HomeMy WebLinkAboutDowntown Bozeman Neighborhood Plan Growth Policy Amendment Application P-09011.pdf
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Allyson C. Bristor, Associate Planner
Andy Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Downtown Bozeman Neighborhood Plan Growth Policy Amendment
(GPA) Application – #P-09011
MEETING DATE: December 14, 2009
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action Item.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission adopt and integrate the December 4, 2009 version
of “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” as a neighborhood plan under the City’s growth policy.
BACKGROUND: The Downtown Bozeman Partnership, 224 East Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715,
commissioned LMN Architects of Seattle, WA, and partnering firms, to develop a downtown Bozeman
neighborhood plan. The plan is entitled “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” and its underlying
goal is to provide guidance and direction for future development that solidifies downtown Bozeman’s
place in the community and the Gallatin region. The plan takes a broad approach and identifies strengths
and weaknesses of the current downtown Bozeman area. Furthermore, the plan suggests some
fundamental restructuring of codes, policies and operating procedures that could occur over a longer
period of time.
The proposal at hand is to consider the adoption and integration of the “Downtown Bozeman
Improvement Plan” as a neighborhood plan under the City’s growth policy (Bozeman Community Plan).
By incorporating the improvement plan into the Bozeman Community Plan, the plan is given legal
strength and requires all downtown stakeholders to consider its recommendations with future
development. Future changes to codes and policies are independent of this growth policy amendment
review. If changes were proposed, additional opportunities would be given to the public to comment on
the revisions. The City Commission would determine if the revisions are appropriate for the overall
community.
The Planning Board reviewed the plan at their public hearings on September 15 and October 6, 2009.
The Board’s motion contained some recommended revisions to the plan. At both hearings, public
comment was received stating some concerns with the content of the plan.
Since the original draft of the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan (dated June 29, 2009) was
submitted to the City of Bozeman Planning Department on August 19, 2009, several groups have
proposed revisions to the document. All of the revisions are included in the current draft copy of the plan
(dated December 4, 2009). The current draft is the version of the plan that Planning Staff is
recommending to the City Commission for adoption and integration into the Bozeman Community Plan
as a neighborhood plan.
Planning Staff has reviewed this application for a growth policy amendment against the criteria set forth
in Chapter 17, “Review and Amendment,” of the Bozeman Community Plan. Staff also has reviewed the
356
cumulative revisions to the plan and has been closely involved with the applicant throughout the public
comment period and revision process.
Staff finds that the current draft of the plan (dated December 4, 2009) satisfies all of the required review
criteria. Additionally, Staff finds the revisions improved the plan so it is a better representation of the
goals and future needs of the unique downtown area. Based on the evaluation of the criteria and findings
by the Planning Staff APPROVAL of the growth policy is recommended.
FISCAL EFFECTS: None.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Attachments: None
Report compiled on: December 9, 2009
357
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DOWNTOWN BOZEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN GPA APPLICATION #P-09011
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 1
Item: Application #P-09011, to consider the adoption and integration of the
“Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” as a neighborhood plan under the
City’s growth policy (Bozeman Community Plan).
Applicant &
Representative: Downtown Bozeman Partnership
224 East Main Street
Bozeman, MT 59715
Date/Time: Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, December 14, 2009 at 6:00
p.m. in the City Commission Room, City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman,
Montana
Report By: Allyson C. Bristor, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Approval
_________________________________________________________________________________
PLAN LOCATION AND MAP
The downtown Bozeman neighborhood plan area includes the combination of the “B-3” (Central Business
District) zoning district, the “Community Core” land use designation category, the Downtown Special
Improvements District and public facilities locations (e.g. Bozeman Public Library, Willson School, etc.).
Please see the following map that shows the plan area.
358
PROPOSAL
The Downtown Bozeman Partnership, 224 East Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715, commissioned LMN
Architects of Seattle, WA, and partnering firms, to develop a downtown Bozeman neighborhood plan. The
plan is entitled “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” and its underlying goal is to provide guidance and
direction for future development that solidifies downtown Bozeman’s place in the community and the Gallatin
region. The plan takes a broad approach and identifies strengths and weaknesses of the current downtown
Bozeman area. Furthermore, the plan suggests some fundamental restructuring of codes, policies and
operating procedures that could occur over a longer period of time.
The proposal at hand is to consider the adoption and integration of the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement
Plan” as a neighborhood plan under the City’s growth policy (Bozeman Community Plan). By incorporating
the improvement plan into the Bozeman Community Plan, the plan is given legal strength and requires all
downtown stakeholders to consider its recommendations with future development. Future changes to codes
and policies are independent of this growth policy amendment review. If changes were proposed, additional
opportunities would be given to the public to comment on the revisions. The City Commission would
determine if the revisions are appropriate for the overall community.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Bozeman Community Plan is an example of long range planning. The City of Bozeman conducts long
range planning to:
1. Protect the public health and safety and advance the well being of the community at large, while
respecting and protecting the interests of individuals within the community.
2. Provide a supportive framework for private action which balances the rights and responsibilities of
many persons.
3. Facilitate the democratic development of the public policies and regulations that guide the community.
4. Improve the physical environment of the community as a setting for human activities, more functional,
beautiful, healthful, and efficient.
5. Coordinate technical knowledge, political will, and long-range thinking in community development in
both short and long term decisions.
6. Identifies the citizen's goals and priorities for their community and how they wish to carry out those
ideals.
7. Encourage efficiency and effectiveness by government through coordinated policies and programs.
8. Serves as a reference bench mark for community priorities, physical attributes such as size, and social
and economic information such as housing and jobs. A growth policy is an abstract of a community.
9. Support economic development by providing basic information about the community to prospective
citizens and employers. A well done, and implemented, plan shows that a community is actively
trying to improve their area.
The formal term for a community’s comprehensive plan is ‘growth policy’. The development of a growth
policy is guided by Sections 76-1-601 through 76-1-606, MCA. Bozeman has had a formal comprehensive
plan since 1958. Careful planning by individuals and small groups prior to that time created the historic areas
of the community. Since 1958, Bozeman has had six comprehensive plans. Most recently, the City adopted
the Bozeman Community Plan (BCP) on June 1, 2009.
To further the purposes of community planning, state law authorizes the preparation of “neighborhood plans.”
These plans are prepared for a portion of the entire community area and must be in conformance with the
overall growth policy of the City. These smaller plans allow the investigation of more detailed issues which
would be burdensome to examine in a community wide planning process. Because of the difference in scale
between a Citywide growth policy and the “neighborhood plans,” the smaller-scale plans will rely on the basic
background information prepared for the overall growth policy such as population projections and the
discussion of development trends.
