorandum REPORT TO:Transportation Board FROM:Nicholas Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering SUBJECT:I move to approve the January 24, 2024 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes MEETING DATE:February 28, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Minutes RECOMMENDATION:I move to approve the January 24, 2024 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:Minutes from the January 24, 2024 Transportation Advisory Board. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:As recommended by the board. FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: 012424 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes Report compiled on: February 5, 2024 3 Bozeman Transportation Board Meeting Minutes, January 24, 2024 Page 1 of 2 THE CITY TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES January 24, 2024 A) 00:06:45 Call to Order - 6:00 PM Present: Bryce Gordon, Shannon Mahoney, Courtney Oyler, Kelly Pohl, Paul Reichert, Rio Roland, Hayden Glines Absent: None Excused: None Staff present at the Dias: Transportation Engineer, Taylor Lonsdale, Public Works Office Manager, Marcy Yeykal, Engineering Administrative Assistant, Bill Pratt. B) 00:06:55 Disclosures Vice Chair Reichert had a disclosure that he was asked to speak at an event on February 9th for the Office of Lifelong Learning with the topic being parking. C) 00:07:55 Changes to the Agenda D) 00:08:02 Approval of Minutes D.1 00:08:08 I move to approve the December 11, 2023, Transportation Board Meeting Minutes 121123 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes 00:08:20 Motion to approve. Courtney Oyler: Motion Bryce Gordon: 2nd 00:08:29 Vote on the Motion to approve The Motion carried 7 - 0. Approve: 4 Bozeman Transportation Board Meeting Minutes, January 24, 2024 Page 2 of 2 Bryce Gordon Shannon Mahoney Courtney Oyler Kelly Pohl Paul Reichert Rio Roland Hayden Glines Disapprove: None Chair Pohl took a moment to welcome the board back from the new year and to introduce new board members Hayden Glines and Shannon Mahoney renewed another three-year term. Taylor Lonsdale, Transportation Engineer also gave an FYI to the board and introduces Interim Parking Manager, Nick Focken to the board. Taylor also gave an update on the (MPO) Metropolitan Planning Organization and other transportation related items. E) 00:17:53 Public Comments There was no public comment. F) 00:18:57 FYI/Discussion F.1 00:19:03 Transportation Advisory Board Work Session on Commission Priorities and Board Work Plan Taylor Lonsdale, Transportation Engineer presented the Transportation Advisory Board Work Session on Commission Priorities and Board Work Plan to the board. 00:28:29 Questions of Staff 01:23:29 Public Comment 01:24:36 Marilee Brown, Public Comment Marilee Brown commented on how muti-modal transportation has been left behind and would like the board to support Mayor Cunningham to increase the budget for these transportation related items. 01:27:13 Board Discussion G) 01:30:07 Adjournment This board generally meets the fourth Wednesday of the month from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. 5 Memorandum REPORT TO:Transportation Board FROM:Nicholas Ross - Director of Transportation and Engineering Shawn Kohtz - City Engineer SUBJECT: Engineering Design Standards Update – Transportation Standards and Compact Development White Papers MEETING DATE:February 28, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Review and discuss updates to the transportation elements of the engineering standards. Review and discuss the compact development white papers scoped as part of the engineering design standards update. STRATEGIC PLAN:4.3 Strategic Infrastructure Choices: Prioritize long-term investment and maintenance for existing and new infrastructure. BACKGROUND:The City is updating its Design Standards and Specifications Policy and the City of Bozeman Modifications to Montana Public Works Standard Specifications. The overarching function of these engineering design standards is to protect public health and safety, provide for clear design criteria, provide review procedures and inspection requirements, and generally promote operational efficiency while minimizing cost of public infrastructure. More specifically, City standards are intended to assure the following: Infrastructure design and construction within the City meet applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances Infrastructure design and construction within the City is consistent with respective facility plans Uniform materials and methods of construction for efficiency of repairs and maintenance Engineering Standards Update - Transportation Section A draft of the updated Transportation System Section of the design standards is attached for review and discussion. An overview of significant additions or changes include: Guidance for complete streets policy implementation A traffic calming design section is under development with guidance being sought from the Board to be included in this new section Reduction in design speeds on City streets Setting minimum street width to 35-feet to accommodate parking 6 lanes and drive lanes Updating references to federal standards The standards have also generally been updated for improved clarity and organization. Compact Development Analysis The high cost and short supply of housing in the City of Bozeman is a dominant topic within the community. To address this issue, the City is exploring ways to reduce upfront costs of infrastructure construction that enable a higher density of housing and reduce need for additional impact to the environment. One method of addressing this has been “compact developments”. To assist the City in its project to revise Engineering Design Standards, the analysis in the attachment titled “Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure” has evaluated several infrastructure design elements associated with compact land uses against its current design standards from the perspective of life cycle cost. Life cycle cost was chosen as the metric of importance due to its connection to providing affordable housing. It should be noted that compact land use and the compact development infrastructure evaluated within this analysis can be mutually exclusive. Compact land uses do not inherently require compact infrastructure. While compact infrastructure can be successfully implemented and has been demonstrated to varying degrees in other cities across the country, the attached analysis evaluates the additional operating costs associated with maintaining said infrastructure in the type of winter climate and specific conditions for which the City exists. Compact infrastructure may reduce initial capital costs; however, the reduced upfront infrastructure cost is often offset by long-term increased cost of operation and maintenance (O&M) of that infrastructure. There are many types of high-density developments that do not deviate from the City’s existing engineering standards, such as certain small-lot and shared-lot developments, apartments, townhomes, and condominium developments. In these cases, the City’s existing engineering standards can be met. Non-standard infrastructure strategies that have been implemented under the “compact development” concept using deviations from the current engineering standards include: Reduced right of way Reduced road width Reduction or elimination of curb and gutter, boulevard, and sidewalk requirements Reduction in minimum off-street parking requirements Non-standard water and sewer service locations 7 While these strategies may reduce the initial cost of public infrastructure construction, they often increase ongoing operational and maintenance costs and create long-term challenges for the City and residents in these developments. These costs are typically passed on to property owners and renters through HOA fees and rents. One goal of this work session is to review and discuss the compact development white papers developed as part of the engineering standards update. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:As suggested by the board. FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: Bozeman Transportation Standards-Working Draft DOWL_Peer_Cities_White_Paper Engeering Standards White Paper Engeering Standards Life Cycle Costs Report compiled on: February 5, 2024 8 Chapter 7 - Transportation System 7-1 City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards Return to Index Chapter 7 Transportation System 7.1. ROADWAY DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA 7.1.1 General This chapter sets forth the minimum design and technical criteria and specifications to be used in the preparation of all roadway plans. All roadway plans should also be designed in conformance with MPWSS; City of Bozeman Modifications to MPWSS; Americans With Disabilities Act; Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG); City of Bozeman Crosswalk Guidelines; and City of Bozeman Sidewalk Policy. 7.1.2 Complete Streets All new and reconstructed roadways shall be designed to accommodate and coordinate all modes of transportation, both motorized and non-motorized, and people of all ages and abilities. Complete street features include, but are not limited to, sidewalks, motor vehicle lanes, shared-use lanes and path, paved shoulders, street trees, landscaping, vegetative planting strips, curb and gutter, ADA curb ramps, crosswalks, refuge islands, pedestrian and traffic signals, directional signs, street furniture, bicycle parking facilities, public transportation stops and facilities, transit priority signalization, traffic calming devices such as rotary circles and curb bulb-outs, and surface treatments such as paving blocks, textured asphalt, and concrete, narrow vehicle lanes, raised medians, and dedicated transit lanes. All designs must be in compliance with City of Bozeman Resolution No. 4244. 