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 2 359
Neighborhood plans allow for a greater degree of citizen participation in planning efforts which will directly
influence their place of residence or work. The smaller scale of plans allows local land owners, residents, and
others most affected by the finer detail of the neighborhood plan a greater autonomy than would be likely if
the fine level details were determined as part of a community wide plan. The neighborhood plan provides a
context to evaluate development proposals and the connections through them and to the surrounding
community. Neighborhood plans are similar in use to community-wide growth policies, in that they establish
guidelines to development. It is recognized that there are many different specific development proposals
which can comply with those guidelines. The preparation of the neighborhood plans is a means of increasing
predictability during the development review process by establishing in public documents the expectations for
the area.
Since neighborhood plans may apply to already developed areas, there is less of an opportunity to alter an
existing land use pattern. Therefore, the creation of neighborhood plans is optional and provides a tool for
neighborhood cooperation to focus on improvements to primarily existing conditions.
A neighborhood plan must contain the following elements:
• A map showing the reasonably simple boundaries of the plan, with an explanation as to why those
boundaries are appropriate. Maps should terminate at easily identifiable boundaries if possible;
• A description of specific goals to be achieved by the neighborhood if goals specific to the area are
developed;
• An inventory of existing conditions;
• A transportation network, including non-automotive elements, that conforms with adopted facility
plans, reinforces the goals and objectives of the overall community growth policy, and connects the
major features of the area such as parks, commercial areas, and concentrations of housing;
• Locations of parks of adequate area to represent at least sixty percent of expected parklands to be
dedicated through development in the area. The parks shall be of a size and configuration which
supports organized recreational activities such as soccer or baseball, as well as passive recreation as
discussed in the PROST plan; and
• Location of various land uses including commercial, public, school locations if known, and residential
activities.
The preparation of any plan entails certain costs for advertising, publishing materials, City staff time, and other
expenses. A variety of parties may request the preparation of a neighborhood plan. It is expected that there
will be financial participation from those owning or residing in the area, especially in any implementations,
such as upgrading a park or trail. It is also expected that the City will substantially participate in the costs of
preparing a neighborhood plan through in-kind contributions such as staff support, materials preparation, and
data gathering.
The City of Bozeman contributed forty thousand dollars toward the creation of a downtown Bozeman
neighborhood plan. The City Commission approved a professional services agreement between the
Downtown Bozeman Partnership and the City of Bozeman on November 10, 2008 to establish a working
agreement between the two organizations during the neighborhood plan’s development. Additionally, the
Department of Planning contributed staff members during the call for proposals, consultant selection and
preliminary draft review of the neighborhood plan. Furthermore, Planning Staff assisted with the public
noticing of the growth policy amendment application.
Downtown Bozeman has been the subject of numerous plans over the last 30 years, including one completed
in 1998 also known as the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan,” which is more commonly known as the
“MAKERS Plan.” Many of the recommendations in this previous plan have been completed, including the
physical improvements to streets and sidewalks on Main Street and side streets.
Significant amounts of reinvestment in the downtown Bozeman area has recently occurred by both private and
public entities. This type of reinvestment provides for a healthy downtown core. Downtown Bozeman is
formally recognized as a critical component of the overall community, as shown in the 2001 Bozeman growth
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 3 360
policy plan, the 2007 Bozeman Citizen Survey, the 2009 Economic Development Plan and the 2009 Bozeman
Community Plan.
REVIEW CRITERIA
Section 76-1-601 MCA specifies the required contents of a growth policy. The same section also allows for a
number of voluntary items. The section specifically states that the degree to which any required element of a
growth policy is addressed is at the discretion of the governing body. There are some required steps for the
process to amend a growth policy. For this particular application of a new neighborhood plan, the Planning
Board will conduct one or more public hearings on the proposal. The Planning Board will then forward the
proposed plan to the City Commission for review. The City Commission will also hold a public hearing, and
if it believes the plan to be consistent with the Bozeman Community Plan, may adopt the plan by resolution. If
it finds sufficient flaws with the plan, the City Commission may return it to the Planning Board for further
work and review.
There are no specific statutorily required review criteria for a growth policy. The present growth policy, the
Bozeman Community Plan, contains locally developed criteria for amending the plan. These criteria are from
Chapter 17 of the Bozeman Community Plan. The description below is a summary. The complete intent and
compliance with criteria may be obtained by reviewing the full document.
1. The proposed amendment must cure a deficiency in the growth policy, or improve the growth
policy, to better respond to the needs of the general community;
Chapter 8, “Economic Development,” of the Bozeman Community Plan describes the importance of
the downtown Bozeman area:
“The original commercial heart of Bozeman, Downtown remains a significant economic
engine in the community. Businesses serve both local needs and visitors in an architecturally
rich and historic setting. Significant building additions and redevelopment in the past decade
has continued to strengthen the Downtown.”
The proposed “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” improves the growth policy by providing a
closer examination of downtown Bozeman’s current economic conditions and offering
recommendations tailored to those unique existing conditions. Future development and investment in
the downtown area will be appropriately guided by the neighborhood plan. An educated response by
all downtown stakeholders will secure the health of the Downtown area, and furthermore, strengthen
the greater the Bozeman community. As the neighborhood plan states” a great downtown helps to
contribute to and build a valued community that in turn attracts stable businesses and residents and
visitors, and that in turn creates tax base to support the community, its amenities and services, and so
continues the cycle of success.”
2. The proposed amendment does not create inconsistencies within the growth policy, either
between the goals and the maps or between different goals and objectives.
The adoption of the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” as a neighborhood plan does not appear
to conflict with other adopted policy documents of the City. The map graphic on page 5 of the plan
will be revised to match the planning area map included in the public notices.
3. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy.
The adoption of the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” as a neighborhood plan in the Bozeman
growth policy is consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy. The neighborhood plan
approach is permitted by state law and allows a closer examination of the existing conditions of a
defined neighborhood area. The “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” identifies twelve guiding
principles that provide direction for decisions on many aspects of the downtown Bozeman area,
including land use patterns and standards. A review of these principles shows them to be consistent
with the intent of the growth policy as established in the vision statement and goals of the various
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 4 361
chapters of the growth policy. The economic and physical health of the downtown Bozeman area is a
matter of specific interest and is encouraged by the growth policy.