7.1.3 Traffic Calming Table 7.1.1 – Minimum Design Standards for City Streets Street Classification Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Rural Right-of-way width 110’ - 120’3 100’ 90’ 60’ 90’ – 110’3 Design Speed (MPH) 35 30 30 25 30 Centerline radius on curves 1 1 300’ 150’ 300’ Tangent length between reverse curves 1 1 100’ 50’ 100’ Stopping sight distance 1 1 200’ 155’ 200’ Angle at intersection centerline 1 1 >75° >75° >75° 9 Chapter 7 - Transportation System 7-2 City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards Return to Index Table 7.1.1 – Minimum Design Standards for City Streets Street Classification Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Rural Curb radius at intersections 2 2 2 2 N/A Length of tangent at intersection 1 1 150’ 100’ 150’ Face-of-curb to face-of- curb 82’ 50’, 63’, 71’3 45’, 48’, 52’,62’3 30’, 32’, 35’3, 6 33’, 39’, 62’3, 4 Length of cul-de-sac5 N/A N/A N/A 500’ N/A Outside radius on cul-de- sac right-of-way5 N/A N/A N/A 50’ 5 Grade – maximum 1 1 7% 10% 10% Grade – minimum 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Grade within 150 feet of intersecting centerlines 1 1 3% 3% 3% K Factor (minimum) Crest Sag 40 60 25 45 25 45 15 30 25 45 Minimum VCL Crest Sag 105 N/A 90 N/A 90 N/A 50 N/A 90 90 1All design criteria shall meet AASHTO standards. 2See Section 7.1.7A. 3The specific right-of-way and face-of-curb to face-of-curb street width will be determined on a case by case basis through the subdivision review process, and will be based on the specific needs, impacts and context of the development proposal. 4The rural street standard does not include curb and gutter. The street width is measured from the edge of pavement to the edge of pavement. 5Cul-de-sacs are generally not allowed. The City Engineering Division may consider and approve the installation of a cul-de-sac only when necessary due to topography, the presence of critical lands, access control, adjacency to parks or open space, or similar site constraints. 6Local streets shall have a minimum face-of-curb to face-of-curb width of 35’ where on-street parking is allowed and where off-street parking is reduced. 10 Chapter 7 - Transportation System 7-3 City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards Return to Index 7.1.4 Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters and Driveways A. Typical roadway sections are shown in the Standard Drawings of Bozeman Modifications to MPWSS. Roadway typical sections shall conform to conditions of approval for the project. B. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed on both sides of all roadways unless otherwise approved by action of City Commission. Sidewalks shall be 6-inches thick across driveways, and 4-inches thick elsewhere. Sidewalk design and construction shall be in accordance with the City of Bozeman Sidewalk Policy. C. All sidewalks shall have a minimum width of five (5) feet, except the minimum width shall be ten (10) feet in the B-3 Downtown Business District. All sidewalks that are to be publicly-maintained and all sidewalks along arterial streets shall have a minimum width of six (6) feet and shall be 6-inches thick, fibermesh-reinforced concrete. Publicly-maintained sidewalks are sidewalks along all parks, and any public facilities or City-owned structures which are anticipated to be maintained by the City of Bozeman. D. Integral curb and gutter shall be used on all roadways. E. Pedestrian ramps with detectable warnings shall be installed at all intersections and at mid-block street crossings for all new construction or reconstruction of curb and sidewalk. Pedestrian ramps shall be constructed in accordance with Section 608 of Montana Department of Transportation Detailed Drawings, PROWAG, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Pedestrian ramps details shall be shown at all curb returns on the roadway plans. F. Guardrails may be required in certain situations. Guardrails shall be designed and constructed in accordance with AASHTO Standards or as directed by the City Engineering Division. G. Drop-curbs for driveways may only be installed with the initial curb construction when the final building locations have been determined. Driveway locations and designs shall conform to Section 38.400.090, Bozeman Unified Development Code. H. Curb transitions for curb bulbs shall be accomplished using 35’ minimum radius curves to achieve the desired pavement narrowing. All curb bulbs shall be adequately marked with flexible roadway delineators and yellow curb paint as necessary. The minimum curb bulb throat width is 14 feet (face-of-curb to face-of-curb). 7.1.5 Sight Triangles Intersection sight triangles at all public and private roadway intersections shall be evaluated in accordance with AASHTO criteria for the anticipated level of traffic control. 7.1.6 Drainage Drainage systems shall be designed in accordance with Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Design of these Design and Construction Standards. Design plans, including a drainage report, for the drainage system are required for concurrent review with, and shall be considered part of, the roadway design. A. Cross Slope 11 Chapter 7 - Transportation System 7-4 City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards Return to Index Except at intersections, or where super-elevation is required, roadways shall be level from top of curb to top of curb and shall have a two (2) percent crown as measured from centerline to lip of curb, or lip of median curb to lip of outside curb on roadways with raised center islands. Parabolic or curve crowns are not allowed. Maximum pavement cross slope allowed is five (5) percent at warped intersections, as measured above. In no case shall the pavement cross slope at warped intersections exceed the grade of the through street. When warping side streets at intersections, the crown transition should be completed within 75-feet horizontally for local streets, 100-feet horizontally for collector streets, and 150-feet horizontally for arterial streets. The crown of the through street shall be decreased to 1.5% through intersections, with the crown transitions being accomplished within 100 feet on either side of the intersections. Quarter crowning may be accepted on a case-by-case basis with prior approval from the City Engineering Division. B. Temporary Erosion Control Temporary erosion control is required at the ends of all roadways that are not completed due to project phasing, subdivision boundaries, etc. Prevention of erosion at the roadway terminus shall be by methods approved by the City Engineering Division. 7.1.7 Horizontal Alignment A. Curb Return Radius For purposes of identifying the nature of an intersection, the functional classification of each roadway is as delineated in the current version of the Bozeman Transportation Master Plan. Local streets intersecting local or private streets will typically use a 10’ curb return radius to control turning speeds. Where local streets intersect collector streets, a 15’ curb return radius is typically used. The swept path of a Conventional School Bus (S-BUS-36) shall be evaluated by the design engineer at all intersections on a collector street. Vehicles turning off or onto the collector will not encroach on other lanes but may use additional width on the intersecting street. If the swept path passes over the proposed curb return, all improvements within the swept path must be constructed to withstand vehicle loads without damage, e.g., thickened and reinforced concrete sidewalk and pedestrian ramps, traffic-rated utility boxes, etc. Traffic control devices must be placed outside the swept path while maintaining conformance with MUTCD guidelines. At all arterial street intersections with arterial streets, the swept path of a WB-67 shall be evaluated by the design engineer. The swept path must be contained entirely within the roadway section, i.e., provide a 2-foot shy distance from the face of curb. Multi-centered curves for curb returns are encouraged to minimize the distance that pedestrians must cross at these intersections. B. Design Speed Design speed shall be as shown in Table 7.1.1 of these specifications. 12 Chapter 7 - Transportation System 7-5 City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards Return to Index C. Horizontal Curves The minimum centerline radius for horizontal curves shall be as shown in Table 7.1.1 of these specifications. Variances from the requirements of Table 7.1.1 for local streets only may be considered on a case-by-case basis. D. Intersections All roadways shall intersect at right angles as nearly as possible. In no case shall the angle of intersection be less than seventy-five degrees (75°). Two local streets intersecting a third street from opposite sides shall meet at the same point, or their centerlines shall be offset at least 125 feet. Two streets intersecting a collector or arterial through street must be evaluated for conflicts between overlapping left-turn movements from the through street. Provide sufficient offset distance to prevent conflict at peak hour traffic volumes. E. Super-elevation Super-elevation (emax = 4%) may be required for arterial roadways and selected collector roadways. Horizontal curve radius and super-elevation shall be in accordance with AASHTO recommendations. Super-elevation shall not be used on local roadways. F. Spiral Curves Spiral curves shall not be used on roadways within City of Bozeman jurisdiction (State highways excluded) except by written approval of the City Engineering Division. G. Barricades Whenever roadways terminate due to project phasing, subdivision boundaries, etc., barricades are required in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and City standards. 