As described in the “Background Information” section of this report, a neighborhood plan should
contain the following components:
• A map showing the reasonably simple boundaries of the plan, with an explanation as to why those
boundaries are appropriate. Maps should terminate at easily identifiable boundaries if possible;
• A description of specific goals to be achieved by the neighborhood if goals specific to the area are
developed;
• An inventory of existing conditions;
• A transportation network, including non-automotive elements, that conforms with adopted facility
plans, reinforces the goals and objectives of the overall community growth policy, and connects
the major features of the area such as parks, commercial areas, and concentrations of housing;
• Locations of parks of adequate area to represent at least sixty percent of expected parklands to be
dedicated through development in the area. The parks shall be of a size and configuration which
supports organized recreational activities such as soccer or baseball, as well as passive recreation
as discussed in the PROST plan; and
• Location of various land uses including commercial, public, school locations if known, and
residential activities.
A map graphic of the planning area is included on pages 4 and 5 of the plan. A description of goals is
achieved by the list of “Guiding Principles,” which is included on pages 12 and 13 of the plan.
Existing conditions are examined in the “Opportunities and Issues” section of the plan on pages 10 and
11. A transportation network that conforms to adopted facility plans, locations of parks and open
space adequate in area and locations of various land uses are all represented and discussed throughout
the “Strategies” section of the plan on pages 14 through 41. Therefore, the “Downtown Bozeman
Improvement Plan” contains all necessary components of a neighborhood plan.
4. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the community as a whole or significant
portion by:
a. Significantly altering land use patterns and principles in a manner contrary to those
established by this plan.
The adoption of the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” as a neighborhood plan does
not alter the land use principles or designations discussed in Chapter 3, “Land Use” of the
Bozeman Community Plan. The Downtown Bozeman Partnership, in coordination with other
downtown stakeholders, has the right to suggest future changes to both land use and zoning
under the guidance of the plan’s key principles. However, only the City has the authority to
consider changes to both future land use and zoning on a property as these are City programs
and remain in City control.
b. Requiring unmitigated larger or more expensive improvements to streets, water, sewer
or other public facilities or services thereby impacting development of other lands.
The “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” took a broader view than previous downtown
plans. National trends were examined and presented for consideration at the local level.
Therefore, the recommendations in the plan may require further analysis of options and
techniques in advance of implementation. Fiscal responsibilities needed to achieve these
recommendations shall also be analyzed prior to implementation.
The twelve guiding principles of the plan are followed by suggested strategies. The strategies
are suggested by the planning team based on their examination of national trends in downtown
areas and are not meant to be demonstrative rather than prescriptive. Again, further analysis is
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 5 362
warranted to determine if these suggestions are appropriate for the unique downtown
Bozeman area.
One strategy in particular suggests projects that would entail street, water and sewer
improvements. The strategy to “Tame the Traffic” suggests reducing the truck traffic on Main
Street, improving bicycle traffic on Main Street, complete side street enhancements and
convert Mendenhall and Babcock Streets to two-way direction. These recommendations may
be suggested by the downtown Bozeman stakeholders for future study and analysis. Upon
direction by the City Commission, City Staff may work with downtown Bozeman
stakeholders and determine if the economical and physical benefits outweigh the fiscal
responsibilities required to implement the recommended projects.
The plan suggests private/public partnerships. City of Bozeman commitment of funds is
recommended to be coordinated with private funding in future development projects.
Examples of City expenditures promoting the downtown core are the recently constructed City
parking garage (Bridger Park), the City Public Library, the enhancement of the Gallagator trail
next to the Public Library, and the ongoing street infrastructure improvements on the
downtown side streets.
c. Adversely impacting existing uses because of unmitigated greater than anticipated
impacts on facilities and services.
Adopting the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” as a neighborhood plan will not
require services contrary to that shown in the current City of Bozeman facility plans. The
neighborhood plan applies to an already developed area and provides a tool for neighborhood
cooperation and private/public partnerships to focus on improvements to existing conditions,
including facilities and services.
Additional development in the downtown area will impact the existing parking conditions.
The plan makes recommendations in regards to parking, specifically to eliminate parking
requirements for small downtown retailers and manage parking effectively. Subsequent
ordinance revisions would have to occur before any of the parking recommendations are
implemented (Note: Some of the ordinance revisions for parking changes were reviewed
by the City Commission on December 7, 2009 as a part of the Unified Development
Ordinance revisions).
One of the revisions reflected in the current draft of the plan includes the recommendation of
“Coordination Infrastructure Improvements” to try strengthening downtown businesses by
minimizing the construction and disruption in the downtown core.
d. Negatively affect the livability of the area or the health and safety of the residents.
The primary intent of the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” is to provide a solid
framework to move forward and solidify downtown Bozeman’s place in the community and
region. The end result is “a place that everyone can enjoy immensely – existing residents,
new residents, shoppers, and visitors.” The livability of the downtown Bozeman area is
emphasized in the neighborhood plan. A review of the plan’s recommended guiding
principles does not indicate they will negatively affect the health and safety of the residents.
Rather, the principles promote the livability of the downtown Bozeman area. Guiding
principle #2 speaks directly to the safety of residents: “All streets and sidewalks in downtown
shall be designed to make the experience of pedestrians and bicyclists safe, comfortable and
visually appealing.”
Rather, the livability of the area is celebrated in the plan by including the new section
“Capitalize Bozeman as a Regional Hub.” This section promotes Bozeman’s proximity to
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 6 363
three national parks (Yellowstone, Grand Teton and Glacier) and three downhill ski areas
(Bridger Bowl, Big Sky and Moonlight Basin) and notes how this location brings considerable
economic activity to the area.
PUBLIC NOTICE & COMMENT
Prior to submitting a Growth Policy Amendment application, the Downtown Bozeman Partnership and
planning team held community meetings in an attempt to involve downtown Bozeman business owners and
residents. Preliminary drafts were advertised as available for review in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle and by
local radio stations. The original draft version (dated June 29, 2009) of the plan reflects these comments
received by the public. The public comments received by the Downtown Bozeman Partnership during the
preliminary draft review are included in the City Commission packet.
Growth Policy Amendment applications require a paper and posting public notice, both which were issued by
the Department of Planning in August 2009. Additionally, Planning Staff sent a courtesy mail notice to
property owners within the downtown planning area plus a 200-foot perimeter. All public notices contained
the Bozeman Planning Board and City Commission public hearing dates where the application would be
considered for adoption.
A draft of the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” document was made available for public review in
August 2009. The document was available in paper format at both the Department of Planning and the
Downtown Bozeman Partnership offices. A digital format of the plan was available on both the City of
Bozeman and Downtown Bozeman Partnership websites.
Public comment was received both before and after the Planning Board’s review of the plan. Several letters of
support for the plan were delivered. Additionally, several downtown property and/or business owners stated
concerns of the plan’s components. These concerns can be summarized as the following: 1) elimination of
surface public parking lots, 2) no promotion of coordinated efforts for infrastructure projects downtown, and
3) lack of a regional and tourist destination focus. Because of the public concerns, the Downtown Bozeman
Partnership requested their application to be opened and continued to the City Commission’s public hearing
date of December 14, 2009. The request is to allow time for the applicant to hold one additional public forum
on the plan and to allow time for the advisory committee to meet and make final revisions reflecting the
recommendations made by the Planning Board, the Parking Commission, and the comments received at the
public forum.