7.1.8 Vertical Alignment Design controls for vertical alignment are shown in Table 7.1.1. A. Permissible Roadway Grades The minimum allowable grade for any roadway or alley is one-half (0.5) percent. The maximum allowable grade for any roadway is shown in Table 7.1.1. The maximum grade for an alley is subject to the approval of the City Engineering Division. B. Changing Grades Continuous grade changes or "roller-coastering" shall not be permitted. The use of grade breaks, in lieu of vertical curves, is not encouraged. Where the algebraic difference in grade (A) exceeds one percent (1.0%), a vertical curve is to be used. C. Vertical Curves All vertical curves shall be symmetrical. Design criteria for vertical curves are found in Table 7.1.1. The minimum grade within a sag (sump) vertical curve is five-tenths (0.50) 13 Chapter 7 - Transportation System 7-6 City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards Return to Index of a percent. All vertical curves shall be labeled, in the profile, with length of curve (L) and K (=L/A). D. Intersections The following additional criteria shall apply at intersections. The grade of the "through" street shall take precedence at intersections. At intersections of roadways with the same classification, the more important roadway, as determined by the COB Engineering Division, shall have precedence. Warp side streets to match through streets. See Section 7.1.6A above. The elevation at the point of tangency (PT) of the curb return on the through street is always set by the grade of the through street in conjunction with normal pavement cross slope. Carrying the crown of the side street into the intersecting through street is not permitted. At an arterial-arterial intersection, a more detailed review of the entire intersection's driveability will be completed. E. Curb returns Minimum fall around curb returns, when turning water, shall be determined using a grade of 1.25% within the return. The maximum grade around a curb return is 3.00%. Show and label high point location, elevation and intersection of flow line in plan view if applicable. F. Offsite Design and Construction The design grade and existing ground of all roadways that dead end due to project phasing, subdivision boundaries, etc., shall be continued in the plan and profile of the proposed design for at least three hundred (300) feet, or up to one thousand (1,000) feet if a future extension intersects with an existing roadway. This distance shall be no less than one thousand (1,000) feet when arterial roadways are being designed. Connections with existing roadways shall be smooth transitions conforming to normal vertical curve criteria if the algebraic difference in grade (A) between the existing and proposed grade exceeds one percent (1.0%). When a vertical curve is used to make this transition, it shall be fully accomplished prior to the connection with the existing improvement. Field-verified slope and elevation of existing roadways shall be shown on the plans for a minimum distance of 300’ beyond the end of the proposed improvements. The City Engineering Division may require a longer distance. If the offsite roadway adjacent to the proposed development is not fully improved, the developer is responsible for the design and construction of a transition for the safe conveyance of traffic from the improved section to the existing roadway. The following formula shall be applied to the taper or lane change necessary for this transition: L = WS²/60 where L = length of transition in feet 14 Chapter 7 - Transportation System 7-7 City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards Return to Index W = width of offset in feet S = design speed per these design standards The City Engineering Division should be consulted for any unusual transition conditions. Grade breaks greater than one percent are not allowed when matching existing dirt or gravel streets. The cost of offsite pavement transitions shall be borne by the developer. 7.1.9 Medians Median curbs should be integral curb and gutter (with spill curb) unless otherwise approved. Medians less than eight (8) feet wide should be capped with 4000 psi concrete a minimum of three (3) inches thick. Wider medians should be landscaped in accordance with Chapter 9. The minimum median width is 4 feet, measured from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. All medians or raised islands should be made clearly visible at night through the use of adequate reflectorization and/or illumination. Flexible delineators shall be placed at the beginning and end of all medians, and at the point of any horizontal alignment change. All median curbs and island curbs shall be painted yellow with epoxy paint. 7.1.10 Surfacing Following are the requirements of the minimum transportation surfacing standards: A. Roadways The pavement thickness design will be based on the 1993 and 1998 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, or the current AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide for thickness design. A Pavement Design Report, based upon site specific soil data and design-year traffic loading conditions, prepared by a Professional Engineer, or other qualified professional approved by the City Engineering Division, shall be submitted to the City Engineering Division for approval prior to plan and specification submittal or concurrent with the plans and specifications. The design shall be based on at least a 20-year performance period traffic volume. However, the minimum design lane Equivalent 18,000-lb Single Axle Load (ESAL) used in the pavement design shall not be less than 75,000-ESAL. The minimum asphalt pavement thickness for any new local roadway shall be three (3) inches. The minimum asphalt pavement thickness for any new collector or arterial roadway shall be four (4) inches. A minimum of six (6) inches of high quality untreated aggregate base shall be provided for designs utilizing asphalt pavement over untreated aggregate base. The City Engineering Division may require intersections with roundabouts or traffic circles to be constructed with Portland cement concrete surfacing. B. Railroad Crossings All railroad crossings on streets shall be precast concrete panels as approved by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway for the full width of the roadway. C. Sidewalks All pedestrian sidewalks will be constructed with Portland cement concrete surfacing. 15 Chapter 7 - Transportation System 7-8 City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards Return to Index D. Shared Use Paths All shared use paths will be constructed with asphalt. The City Engineering Division may approve alternative surfacing materials based on path location and surrounding environment. 7.1.11 Signs and Markings A. Street identification signs shall be installed at all new intersections in accordance with City of Bozeman Modifications to MPWSS. B. Stop signs shall be installed on local streets where they intersect any collector or arterial streets. The City Engineering Division may require additional regulatory traffic control and pavement markings in accordance with Section 7.1.4, above, and the MUTCD. C. Unless otherwise approved, all pavement markings shall be epoxy paint or pre-formed plastic tape. The materials for all markings shall be specified on the plans. D. Crosswalk markings should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study should be performed before they are installed at locations away from traffic signals or stop signs. All marked crosswalks for designated school crossings shall be longitudinal white bars (“City of Bozeman Type B” style). “School Crossing” signs and “School Advance Warning” signs shall be installed at all designated school crossings. At stop or signal controlled intersections, marked crosswalks shall be two 8” white lines, 8’ apart typically, installed transverse to traffic and in-line with sidewalk pedestrian ramps (“City of Bozeman Type A” style). Marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections, and all mid-block crosswalks shall be “Type B”, with “Pedestrian Crossing” signs. “Pedestrian Crossing Advance Warning” signs should be installed if deemed warranted by engineering judgment. Parking shall be restricted using signs and curb markings within 20 feet of crosswalks at a minimum, or longer based on engineering judgment. All crosswalk signs and advance crosswalk signs shall have a fluorescent yellow green background. E. All signs shall comply with the current edition of “Standard Highway Signs” book published by the Federal Highway Administration. F. Speed limit signs shall be posted upon construction of new or newly-extended arterial and collector roadways with speed limits in accordance with Chapter 36, Article 7 – Speed Limits, of the Bozeman Municipal Code as it may be amended from time to time. The City Engineering Division may also require speed limit signs be posted on select local streets. G. Street name signs for publicly-maintained roadways shall consist of white letters on a green background. Street name signs for privately-maintained roadways shall consist of white letters on a blue background. 16 Chapter 7 - Transportation System 7-9 City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards Return to Index 7.1.12 Monumentation Monuments in monument boxes shall be provided in new or reconstructed streets at all section corners, quarter corners, and sixteenth corners. 7.1.13 Lighting The design engineer shall consider the need for roadway lighting in the development of plans for any new or reconstructed roadways. Street lighting consists of street lighting and pathway intersection lighting, and shall comply with the following requirements: A. All street lighting shall be operated and maintained through the creation of a new Special Improvement Lighting District (SILD), through the annexation to an existing SILD or through some other equivalent means approved by the City of Bozeman. The application to create or annex to an existing SILD shall be submitted to the City within 2 months of preliminary approval of the development. The approval to create or annex to an SILD shall be granted prior to final plat for a subdivision or Certificate of Occupancy if a final plat is not required. B. Street lighting shall be installed per Section 38.270.030.4 Bozeman Unified Development Code in regards to completion time for improvements. C. Individual yard lights on private property shall not be considered in evaluating or satisfying the need for street lighting. D. Unless otherwise specified herein, installation of equipment for lighting shall conform to the requirements of “Bozeman Lighting and Electrical Specifications” (see Chapter 9). 7.1.14 Bike Lanes/Paths All bike lanes/paths shall be designed in accordance with the “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities” (AASHTO, latest edition). Bike lanes shall be marked and signed in accordance with the MUTCD. 