PLAN REVISIONS
Since the original draft of the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan (dated June 29, 2009) was submitted to
the City of Bozeman Planning Department on August 19, 2009, several groups have proposed revisions to the
document. Below is a chronological listing of the proposed revisions:
I. September 22, 2009 - As unanimously supported by the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee
• Page 10 Replace “Too Much Surface Parking” title and text to read: “Maximize
Underutilized Parcels” Many sections of the downtown district contain underutilized parcels
such as brownfields, marginal buildings, private and public parking lots. Such parcels are
often located abruptly on the sidewalk edge and create “dead” spaces at many key locations.
Considering downtown’s pedestrian focus and a finite amount of land for infill projects,
these parcels should be further analyzed to determine their highest and best use, which may be
redevelopment. In specific regards to parking, efforts should be made to maintain the
availability of convenient parking for customers throughout the downtown district. Depending
on development and transportation trends the need for additional structured parking may need
to be considered.
• Page 12 Revise Guiding Principle 5 to read: Parking should not govern development
potential; the amount of parking relative to development should decrease. Parking inventory
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 7 364
should be managed so as to ensure convenient access for customers.
• Page 18 Revise Second Sentence of Final Paragraph to read: Numerous larger
underutilized parcels in this area can be in-filled with primarily housing redevelopment.
• Page 19 Revise Third Sentence of First Paragraph to read: The table and illustration found
on page 20 and 21, highlight possible areas and types of residential projects that may be
feasible or attractive to developers and future residents.
• Page 19 Revise the “Areas of Opportunity” graphic: Remove the yellow colored blocks
and highlight the boundary line yellow.
• Page 19 Revise bottom right-hand image caption to read: Possible mixed-use development
along Mendenhall Avenue
• Page 20 and 21 Revise “Build Housing” Strategy Map and Table
Eliminate Concept 3.1 and show as existing surface lot
Eliminate Concept 5 and show as existing surface lot
Move Concept 3.3 across Mendenhall to private surface lot
Highlight Armory building as Concept D: Possible Theater/Multi-media Meeting facility
• Page 24 Revise Open Spaces Map
Remove all yellow highlighted parcels
II. September 15 and October 6, 2009 – As unanimously supported by the Planning Board.
• The Planning Board unanimously voted to forward a recommendation of approval of the
Downtown Improvement Plan to the City Commission with the following revisions:
a. Adding the language “no net loss of public parking spaces”;
b. Recommending a study of public parking inventory and utilization;
c. Adding “Consider developing a comprehensive way-finding sign plan highlighting
downtown as an important component of Bozeman as a regional hub.” To page 31;
and
d. Supporting the revisions proposed by the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee on
September 22, 2009.
Note: the Planning Board’s recommendation to add the language “no net loss of public
parking spaces” was not supported by the DBIP Advisory Committee or the Bozeman
Parking Commission. Alternate language is proposed in the final draft of the Downtown
Plan dated December, 4 2009 as recommended by the Parking Commission and
supported by the Advisory Committee, and ultimately supported by Planning Staff for
adoption.
III. October 8, 2009 - As unanimously passed Bozeman Parking Commission Resolution PC2009-02
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Parking Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, recommend to the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana,
that the Downtown Improvement Plan be adopted as presented, including the revisions
proposed by the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee.
IV. November 19, 2009 - As unanimously supported by the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee
• Page 2 Change “Team” listing to complete “Acknowledgements” and add the following
on the left of page:
Prepared For: Downtown Bozeman Partnership and the City of Bozeman
As Directed By: Downtown Plan Advisory Committee
Bobby Bear Downtown TIF Board
Allyson Bristor COB Planning Department
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 8 365
Eric Bryson City Commission
Paul Burns COB Parking Manager
Brian Caldwell COB Planning Board
Ileana Indreland Downtown BID Board
Chris Saunders COB Planning Department
With Assistance from:
Downtown Business Improvement District
Mike Basile, Eric Bowman, Mike Grant
Dan Himsworth, Ileana Indreland, Buck Taylor
Downtown Bozeman Association
Tim Christiansen, Coco Douma, Drew Ingraham
Catherine Langlas, Babs Noelle, Sally Rue, Kate Wiggins
Downtown Tax Increment Finance District
Bobby Bear, Peter Bertelsen, Thail Davis
Vonda Laird, Bob Lashaway, Bill Stoddart
Bozeman Parking Commission
Pam Bryan, Lisa Danzl-Scott, Tammy Hauer
Chris Naumann, Chris Pope, Steve Schnee
Bozeman City Commission
Sean Becker, Eric Bryson, Kaaren Jacobson
Jeff Krauss, Jeff Rupp
• Page 3 Update “Table of Contents” to reflect repagination
• Page 5 Revise 1st paragraph to read: RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS PLANS Downtown
Bozeman has been the subject of numerous plans over the last 30 years, the most recent being
the 1998 Downtown Improvement Plan, also known as the MAKERS Plan. Many of the
recommendations in this plan have been completed; numerous objectives remain
unaccomplished yet are still relevant. While the 2009 Downtown Improvement Plan takes a
broader view and suggests some fundamental restructuring of codes, policies, and operating
procedures, the MAKERS Plan should still be referenced regarding additional physical
improvements and the overall urban design of the downtown district. Unlike the MAKERS
Plan, the 2009 Downtown Improvement Plan, once adopted by the City Commission, will
have legal status as a guiding document for downtown development as a part of the Bozeman
Community Plan, the City’s growth policy.
• Page 10 Delete references to “public parking lots”: MAXIMIZE UNDERUTILIZED
PARCEL Many sections of the downtown district contain underutilized parcels such as
brownfields, marginal buildings, private and public parking lots. Such parcels are often
located abruptly on the sidewalk edge and create “dead” spaces at many key locations.
Considering downtown’s pedestrian focus and a finite amount of land for infill projects, these
parcels should be further analyzed to determine their highest and best use, which may be
redevelopment. In specific regards to parking, efforts should be made to maintain the
availability of convenient parking for customers throughout the downtown district.
Depending on development and transportation trends the need for additional structured
parking may need to be considered.
• Page 20 Revise “Build Housing” Map
Move concept number four from Soroptomist Park to the parking lot between the old
Computer Museum building and the medical building housing Vail Therapy.