17 01 Local Standards Review – A Comparison of Peer Cities Read Stapleton, Land Use Planning Group Manager February 7, 2024 Introduction As a component of the on-going design standards update for the City of Bozeman, DOWL has been contracted to research, review and summarize the efforts of three peer cities that currently have housing action, climate action and/or over-arching sustainability plans and are currently evaluating code updates to remove barriers to housing affordability and sustainable development. This paper summarizes DOWL’s findings. Peer Cities To complete this white paper, DOWL sought to identify cities with corollary characteristics to Bozeman with regard to geography, growth trends, housing price pressures, and policy initiatives focused on housing affordability and climate change/sustainability. The communities identified for this peer review study are Vancouver (WA), Bend (OR), and Flagstaff (AZ). Vancouver, WA Community Profile Vancouver is located on the Columbia River in Southwest Washington immediately north of the City of Portland, Oregon. According to the Washington Municipal Research Center’s 2023 population estimate, the City has a population of 199,600. The City has seen significant growth in the last 20 years, with a 30 percent population increase since 2000. As the community has grown, the City has continued to see significant upward pressures on housing prices as housing production has failed to keep up with demand. In June 2023, Vancouver issued a report indicating that the City has a current deficit of 5,600 housing units and would need to ensure housing production of at least 2,500 units per year over the next 10 years to meet demand. For comparison, the City has averaged 1,600 units per year in each of the last three years. With an influx of residents arriving from other areas of the west coast, including the Portland metropolitan area, Vancouver’s policy has also trended towards greater awareness and concern regarding climate change and reducing 18 02 dependency on fossil fuels. For example, in 2018 Tesoro-Savage abandoned plans for a fossil fuel storage terminal at the Port of Vancouver after significant community concern was raised about the safety of the rail transport of the crude oil as well as overarching concerns about the climate- altering effects of fossil fuel usage. Policy Framework Vancouver’s land use policy has sharpened its focus on housing affordability and climate change in recent years and it is currently working on multiple initiatives to combat these challenges. The City is in in the process of kicking off it’s 2025 comprehensive plan update that will involve a holistic review and update of its land use and infrastructure policies. One of the key components of that update will be the implementation of House Bill (HB) 1220, recent Washington state legislation that requires each City in the state to ensure that land use plans accommodate the range of affordability experienced in the community. Washington cities, including Vancouver, will be required to determine ranges or “bands” of affordability within their jurisdiction and ensure that sufficient lands are zoned to allow development that can meet those affordability targets. In addition, jurisdictions are required to evaluate the infrastructure service to all residential lands and ensure that, if lands are targeted to accommodate affordability needs, City capital facilities plans are developed to identify and prioritize capital facility service needs for residential properties. With regard to environmental policy, the City of Vancouver took a bold step in 2022 with the adoption of a Climate Action Framework. The framework identifies a broad framework of policies collectively designed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040. Policy Implementation Status The City of Vancouver is in the very early stages of implementing operational and code changes to respond to its current housing and environmental/sustainability policy framework. They are currently in the process of an internal review of City codes and policies that could facilitate greater housing production and efficiency. Per a discussion with Chad Eiken, City of Vancouver Community Development Director on July 17, 2023, various strategies are being considered. These include (1) adopting new State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) categorical exemption thresholds that would allow multi- family development projects to avoid SEPA review, thereby minimizing the risk of an appeal, which is often a delay/obstruction tactic of project opponents, (2) making multi-family housing a Type 1 land use review, a 30-day review process rather than the current 120-day Type 2 land use review process, (3) zone changes to allow greater density in areas that can be supported by transportation and utility infrastructure, including transit. In advance of determining specific actions to address the City’s Climate Action Framework, the City has taken steps in recent years to address sustainability policies. These include: (1) implementation of a Tree Canopy Achievement Program (CAP) that is striving for a 28% of the City to be covered by tree canopy by the year. Goals of the program are to improve neighborhood livability, reduce the heat island effect of paved surfaces and minimize stormwater runoff. (2) focus on implementing “complete streets” throughout the City including in new developments. This policy is to establish a “safe, accessible street system that benefits all users, ages, and abilities, regardless of how they choose to travel; a convenient and interconnected transportation network that improves accessibility.” In practice, the City is working on projects to retrofit specific segments of their network to focus on multi-modal cross sections 19 03 that provide greater pedestrian and bicycle accessibility to ensure complete non-motorized transportation systems throughout the City. The City is implementing multiple multi-modal supportive transportation projects throughout the City and is requiring complete-street-compliance cross sections for new privately-implemented road projects throughout the City. Bend, OR Community Profile Like Vancouver, Bend has seen significant population growth over in recent years as residents have been attracted to the City due to its outdoor recreation opportunities, beautiful scenery, culture, food and sunny weather. The City has nearly doubled in size over the last 20 years, from a population of approximately 52,000 in 2000 to over 102,000 residents today. With this growth, the City has seen significant upward pressures on housing prices and political change over this period reflective of the emerging metropolitan attraction of the City. Policy Framework Much of the policy framework for the City of Bend’s housing and sustainability initiatives stems from State of Oregon legislation that has emerged in recent years. Specifically, the State of Oregon has passed multiple legislative bills in recent sessions intended to encourage greater housing production across the state. Those measures include: HB 2001: This bill, passed in 2019, requires jurisdictions with a population of greater than 25,000 to allow 2-4 unit multiplexes (townhomes) and cottage clusters, i.e. “missing middle housing types” in all single family residential zones. HB 2003: In 2019, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 2003 which requires Oregon cities with a population over 10,000 population to study the future housing needs of their residents and to develop strategies that encourage the production of housing their residents need. SB 458: In 2021 the Oregon state legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 458, which expedited the process to subdivide properties for missing middle housing projects. Code Evaluation Status In response to HB 2001, Bend adopted code updates directed from a stakeholder advisory group consisting of members of City Council, Planning Commission, Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, Neighborhood Leadership Alliance and others. Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) Rulemaking: In March 2020, Kate Brown, then governor of Oregon, signed into law Executive Order 20-04, which directed state agencies, including the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to take actions to reduce and regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In response, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), the body overseeing DLCD, has adopted interim rules that apply to the state’s eight most populated areas, including Bend. The rules are intended to address the goals posed by Executive Order 20-04, which seeks to reduce carbon emissions in the state to at least 45 percent 20 04 below 1990 emissions levels by 2035 and at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Policy Implementation Status Since the adoption of HB2001 and HB2003, the City has been actively updating its codes to better accommodate missing middle housing types and has made other procedural changes to attempt to facilitate more housing and, in particular, affordable housing. Through discussions with Brian Rankin, Long Range Planner at the City of Bend, DOWL has obtained a preliminary list of these changes, which include:  Removal of parking requirements to enhance infill and middle housing. Not much time has passed to evaluate its effectiveness, but it is expected this will yield new housing projects.  Duplex, triplex, quadplexes and cottage clusters have all now been allowed outright in standard residential density areas.  System Development Charges (SDCs) for ADUs have been reduced.  100% affordable housing projects receive streamlined permitting.  The city has instituted multi- departmental teams focused on solving infrastructure issues to move big housing projects. Collaboration across departments has focused on getting things done faster and better for the sake of creating more housing of all types.  The City has updated land division standards to better allow missing middle housing types.  