• Page 21 Revise stated number of residential units exemplified
• Page 23 Add language to “Transform Alleys” section
After the 4th sentence ending with “provide usable outdoor spaces for residents and
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 9 366
businesses” add the following sentence:“When and where possible widen sections of the
alleys to improve functionality and consider adding bicycle amenities.”
• Page 28 Add following sentence to end of “Convert to Two-Way” section: “The 1998
MAKERS Plan originally recommended the conversion of Mendenhall and Babcock back to
two-way streets in addition to transforming the pedestrian environment along these corridors.”
• Page 34 Revise 4th paragraph
ELIMINATE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL RETAILERS
Within a downtown like Bozeman’s, with a “tight pack” of historic buildings, it is almost
impossible for small businesses to provide for parking on site. In fact, this would be largely
undesirable because it would carve up potential buildings and leave “missing teeth” in the
streetscape. As it is, the parking standards are producing large fields of asphalt on the streets
parallel and perpendicular to Main, which is detracting from income and tax revenue streams
by keeping land in unproductive use. It also creates a moat around the downtown core.
Parking requirements should be eliminated for any retail or food/drink establishment for the
first 3000 sf of floor area. This will require a method to ensure that on-street parking spaces
are available for customers. Workers should not be allowed to occupy these spaces. and fines
for violating the time limits should be steep. Contemporary hand-held computer technology
allowing enforcement personnel to enter license plates and catch people who move their cars
every few hours is already in use in Bozeman, and other similar technologies should be
explored for efficient enforcement. On-street parking must be protected for customers of
businesses. Effective parking management involves enforcing the rules while promoting
downtown as a friendly place to shop, live, work and do business
• Page 34 Add a new section in “Strengthen Businesses” strategy: EFFECTIVELY
MANAGE PARKING Parking plays a role in every aspect of downtown. Cooperative efforts
should be made to maintain the availability of convenient public parking for customers,
employees, and visitors throughout the downtown district. The variety of public parking
resources—on-street spaces, surface lots, and the Bridger Park Garage—should be managed
and maintained to provide a flexible assortment of parking options for all downtown patrons.
**INSERT language recommended by Bozeman Parking Commission HERE**
The public parking lots should be enhanced with pedestrian scale lighting, way-finding
signage, and aesthetic elements such as screening and landscaping. These improvements were
proposed in the 1998 MAKERS Plan but have yet to be implemented.
**INSERT as SIDEBAR** language and Figure 50 from page 32 of MAKERS Plan
Public parking inventory, the 2-hour free spaces both on-street and in the public lots, must be
managed for customer and visitor use. Business employees, owners, and residents should be
encouraged, and perhaps incentivized, to utilize one of the many leased parking options
downtown, including spaces in the public lots and the Bridger Park Garage.
The 2-hour free parking spaces in downtown necessitate enforcing the rules. Effective parking
management involves enforcing the rules while promoting downtown as a friendly place to
shop, live, work and do business. A primary role of all parking employees operating in the
downtown district should be to serve as ambassadors that are knowledgeable about downtown
and helpful to citizens and visitors. When performing enforcement duties, parking staff should
be empowered to exercise good judgment and common sense.
• Page 36 Add a new section in “Strengthen Businesses”
CAPITALIZE ON BOZEMAN AS A REGIONAL HUB
Downtown benefits greatly from the fact that Bozeman serves as a regional service and
educational hub in addition to a national tourism destination. Bozeman’s proximity to three
national parks (Yellowstone, Grand Teton and Glacier) and three downhill ski areas (Bridger
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 10367
Bowl, Big Sky and Moonlight Basin) brings considerable economic activity to the area.
Institutions such as Montana State University and Bozeman Deaconess Hospital function as
significant economic engines for the community.
The Downtown Partnership should develop a strategic plan to capitalize on the regional and
national economic drivers unique to Bozeman. This might include implementing a
comprehensive local and regional way-finding sign plan. Such a plan could consider a
creative marketing strategy that would not only target local residents but also regional visitors.
As a side note, much can be learned by analyzing the best and worst practices of downtowns
similar to Bozeman’s such as Ketchum, Idaho; Burlington, Vermont; Boulder, Colorado; and
Missoula, Montana.
• Page 36 Add a new section in “Strengthen Businesses”
COORDINATE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
While reliable and safe core infrastructure is critical for redevelopment, the disruption of
maintenance and improvements cost businesses losses of revenue. Considerable time and
effort should be invested to balance the need for infrastructure work and the resulting
disruptions. To this end, public works and utility infrastructure should be assessed and a
comprehensive maintenance and upgrade plan should be devised. All parties should regularly
coordinate efforts to minimize construction and disruption in the downtown core.
The Downtown Partnership, as the representative of business and property interests, should
play an active role in the planning of infrastructure projects. The City of Bozeman should
consider higher standards for infrastructure integrity and upgrades for downtown as extra
expense may be justified to preserve and enhance the community’s historic core.
• Page 44 Revise last sentence of 1st paragraph in “Next Steps” introduction to read: "This
list should be reviewed and discussed by the City of Bozeman, the downtown community, and
stakeholders, to confirm the priority established for these objectives."
• Page 44 Revisions to “Next Steps” section
Delete “Initiate Grant Research and Application”
Replace with: “Parking Study/Analysis Conduct regular parking studies determine and track
the inventory of on-street, surface and structured parking spaces in addition usage patterns and
trends.”
• Page 45 Add “Next Steps Matrix”
V. December 3, 2009 - As documented in Commission Memo from the Bozeman Parking
Commission
• On October 6, 2009 the Planning Board recommended several revisions to the Downtown
Improvement Plan. In particular, the board recommended incorporating the following
language: “no net loss of public parking spaces”.
In the spirit of the Planning Board’s language and to better effectively managing public
parking, the Parking Commission recommends that the following text replace that suggested
by the Planning Board as it relates to the concept of “no net loss of public parking”:
“The Bozeman Parking Commission, in coordination with the Downtown Bozeman
Partnership, should conduct regular parking studies determine and track the inventory of on-
street, surface and structured parking spaces in addition usage patterns and trends.
Periodically, the Parking Commission and Downtown Partnership should consult with the
business and property owners to discuss anticipated future parking demand and parking asset
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 11368
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 12
management strategies.”
All of the revisions listed above are included in the current draft copy of the plan (dated December 4, 2009).
The current draft is the version of the plan that Planning Staff is recommending to the City Commission for
adoption and integration into the Bozeman Community Plan as a neighborhood plan.
STAFF FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
Planning Staff has reviewed this application for a growth policy amendment against the criteria set forth in
Chapter 17, “Review and Amendment,” of the Bozeman Community Plan. Staff also has reviewed the
cumulative revisions to the plan and has been closely involved with the applicant throughout the public
comment period and revision process.
Staff finds that the current draft of the plan (dated December 4, 2009) satisfies all of the required review
criteria. Additionally, Staff finds the revisions improved the plan so it is a better representation of the goals
and future needs of the unique downtown area. Based on the evaluation of the criteria and findings by the
Planning Staff APPROVAL of the growth policy is recommended.
ATTACHMENTS
I. Applicant materials: 1) GPA Application (including narrative and project area map)
2) Public Press Timeline
3) Cumulative Revisions
4) Revised Draft Plan (dated December 4, 2009)
II. Public comment
III. Planning Board materials: 1) Planning Board September 15 and October 6 Minutes
2) Planning Board Staff Report
3) Original Draft Plan (dated June 29, 2009)
IV. Parking Commission materials: 1) Parking Commission Staff Memo
2) Parking Commission Resolution
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan
Public Notifications, Press Releases, Public Participation Opportunities
as of November 17, 2009
Press Releases and PSAs
(submitted to Bozeman Chronicle, Billings Gazette, Bozeman Chamber of Commerce, NewWest.net, Bresnan,
KBOZ, KBZK, KTVM, GapWest, Yellowstone Public Radio, KGLT, Montana Public Radio)
February 2 announcing the hiring of consultants and formulation of the Plan
March 4 announcing Public Forum on March 9th at Emerson Center
(note: this forum was postponed due to March 5th explosion)
April 7 announcing Public Forum on April 14th at Emerson Center
June 12 announcing Public Presentation of Draft Plan on June 18th at City Hall
Other Announcements
Downtown E-mail List Serve mailings (400+ subscribers)
April 7 announcing Public Forum on April 14th
April 13 announcing Public Forum on April 14th
June 12 announcing Public Presentation of Draft Plan on June 18th
June 17 announcing Public Presentation of Draft Plan on June 18th
June 29 announcing the release of the Draft Plan and Comment period
July 13 a reminder of the July 17th public comment deadline
October 14 offering answers to FAQ regarding the Downtown Plan
Nov 6 announcing Public Meeting on November 17th
Nov 16 a reminder of November 17th Public Meeting
Downtown Bozeman Twitter (300+ “followers”)
June 16 announcing Public Presentation of Draft Plan on June 18th
June 30 providing link to Plan online and reminding of comment deadline
July 13 providing link to Plan online and reminding of comment deadline
Downtown Bozeman Facebook (198 “friends”)
June 16 announcing the release of the Draft Plan and Public Comment period
Press Coverage
February 4 Bozeman Chronicle “Crafting A Plan”
February Downtown Newspaper “A New Vision for Downtown Bozeman”
(note: the Downtown Newspaper is a monthly publication with 4800+
copies distributed throughout Bozeman, Belgrade and Big Sky)
March 5 Bozeman Chronicle “Forum Set For Downtown Improvement Plan”
April Downtown Newspaper “Downtown Bozeman: The Last Best Place”
April 11 Bozeman Chronicle “Downtown Improvement Plan forum Tuesday”
April 15 KBZK news and website “Community offers input on Downtown Bozeman”
June 16 KBZK news and website “Downtown Bozeman plan makes debut”
June 18 Bozeman Chronicle “Downtown Improvement Plan presentation tonight”
378
July Downtown Newspaper “Draft of Downtown Improvement Plan Released”
September Downtown Newspaper “Revised Draft of Downtown Plan Released”
September Outside Bozeman Fall issue: “Urban Greening” (20,000 copies distributed)
October Downtown Newspaper “Greening Downtown”
November 17 KBZK news and website “Final meeting held on Downtown Improvement Plan”
Public Presentations
April 14 Initial Public Forum at the Emerson Cultural Center
April 16 Annual Downtown Partnership Breakfast presentation
April 17 “Designing the New West” Conference persentation
June 18 Public Meeting and Presentation of Draft Plan at Bozeman City Hall
(note: this presentation was televised live on Bresnan Channel 20)
August 3 “Downtown Improvement Plan” DA Davidson & Co. staff meeting
August 11 “Downtown Improvement Plan” Bozeman Noon Rotary Luncheon
Nov 17 “Downtown Plan Public Meeting” Bozeman Public Library
379
CUMULATIVE REVISIONS TO DRAFT DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Since the draft Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan was submitted to the City of
Bozeman Planning Department on August 19, 2009, several groups have proposed
revisions to the document. Below is a chronological listing of the proposed revisions.
September 22, 2009
As unanimously supported by the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee
Page 10 Replace “Too Much Surface Parking” title and text to read:
“Maximize Underutilized Parcels”
Many sections of the downtown district contain underutilized parcels such as brownfields,
marginal buildings, private and public parking lots. Such parcels are often located abruptly on
the sidewalk edge and create “dead” spaces at many key locations. Considering downtown’s
pedestrian focus and a finite amount of land for infill projects, these parcels should be further
analyzed to determine their highest and best use, which may be redevelopment.
In specific regards to parking, efforts should be made to maintain the availability of convenient
parking for customers throughout the downtown district. Depending on development and
transportation trends the need for additional structured parking may need to be considered.
Page 12 Revise Guiding Principle 5 to read:
Parking should not govern development potential; the amount of parking relative to development
should decrease. Parking inventory should be managed so as to ensure convenient access for
customers.
Page 18 Revise Second Sentence of Final Paragraph to read:
Numerous larger underutilized parcels in this area can be in-filled with primarily housing
redevelopment.
Page 19 Revise Third Sentence of First Paragraph to read:
The table and illustration found on page 20 and 21, highlight possible areas and types of
residential projects that may be feasible or attractive to developers and future residents.
Page 19 Revise the “Areas of Opportunity” graphic
Remove the yellow colored blocks and highlight the boundary line yellow.
Page 19 Revise bottom right-hand image caption to read:
Possible mixed-use development along Mendenhall Avenue
Page 20 and 21 Revise “Build Housing” Strategy Map and Table
Eliminate Concept 3.1 and show as existing surface lot
Eliminate Concept 5 and show as existing surface lot
Move Concept 3.3 across Mendenhall to private surface lot
Highlight Armory building as Concept D: Possible Theater/Multi-media Meeting facility
Page 24 Revise Open Spaces Map
Remove all yellow highlighted parcels
380
October 6, 2009
As unanimously supported by the Bozeman Planning Board
The Planning Board unanimously voted to forward a recommendation of approval of the
Downtown Improvement Plan to the City Commission with the following revisions:
• Adding the language “no net loss of public parking spaces”;
• Recommending a study of public parking inventory and utilization;
• Adding “Consider developing a comprehensive way-finding sign plan highlighting
downtown as an important component of Bozeman as a regional hub.” To page 31; and
• Supporting the revisions proposed by the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee on
September 22, 2009.