The City has increased the buffer between allowable short term rentals from 250-feet to 500-feet to preserve more housing and reduce conversions to short term rentals.  The City pro-actively worked with the state in the formation of HB 3450 which allowed a one-time expansion of the City’s urban growth boundary (UGB) and developed code that allows 40 acres of the expansion area designated for Commercial use to be developed for multi-family residential without going through a standard review process under statewide land use planning Goal 9 (Economic Development).  The City amended code to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) without the need for a conditional use permit, allowed an increase in the unt size and removed a requirement for adjacent sidewalks  The City created micro units and small dwelling unit development standards.  The City adopted requirements for new UGB expansion areas in which a minimum mix of residential product types and densities are now required to avoid large developments defaulting to single family residential (SFR)-only residential developments.  The City changed code to allow mixed use with a 65-foot height limit in commercial zones and has seen 21 05 significant mixed use development since this change in 2016.  The City has a construction excise tax (CET) which is collected and used to fund matching for affordable housing projects. This financial instrument has been successfully implemented and leveraged many times over to create deed-restricted affordable housing. Flagstaff, AZ Community Profile Flagstaff is located in North-Central Arizona, approximately 180 miles north of Phoenix and, as of the 2020 US Census, had a population of approximately 77,000 residents. The City is located just south of the San Francisco peaks and sits at an elevation of approximately 7,000 feet. Like Vancouver and Bend, Flagstaff has seen significant population growth over the last 20 years, with a population in 2000 of approximately 53,000 residents. Located at the edge of the largest contiguous Ponderosa Pine forest in the United States, the City is acutely aware of the implications of climate change on the environment and the increasing threat of wildfires that result. Similar to Bozeman, Flagstaff is home to a major state university, Northern Arizona University. Nearly half (47%) of Flagstaff households are considered low-income, earning no more than $55,350 annually. The cost of living is 13% higher and the cost of housing is 29% higher than the national average. Since 2012, the median sales price of a home in Flagstaff rose by 166%, while the Area Median Income rose by only 36.5%. Currently, the median sales price of a home is $615,000, and the area median household income is $77,400. Additionally, 27% of homeowners and 57% of renters spend more than 30% of their monthly income on housing costs, meaning that 22,073 Flagstaff community members are housing cost burdened. Most of the housing production in Flagstaff has focused on low- and high-density extremes—detached single-family homes and mid-to-high-rise apartment buildings. These extremes are exacerbated by second homes (approximately 4,000 units), short term rentals (approximately 535 units), and the fluctuating student populations -- all of which create competition for the existing housing supply. Policy Framework The City of Flagstaff has been focused on climate action since 2007, when it adopted the first community-wide climate plan in Arizona, and has committed to carbon neutrality by the year 2030. The City’s commitment to sustainability is supported by its Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (2018), Carbon Neutrality Plan (2022), and its conservation-based Regional Plan (2014). On June 23, 2020, the Flagstaff City Council declared a climate emergency, a measure that was driven by community members who began a petition for a Climate Emergency Resolution and then organized hundreds of community members to provide hours of public comment illuminating the need for an emergency declaration. Flagstaff residents asked the City to act more quickly than outlined in the 2018 Climate Action and 22 06 Adaptation Plan (available upon request) and to adopt a goal for carbon neutrality. In response, the City adopted the Flagstaff Carbon Neutrality Plan in June 2021 that created three fundamental goals: (1) Achieve carbon neutrality by 2030 through a combination of dramatic emissions reductions and significant investments in carbon dioxide removal. (2) Prepare Flagstaff's communities, systems, and resources to be more resilient to climate change impacts. (3) Address climate change in a manner that prioritizes those most impacted and ensures the costs and benefits of climate adaptation and mitigation are equitably distributed. To address the two major challenges facing the City right now, housing affordability and climate change, the City is now kicking off a buildable land study and code evaluation process to identify measures that the City can take to reduce barriers to affordable housing and bring the City closer to its goal of carbon neutrality by 2030. Preliminary Code Diagnosis Results To address procedural and code impediments to achieving carbon neutrality and greater housing affordability, the City is in the process of conducting a diagnostic code evaluation and improvement project. DOWL is currently leading this effort with a partnering firm, Cascadia Partners. The first phase of this project has involved a code and process diagnosis in which preliminary code and procedural hurdles to improving housing production and reducing carbon emissions have been identified. To help organize the different challenges and potential improvements, the team has created a matrix of “Key Outcomes” that reflect policies that align with the City’s Climate Neutrality Plan and 10-year Housing Plan. The Key Outcomes that embody the goals of the code evaluation effort were grouped into Housing outcomes and Climate outcomes as follows: Housing  Abundant Housing Supply: Support an abundant supply of housing of all times and income levels.  Diversity of Housing Types: Produce a diversity of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the population.  Lower Cost Market Rate Housing Production: Produce sufficient market-rate housing that could be affordable to households with lower or moderate incomes.  Income-Restricted Affordable Housing Production: Produce sufficient housing that is restricted in price or rent level to be affordable to households with lower or moderate incomes.  Mixed Use Development and Neighborhoods: Produce sufficient housing that is in close proximity to commercial uses that support the daily needs of residents.  Infill Development and Compact Land Use Patterns: Provide flexibility and appropriate density in residential neighborhoods to provide more 23 07 diverse and attainable housing opportunities.  Equity and Fair Housing: Encourage housing and development that reduces inequities in access to housing including access in particular neighborhoods or the inability to continue to live in one’s current neighborhood. Climate  Community Resilience, Health and Safety: Increase the ability to anticipate, accommodate, and positively adapt to changing climate conditions while enhancing quality of life, reliable systems, economic vitality and conservation of resources.  Walkable Neighborhoods: Support development patterns that support networks for walking and biking.  Safe and Inclusive Networks for Walking and Biking: Support networks for walking and biking that are continuous, attractive, safe, comprehensive, and convenient.  Transit-Oriented Development and Transit Ridership: Support development patterns that encourage transit ridership and transit efficiency.  Clean Air Status: Proactively invest to protect Flagstaff’s clean air status, such as through the creation of anti- idling loading zones, among other factors.  Adaptive Reuse and Preservation of Existing Housing Stock: Encourage the adaptive reuse of existing buildings and expand efforts to preserve existing housing stock in order to prevent the carbon emissions associated with new construction.  Inclusive Recreation: Ensure abundant and equitable access to recreational opportunities, parks, and open spaces.  Electric Mobility: Encourage electric micro-mobility devices as legitimate, healthy, affordable, and low-carbon modes of transportation.  Clean Electricity: Flagstaff will obtain as much of its electricity as possible from sources that do not produce greenhouse gas emissions.  Building Fuel Switching: Shift building fuel sources from fossil fuels to renewable sources and electricity for applications including space and water heating, cooking, and perhaps even industrial processes  Reduced Building Energy Use: Significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from heating, cooling, and powering buildings.  Sustainable Consumption: Move towards sustainable consumption, divert more organic and other materials from the landfill through reuse and recycling, and then reduce emissions from the landfill.  Water Security: Ensure that water resources are distributed equitably and sustainably, the community is empowered to use water efficiently, and water and wastewater 24 08 treatment minimizes greenhouse gas emissions.  Healthy Forests and Open Spaces: Support thriving local ecosystems that are resilient to climate change, publicly accessible, and store carbon dioxide.  Carbon Dioxide Removal: Develop a portfolio of local and regional carbon dioxide removal initiatives to meet Flagstaff's commitment to carbon neutrality. While a preliminary draft of potential code and procedural improvements has not yet been issued, the diagnosis effort is well underway. Through a thorough examination of the city’s policies, procedures and codes as well as through outreach with development stakeholders and City staff, the DOWL team has identified the following challenges and opportunities as areas for areas for further study and potential improvements:  Reduce barriers to allowing more dense building types including cottage clusters, triplexes and quadplexes.  Allow greater densities in the City’s Medium Density Residential zone, which is currently limited to a maximum density of 14 units per acre.  Consider reduced parking standards, particularly in the High-Density Residential zone.  Minimize barriers to providing housing in commercial districts, including providing greater allowance for residential-only structures, allowing greater residential densities and reduced minimum parking standards.  Eliminate discretionary processes (e.g. Conditional Use Permit) for high occupancy housing projects and create more administrative pathways for residential development.  Consider adjustments to City tree and slope protection requirements may be overly restrictive and interfere with efficient site design.  Mandatory use of development agreements and prescriptive site plan requirements with zone changes have introduced discretionary processes (risk) and have limited future flexibility in implementing residential projects.  Preliminary subdivision requests are required to go through City Council review, extending the length of time to obtain local approvals and introducing additional uncertainty to the entitlement process.  Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) scoping can be a very lengthy process and significantly prolong the development schedule.  The absence of an impact fee program, places greater burden on individual developments to identify and remedy off-site mitigation needs on a project-by-project basis. Avoidance of significant off-site requirements may drive developers to actually retreat on development yield in certain instances. 25 09  Transit recognition as a component of the local network is largely absent in the local long-range transportation planning, resulting in less certainty regarding when and how development projects support transit and vice versa.  Lack of stand-alone transportation plan and policy in the City (separate from the regional transportation plan) creates a situation in which no device or funding mechanism exists to connect the vision to the execution of street function and design. As a result street types are often wider than necessary, rely on developer to build them out, and don’t support transit.  Requirement for a conceptual plat as a preliminary step to allowing a preliminary plat adds additional review time and expense to developers. Next Steps As a part of the LASS-CAP project, the next steps will involve completing the diagnosis of all codes and policies affecting the land development process, followed by preliminary code recommendations. It is anticipated that the preliminary diagnosis effort will conclude in April of 2024 and that final code recommendations will be presented to City Council in late 2024. 26 memo Page 1 TO: Shawn Kohtz, PE FROM: Brad Hammerquist, PE DATE: 12/14/2023 JOB NO.: 0417.088 RE: Engineering Standards and Compact Development CC: James Nickelson, PE Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply For Your Use Introduction Morrison-Maierle is assisting the City of Bozeman (COB) with updating the Design Standards and Specifications Policy (DSSP) and the City of Bozeman Modifications to Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (City Modifications). The overarching function of these engineering design standards is to protect public health and safety, provide for clear design criteria, provide review procedures and inspection requirements, and generally promote operational efficiency while minimizing cost of public infrastructure. More specifically, City of Bozeman standards are intended to assure the following: · Infrastructure design and construction within the COB meet applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances · Infrastructure design and construction within the COB is consistent with respective facility plans · Uniform materials and methods of construction for efficiency of repairs and maintenance Compact development has been identified by the City of Bozeman as one of the tools to help achieve a diversity of housing opportunities in the community. High density, or compact development, is often associated with reduced housing costs and preserving open space as it is considered to promote efficient use of land and infrastructure. Another desired effect of increasing density is to contribute to housing supply. Engineering design standards dictate how public infrastructure such as transportation, water, sewer, and storm drainage systems are designed, approved, and constructed within the City of Bozeman. The purpose of this memo is to explore how the City’s goals for compact development and affordable housing relate to engineering standards. The following topics are discussed: · Best practices for making engineering decisions · How public infrastructure fits within the cost of housing · Ongoing City efforts and development trends related to compact development 27 Engineering Standards and Compact Development Page 2 How are infrastructure costs evaluated? The initial construction cost of public infrastructure is often a central focus when planning, designing, and constructing projects. However, it is necessary to consider life cycle cost to understand the full cost of ownership of a facility over its useful life. The cost of ownership is paid for by the users of the infrastructure in one form or another (i.e. purchase price of home, property taxes, maintenance fees, HOA dues, etc.). Life cycle costs of public infrastructure can be divided into the following categories: Initial Cost is often referred to as capital cost. This is the initial cost of construction. Operations Cost could include electrical consumption for traffic lighting and pump stations, fuel for backup generators, chemicals for treatment systems, and water for landscape irrigation. Maintenance Cost could include snow removal, repainting of street striping, trimming of trees within the City right-of-way, and small repair costs. Replacement Cost could include disposal and replacement of entire systems or components of systems such as road surfacing or lift station pumps. Engineering best practices call for making decisions based on which project alternative provides the lowest overall cost of ownership while also meeting the required and desired functional and performance goals (i.e. level of service goals). As illustrated Figure 1, the cumulative cost of operations, maintenance, renewal/repairs over the life of a system can be significant. These costs can be equal to, or greater than, the initial capital cost. Figure 1 (Source: Graphic adapted from EPA Fundamentals of Asset Management Session 4 – Determine Life Cycle & Replacement Cost) 28 Engineering Standards and Compact Development Page 3 How does public infrastructure relate to the cost of housing? There are numerous components that contribute to the cost of purchasing a new home. The cost of undeveloped land, the entitlement process, installing utilities, and building roads varies depending on the proposed use, project complexity, and proximity to public services. Figure 1 shows examples of the expected cost distributions for a 2,300 square foot single-household home on a 0.1 acre lot and a 1,650 square foot condominium in newly developed subdivisions in Bozeman. The costs were estimated based on house and lot price information found online, City of Bozeman’s impact fee calculator, “rule of thumb” feedback from developers, and engineering judgement. Both scenarios yielded similar cost distributions with higher density development having a reduced overall cost per residence. House Construction The cost of building the home can be the largest expense, often constituting up to 80% of the total cost of a finished home. This is primarily driven by material costs, labor rates, and home design. Compact development (smaller homes) results in lower overall home costs. Undeveloped Land The price of purchasing undeveloped land can be one of the other larger cost components and is primarily driven by the market. Compact development (smaller lots) results in lower land costs. The cost of land per home decreases with higher densities. Financing/Holding Financing and holding costs are partially related to the time it takes to bring a property to market after purchasing undeveloped land. Entitlement & Impact Fees The entitlement process (planning, engineering, permits and other approvals) is related to the time and effort needed to proceed through the approval processes. Impact fees are a one-time fee used to increase capacities of water, sewer, fire/EMS, and transportation systems for those who need new services. The fees recover the cost of construction only and are necessary to limit cost increases on existing property owners. Impact fees are primarily based on square feet of living area, however fees for multi-household homes are slightly less than single household homes. Infrastructure Infrastructure cost per home decreases with higher densities. Of the cost components identified above, the infrastructure construction cost is most directly related to the engineering and construction standards but is not a primary driver of home prices. Housing Cost Components Figure 2 – Housing Cost Components 80% 10% 2% 3%5% Single Household Home Total Cost $830,000 77% 11% 3% 5%4% Condominium Total Cost $485,000 29 Engineering Standards and Compact Development Page 4 City of Bozeman Ongoing Affordability Efforts and Development Trends Community Housing Plan The City of Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan (updated April 2020) identifies “Removal of Regulatory Barriers” as one of 17 action strategies to address Bozeman’s community housing needs. One of the proposed actions associated with this action strategy is to revisit the Engineering Design Standards and Specifications Policy to allow more compact development standards. Community Plan The City of Bozeman’s 2020 Community Plan identifies numerous goals that are related to supporting higher densities and compact development. Most of these goals are related to planning, zoning, and policy decisions, however there is a common thread of locating higher density developments in appropriate locations such as near schools, services, transportation corridors, and public transit routes. The following Community Plan goals are