Note: the Planning Board’s recommendation to add the language “no net loss of public parking
spaces” was not supported by the DBIP Advisory Committee or the Bozeman Parking
Commission. Alternate language is proposed in the final draft of the Downtown Plan dated
December, 4 2009 as recommended by the Parking Commission and supported by the Advisory
Committee.
October 8, 2009
As unanimously passed Bozeman Parking Commission Resolution PC2009-02
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Parking Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, recommend to the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, that the
Downtown Improvement Plan be adopted as presented, including the revisions proposed by the
Downtown Plan Advisory Committee.
November 19, 2009
As unanimously supported by the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee
Page 2 Change “Team” listing to complete “Acknowledgements” and add the following
on the left of page:
Prepared For: Downtown Bozeman Partnership and the City of Bozeman
As Directed By: Downtown Plan Advisory Committee
Bobby Bear Downtown TIF Board
Allyson Bristor COB Planning Department
Eric Bryson City Commission
Paul Burns COB Parking Manager
Brian Caldwell COB Planning Board
Ileana Indreland Downtown BID Board
Chris Saunders COB Planning Department
381
With Assistance from:
Downtown Business Improvement District
Mike Basile, Eric Bowman, Mike Grant
Dan Himsworth, Ileana Indreland, Buck Taylor
Downtown Bozeman Association
Tim Christiansen, Coco Douma, Drew Ingraham
Catherine Langlas, Babs Noelle, Sally Rue, Kate Wiggins
Downtown Tax Increment Finance District
Bobby Bear, Peter Bertelsen, Thail Davis
Vonda Laird, Bob Lashaway, Bill Stoddart
Bozeman Parking Commission
Pam Bryan, Lisa Danzl-Scott, Tammy Hauer
Chris Naumann, Chris Pope, Steve Schnee
Bozeman City Commission
Sean Becker, Eric Bryson, Kaaren Jacobson
Jeff Krauss, Jeff Rupp
Page 3 Update “Table of Contents” to reflect repagination
Page 5 Revise 1st paragraph to read:
RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS PLANS
Downtown Bozeman has been the subject of numerous plans over the last 30 years, the most
recent being the 1998 Downtown Improvement Plan, also known as the MAKERS Plan. Many of
the recommendations in this plan have been completed; numerous objectives remain
unaccomplished yet are still relevant. While the 2009 Downtown Improvement Plan takes a
broader view and suggests some fundamental restructuring of codes, policies, and operating
procedures, the MAKERS Plan should still be referenced regarding additional physical
improvements and the overall urban design of the downtown district. Unlike the MAKERS Plan,
the 2009 Downtown Improvement Plan, once adopted by the City Commission, will have legal
status as a guiding document for downtown development as a part of the Bozeman Community
Plan, the City’s growth policy.
Page 10 Delete references to “public parking lots”:
MAXIMIZE UNDERUTILIZED PARCEL
Many sections of the downtown district contain underutilized parcels such as brownfields,
marginal buildings, private and public parking lots. Such parcels are often located abruptly on
the sidewalk edge and create “dead” spaces at many key locations. Considering downtown’s
pedestrian focus and a finite amount of land for infill projects, these parcels should be further
analyzed to determine their highest and best use, which may be redevelopment.
In specific regards to parking, efforts should be made to maintain the availability of convenient
parking for customers throughout the downtown district. Depending on development and
transportation trends the need for additional structured parking may need to be considered.
Page 20 Revise “Build Housing” Map
• Move concept number four from Soroptomist Park to the parking lot between the old
Computer Museum building and the medical building housing Vail Therapy.
382
Page 21 Revise stated number of residential units exemplified
Page 23 Add language to “Transform Alleys” section
After the 4th sentence ending with “provide usable outdoor spaces for residents and businesses”
add the following sentence:
“When and where possible widen sections of the alleys to improve functionality and consider
adding bicycle amenities.”
Page 28 Add following sentence to end of “Convert to Two-Way” section:
“The 1998 MAKERS Plan originally recommended the conversion of Mendenhall and Babcock
back to two-way streets in addition to transforming the pedestrian environment along these
corridors.”
Page 34 Revise 4th paragraph
ELIMINATE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL RETAILERS
Within a downtown like Bozeman’s, with a “tight pack” of historic buildings, it is almost
impossible for small businesses to provide for parking on site. In fact, this would be largely
undesirable because it would carve up potential buildings and leave “missing teeth” in the streetscape.
As it is, the parking standards are producing large fields of asphalt on the streets parallel and
perpendicular to Main, which is detracting from income and tax revenue streams by keeping land in
unproductive use. It also creates a moat around the downtown core. Parking requirements should be
eliminated for any retail or food/drink establishment for the first 3000 sf of floor area. This will require a
method to ensure that on-street parking spaces are available for customers. Workers should not be
allowed to occupy these spaces. and fines for violating the time limits should be steep. Contemporary
hand-held computer technology allowing enforcement personnel to enter license plates and catch people
who move their cars every few hours is already in use in Bozeman, and other similar technologies should
be explored for efficient enforcement. On-street parking must be protected for customers of businesses.
Effective parking management involves enforcing the rules while promoting downtown as a friendly place
to shop, live, work and do business
Page 34 Add a new section in “Strengthen Businesses” strategy:
EFFECTIVELY MANAGE PARKING
Parking plays a role in every aspect of downtown. Cooperative efforts should be made to
maintain the availability of convenient public parking for customers, employees, and visitors
throughout the downtown district. The variety of public parking resources—on-street spaces,
surface lots, and the Bridger Park Garage—should be managed and maintained to provide a
flexible assortment of parking options for all downtown patrons.
**INSERT language recommended by Bozeman Parking Commission HERE**
The public parking lots should be enhanced with pedestrian scale lighting, way-finding signage,
and aesthetic elements such as screening and landscaping. These improvements were
proposed in the 1998 MAKERS Plan but have yet to be implemented.
**INSERT as SIDEBAR** language and Figure 50 from page 32 of MAKERS Plan
Public parking inventory, the 2-hour free spaces both on-street and in the public lots, must be
managed for customer and visitor use. Business employees, owners, and residents should be
encouraged, and perhaps incentivized, to utilize one of the many leased parking options
downtown, including spaces in the public lots and the Bridger Park Garage.
The 2-hour free parking spaces in downtown necessitate enforcing the rules. Effective parking
management involves enforcing the rules while promoting downtown as a friendly place to shop, live,
work and do business. A primary role of all parking employees operating in the downtown district should
be to serve as ambassadors that are knowledgeable about downtown and helpful to citizens and visitors.