related to increased development density: · N-1.11 Enable a gradual and predictable increase in density in developed areas over time. · N-2.2 Revise the zoning map to support higher intensity residential districts near schools, services, and transportation. · N-3.7 Support compact neighborhoods, small lot sizes, and small floor plans, especially through mechanisms such as density bonuses. · N-3.8 Promote the development of "Missing Middle" housing (side by side or stacked duplex, triplex, live-work, cottage housing, group living, rowhouses/ townhouses, etc.) as one of the most critical components of affordable housing. · DCD-2.2 Support higher density development along main corridors and at high visibility street corners to accommodate population growth and support businesses. · DCD-2.3 Review and update minimum development intensity requirements in residential and nonresidential zoning districts. · DCD-2.7 Encourage the location of higher density housing and public transit routes in proximity to one another. · DCD-3.5 Encourage increased development intensity in commercial centers and near major employers. Municipal Code Section 38.360.120 of Bozeman Municipal Code includes criteria for Cottage housing subdivisions which are a form of compact development. The code primarily addresses lot size, lot coverage, lot configuration, and architectural building elements. The City is in the process of revising Bozeman Municipal Code to implement the vision and goals established in the city’s guiding documents such as the 2020 Community Plan (aka Growth Policy), the Climate Plan, and strategic priorities like affordable housing. Development Trends Development in Bozeman has become increasingly dense in recent years. Home construction trends have seen a decrease in single household homes and increase in multi-household and townhomes. See Figure 3 for home construction permit history from 2014 to 2022. 30 Engineering Standards and Compact Development Page 5 Figure 3 – Home Construction Permit History Conclusions The City’s goal of increasing development density is being realized. Single dwelling unit subdivisions are no longer the norm. The City should continue to work with the community to refine the Unified Development Code to meet its strategic priorities. Public infrastructure costs are a small portion of the overall cost of a home but do have an impact on initial costs and operations and maintenance costs. It is recommended that infrastructure design elements associated with compact development be analyzed in further detail to better understand the relationship between initial construction and long-term infrastructure costs. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Number of Units PermittedYear Bozeman Home Construction Permit History Single Dwelling Units Multi-Dwelling Units Townhome Units 31 memo Page 1 TO: Shawn Kohtz, PE FROM: Brad Hammerquist, PE DATE: 2/2/2024 JOB NO.: 0417.088 RE: Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure CC: James Nickelson, PE Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply For Your Use Introduction The high cost and short supply of housing in the City of Bozeman is a dominant topic within the community. To address this issue, the City is exploring ways to reduce upfront costs to land and infrastructure construction that enable a higher density of housing and reduce need for additional impact to the environment. One method of addressing this has been “compact developments”. To assist the City in its project to revise Engineering Design Standards, this analysis has evaluated several infrastructure design elements associated with compact land uses against its current design standards from the perspective of life cycle cost. Life cycle cost was chosen as the metric of importance due to its connection to providing affordable housing. It should be noted that compact land use and the compact development infrastructure evaluated within this analysis can be mutually exclusive. Compact land uses do not inherently require compact infrastructure. While compact infrastructure can be successfully implemented and has been demonstrated to varying degrees in other cities across the country, this analysis evaluates the additional operating costs associated with maintaining said infrastructure in the type of winter climate for which the City exists. Compact infrastructure may reduce initial capital costs; however, the reduced upfront infrastructure cost is often offset by long-term increased cost of Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of that infrastructure. There are many types of high-density developments that do not deviate from the City’s existing engineering standards, such as certain small-lot and shared-lot developments, apartments, townhomes, and condominium developments. In these cases, the City’s existing engineering standards can be met. Non-standard infrastructure strategies that have been implemented under the “compact development” concept include: · Reduced right of way · Reduced road width · Reduction or elimination of curb and gutter, boulevard, and sidewalk requirements · Reduction in minimum off-street parking requirements · Non-standard water and sewer service locations 32 Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure Page 2 While these strategies may reduce the initial cost of public infrastructure construction, they often increase ongoing operational and maintenance costs and create long-term challenges for the City and residents in these developments. These costs are typically passed on to property owners and renters through HOA fees and rents. This paper describes and compares infrastructure life cycle cost differences between infrastructure development types that meet existing City engineering standards and those types of infrastructure that do not. The purpose is to determine if the reduced initial cost of construction associated with not meeting existing engineering standards also reduce the overall life-cycle cost of the infrastructure upon incorporating ongoing operations and maintenance costs. This paper does not attempt to refute compact land uses nor their benefit to environmental sustainability. The City has demonstrated through numerous and recent developments that compact land uses can be served by its existing design standards and therefor is not a matter that is required for study under this project to revise Engineering Design Standards. Development comparisons of projects that meet existing City engineering standards to those that do not meet existing City engineering standards are impacted by development configuration, site constraints, housing product type, and densities which vary widely throughout the City of Bozeman. Four existing developments have been chosen for evaluation. It is understood that each type of development has various qualitative pros and cons and that a diversity of housing options is important to the community. Maintenance and Operational Challenges The following challenges are associated with infrastructure that does not meet existing City engineering standards. This list has been compiled from public comment received by the City as well as the experience of the City’s operating divisions. These challenges result in higher life cycle costs and reduced level-of-service for residents. · The City does not maintain (remove snow, seal cracks, resurface) streets that do not meet City standards due to increased time and equipment requirements that cannot be met under existing levels of taxation. Therefore, residents in subdivisions that have substandard road sections have an additional maintenance cost burden when compared to residents that receive this service from the City. City staff have reported numerous requests from residents to take over these services from their HOA due to perceived poor service and high costs of private contractors. · Elimination of boulevards, defined as the strip of land 4’ or greater between curb and sidewalk, reduces available snow storage for winter plowing operations. In many cases, snow may even need to be hauled by truck to a different part of a development or off- site. Loading and hauling snow in dump trucks is significantly more costly than pushing snow into the boulevard. · Reduced off-street parking not meeting demand results in more vehicles parked on streets. The increase in on-street parking increases conflicts with street sweeping, snow removal, and solid waste collection. These conflicts slow the pace of service and therefore increase cost of services provided by the City. 33 Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure Page 3 · Compact developments with houses that do not have direct access to water and sewer mains within streets can result in long water and sewer services in locations that are difficult to access. Longer water and sanitary sewer mains are expected to have higher failure rates per residence due to the longer length of piping. · Water and sanitary sewer services are the responsibility of the property owner downstream of the curb stop or outside of the right of way. Installation of services below landscaped areas, between houses, near foundations and hardscaped areas makes them more costly to repair and replace when compared to standard locations. Accessing and excavating in these areas can be very disruptive to residents. Life Cycle Costs and Present Worth The life cycle cost of an infrastructure facility includes the initial cost in addition to other costs incurred during the life of the facility, such as operations, renewal, and maintenance costs. Since many of these costs occur in the future, the Present Worth (PW) method is used to transform these future costs to present amounts. This method accounts for the time value of money and allows alternatives with different future cash flow patterns to be compared. The alternative with the lowest present worth is the alternative with the lowest overall cost of ownership from an economic perspective. Life cycle cost items included in this analysis are summarized below. Street Sections Initial Construction Costs · Pavement Section · Curb and Gutter · Sidewalk O&M Costs · Snow removal (annual) · Crack Seal (periodic, 3 years) · Chip Seal (renewal, 10 years) Water and Sewer Services Initial Construction Costs · Water Service · Sewer Service O&M Costs · Water and Sewer Service repair (assumes 1 repair per 2,000 feet of service pipe per 25 years) 34 Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure Page 4 Life cycle cost items are depicted as expenses in cash flow diagrams below. Development Summaries Four existing residential developments were evaluated with respect to the life cycle cost items described above. Characteristics such as density, home price, HOA fees, and amenities are also summarized for context. The evaluation includes two compact development types that do not meet existing City engineering standards, a townhome development that meets existing City engineering standards, and a condominium/apartment type development that also meets existing City engineering standards. All of the developments have relatively high densities compared to existing city subdivisions. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Year Water and Sewer Service Life Cycle Cash Flow Diagram Service Repair Initial Construction Cumulative Cost 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Year Street Sections Life Cycle Cash Flow Diagram Initial Construction Snow Removal Crack Seal Chip Seal Cumulative Cost 35 Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure Page 5 C1 – Bridger View Subdivision Type: Townhomes and single-family residential homes in pocket neighborhood Zoning: R-3 Number of Units: 57 Gross Density: 7.1 units/acre Right-of-way and street widths do not meet City Standards. Real Estate Information* Monthly HOA fees: $200 - $361 Amenities included: Clubhouse, Playground, Park, Sidewalks, Trail(s) Services included: Maintenance Structure, Road Maintenance, Snow Removal, Trash $524,000 for 1,481 sf, 1 bed, 1 bath townhome ($354/sf) $759,900 for 2,152 sf, 3 bed, 2 bath townhome ($353/sf) C2 – Blackwood Groves Subdivision Type: Leased Single Family Residences Zoning: REMU Number of Units: 49 Gross Density: 7.2 units/acre External Right-of-way and street widths meet City Standards. Water and sewer services do not meet standards. Real Estate Information* Monthly HOA fees: Assumed to be included in lease Amenities included: Business Center, Clubhouse, Fitness Center, Lounge Services included: Garbage, Internet, TV $2,100/month for 690 sf, 1 bed, 1 bath residence ($376/sf with $260,000 mortgage) $3,300/month for 1,226 sf, 3 bed, 2 bath residence ($367/sf with $450,000 mortgage) *Real Estate Information gathered from internet listings and sell price estimates 12/2023 Infrastructure Initial Cost: $26,300 per unit Infrastructure PW: $45,500 per unit Infrastructure Initial Cost: $27,400 per unit Infrastructure PW: $44,800 per unit 36 Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure Page 6 S1 – Valley Meadow Subdivision Type: Townhomes Zoning: R-3 Number of Units: 61 Gross Density: 7.0 units/acre Right-of-way and street widths meet City Standards. *Real Estate Information Monthly HOA fees: $65 Amenities included: Playground, Park, Sidewalks Services included: Maintenance grounds, Snow Removal $575,000 for 1,588 sf, 2 bed, 3 bath townhome ($362/sf) $625,900 for 1,987 sf, 4 bed, 3 bath townhome ($315/sf) S2 – Meadow Creek Subdivision Type: Condominiums Zoning: R-3 Number of Units: 56 Gross Density: 10.0 units/acre Right-of-way and street widths meet City Standards. *Real Estate Information Monthly HOA fees: $165 - $250 Amenities included: Playground, Park, Sidewalks Services included: Maintenance Grounds, Maintenance Structure, Road Maintenance, Sewer, Snow Removal, Water $594,900 for 1,614 sf, 2 bed, 3 bath condo ($369/sf) $705,100 for 1,958 sf, 3 bed, 3 bath condo ($360/sf) *Real Estate Information gathered from internet listings and sell price estimates 12/2023 Infrastructure Initial Cost: $20,300 per unit Infrastructure PW: $31,000 per unit Infrastructure Initial Cost: $28,800 per unit Infrastructure PW: $38,000 per unit 37 Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure Page 7 Key cost items for each development are summarize below. Cost Summary Development Density (units/acre) Initial Infrastructure Cost Per Home Life Cycle Cost Per Home (PW) Home Price Per Square Foot Initial Infrastructure Cost as % of Home C1-Bridger View 7.1 $26,300 $45,500 $354 5% C2-Blackwood Groves 7.2 $27,400 $44,800 $367 6% S1-Valley Meadow 7.0 $20,300 $31,000 $362 4% S2-Meadow Creek 10.0 $28,800 $38,000 $369 5% Initial Infrastructure Costs For the developments that were evaluated, relaxing existing City standards does not significantly reduce initial infrastructure costs per home. Initial cost of infrastructure appears to be influenced more by the configuration of the particular property. For instance, development S1 achieves the same density of housing as the compact development types, while also meeting existing City engineering standards and provides lower initial and life cycle costs to the homeowner. The configuration of this development allows for an efficient layout of streets, water, and sewer infrastructure. Life Cycle Costs The compact development types have higher overall life cycle costs. The cost increases are attributable to higher street maintenance costs in the case of development C1, and higher water/sewer costs in the case of development C2. Parking City of Bozeman Unified Development Code, Section 38.540.050, specifies the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required for residential uses. The purpose is to assure that parking availability is roughly proportional to parking demand. Parking requirements in the UDC are complex, however, two off-street parking spaces are generally required for each residential unit with more than one bedroom. Development C1 provides approximately half of the off-street parking needed to meet the demand specified in the UDC. The internal private streets are not sufficiently wide to allow for legal on-street parking adjacent to the homes. Excess parking demand has been observed to induce illegal parking and otherwise will be pushed to the external city standard streets that allow street parking, resulting in increased conflicts with City street maintenance activities and conflicts with accessible pedestrian facilities. Reduced parking requirements have not anecdotally induced a reduction in vehicle ownership or usage as evidenced by the presence of illegal street parking where they exist. Absent of policies that equate vehicle ownership to capacity of parking provided, it should be expected that current rates of vehicle ownership will continue along with the observed impacts to the right of way. Housing Costs The cost of housing is most directly related to the size of the home and appears to be primarily market driven. The home cost per square foot is relatively similar regardless of product type and whether or not the development meets existing engineering standards. 38 Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure Page 8 Conclusions Developments that have implemented infrastructure design not meeting existing City engineering standards appear to have higher life cycle costs for both the people in the development and the City. The winter climate experienced in Bozeman demands maintenance practices that require spatial capacity in the right of way not provided by compact infrastructure. Further, the revealed preference of residents in these developments indicates that vehicle ownership and usage has not adjusted elastically with reduced space provided for vehicles. The combination of these observations has led to a conclusion that compact infrastructure practices may increase cost of housing relative to existing City engineering standards. This conclusion should not be interpreted as opposition to housing density and compact land uses, as the City has demonstrated both methods of reducing cost of housing and impact to the environment can be met with existing City engineering standards. However, the City should proceed with caution when contemplating inclusion of compact infrastructure within their revision to engineering design standards due to its potential to increase cost to residents. 39 Memorandum REPORT TO:Transportation Board FROM:Taylor Lonsdale, Transportation Engineer Nicholas Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering SUBJECT:Development of Lane Occupancy Fees for Engineering Permits MEETING DATE:February 28, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Provide input on the development of lane occupancy fees for engineering permits. STRATEGIC PLAN:7.5. Funding and Delivery of City Services: Use equitable and sustainable sources of funding for appropriate City services, and deliver them in a lean and efficient manner. BACKGROUND:The Transportation and Engineering Department is developing a fee structure for temporary occupancy of public right of way. City Engineering requires that anyone that needs to occupy the public right of way obtain a permit. There are two primary permit types issued for work in the right of way: Street Cut permits and Encroachment permits. Street Cut permits are required anytime city streets, sidewalks or pathways will be cut. This generally happens for the installation of public utilities such as water, sewer, or storm water or private utilities such as gas, electric or fiber. Encroachment permits are required anytime someone needs to encroach in the public right of way. This is often required as part of vertical construction. In order to better manage these permits and account for these exclusive uses of the public right of way, Engineering is developing fees associated with the temporary occupancy of public right of way. Staff will present additional background information as well as draft fee structure and look for input from the Board to help finalize a draft fee structure. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None identified. ALTERNATIVES:As recommended by the Board. FISCAL EFFECTS:Transportation and Engineering is working with the Finance Department to ensure that the proposed fees are utilized to offset the cost of the exclusive use of the public right of way. Report compiled on: February 21, 2024 40