383
When performing enforcement duties, parking staff should be empowered to exercise good judgment
and common sense.
Page 36 Add a new section in “Strengthen Businesses”
CAPITALIZE ON BOZEMAN AS A REGIONAL HUB
Downtown benefits greatly from the fact that Bozeman serves as a regional service and
educational hub in addition to a national tourism destination. Bozeman’s proximity to three
national parks (Yellowstone, Grand Teton and Glacier) and three downhill ski areas (Bridger
Bowl, Big Sky and Moonlight Basin) brings considerable economic activity to the area.
Institutions such as Montana State University and Bozeman Deaconess Hospital function as
significant economic engines for the community.
The Downtown Partnership should develop a strategic plan to capitalize on the regional and
national economic drivers unique to Bozeman. This might include implementing a
comprehensive local and regional way-finding sign plan. Such a plan could consider a creative
marketing strategy that would not only target local residents but also regional visitors.
As a side note, much can be learned by analyzing the best and worst practices of downtowns
similar to Bozeman’s such as Ketchum, Idaho; Burlington, Vermont; Boulder, Colorado; and
Missoula, Montana.
Page 36 Add a new section in “Strengthen Businesses”
COORDINATE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
While reliable and safe core infrastructure is critical for redevelopment, the disruption of
maintenance and improvements cost businesses losses of revenue. Considerable time and
effort should be invested to balance the need for infrastructure work and the resulting
disruptions. To this end, public works and utility infrastructure should be assessed and a
comprehensive maintenance and upgrade plan should be devised. All parties should regularly
coordinate efforts to minimize construction and disruption in the downtown core.
The Downtown Partnership, as the representative of business and property interests, should
play an active role in the planning of infrastructure projects. The City of Bozeman should
consider higher standards for infrastructure integrity and upgrades for downtown as extra
expense may be justified to preserve and enhance the community’s historic core.
Page 44 Revise last sentence of 1st paragraph in “Next Steps” introduction to read:
"This list should be reviewed and discussed by the City of Bozeman, the downtown community,
and stakeholders, to confirm the priority established for these objectives."
Page 44 Revisions to “Next Steps” section
Delete “Initiate Grant Research and Application”
Replace with:
“Parking Study/Analysis
Conduct regular parking studies determine and track the inventory of on-street, surface
and structured parking spaces in addition usage patterns and trends.”
Page 45 Add “Next Steps Matrix”
384
December 3, 2009
As documented in Commission Memo from the Bozeman Parking Commission
On October 6, 2009 the Planning Board recommended several revisions to the Downtown
Improvement Plan. In particular, the board recommended incorporating the following language:
“no net loss of public parking spaces”.
In the spirit of the Planning Board’s language and to better effectively managing public parking,
the Parking Commission recommends that the following text replace that suggested by the
Planning Board as it relates to the concept of “no net loss of public parking”:
“The Bozeman Parking Commission, in coordination with the Downtown Bozeman
Partnership, should conduct regular parking studies determine and track the
inventory of on-street, surface and structured parking spaces in addition usage
patterns and trends. Periodically, the Parking Commission and Downtown
Partnership should consult with the business and property owners to discuss
anticipated future parking demand and parking asset management strategies.”
385
P r e p a r e d f o r t h e D o w n t o w n
B o z e m a n P a r t n e r s h i p
D e c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 9
D O W N T O W N
B O Z E M A N
I M P R O V E M E N T
P L A N
386
A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s
CONSULTING TEAM:
LMN ARCHITECTS
Walt Niehoff
Mark Hinshaw
Mike Kimelberg
Sarah Durkee
LELAND CONSULTING GROUP
Dave Leland
Chris Zahas
Brian Vanneman
TD & H ENGINEERING
Dave Crawford
HIGH PLAINS ARCHITECTS
Randy Hafer
PREPARED FOR:
Downtown Bozeman Partnership and the City of Bozeman
AS DIRECTED BY:
Downtown Plan Advisory Committee
Bobby Bear Allyson Bristor
Eric Bryson Paul Burns
Brian Caldwell Ileana Indreland
Chris Saunders
WITH ASSITANCE FROM:
Downtown Business Improvement District
Mike Basile Dan Himsworth
Eric Bowman Ileana Indreland
Mike Grant Buck Taylor
Downtown Bozeman Association
Tim Christiansen Babs Noelle
Coco Douma Sally Rue
Drew Ingraham Kate Wiggins
Catherine Langlas
Downtown Tax Increment Finance District
Bobby Bear Vonda Laird
Peter Bertelsen Bob Lashaway
Thail Davis Bill Stoddart
Bozeman Parking Commission
Pam Bryan Chris Naumann
Lisa Danzl-Scott Chris Pope
Tammy Hauer Steve Schnee
BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION:
Sean Becker Eric Bryson
Kaaren Jacobson Jeff Krauss
Jeff Rupp
387
3
T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s
I n t r o d u c t i o n
INTENT 4
RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS PLANS 5
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOCUS 6
ISSUES 10
OPPORTUNITIES 10
GUIDING PRINCIPLES 12
S t r a t e g i e s
CREATE DISTINCT DISTRICTS 14
BUILD HOUSING 18
CREATE A NETWORK OF OPEN SPACES 22
TAME THE TRAFFIC 28
CREATE A UNIQUE PLACE 30
STRENGTHEN DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES 34
ADOPT A CODE UNIQUE TO DOWNTOWN 38
EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND PARTNERING 40
MOVE TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE CITY CENTER 42
NEXT STEPS 44
388
4
I n t r o d u c t i o n
INTENT
This Downtown Improvement Plan is intended to guide decisions by
public bodies, private businesses, and non-profit organizations for
at least ten years to come. It provides a solid framework to move
forward and solidify downtown Bozeman’s place in the community
and the region.
Over the past twenty years, Bozeman has spent considerable re-
sources and energy making its downtown healthy, vibrant and
strong. The six to eight blocks along Main Street, with its wide array
of shops, services, high quality restaurants, coffee houses, and pre-
cious architecture is looked upon with envy by many communities.
However, other parts of downtown Bozeman outside of Main Street
are not performing as well as such areas in other, similar communi-
ties. Downtown still retains a locally-owned hardware store, drug
store, and grocery store – businesses that have long ago departed
downtowns in many smaller and mid-sized towns.
Often a major impediment in many communities is a lack of leader-
ship. This not the case with downtown Bozeman where it is quite
evident from merchants who care deeply about how their business
is perceived, from property owners who have invested in renova-
tions and new construction, and from residents who continue to
view downtown as their “shared” neighborhood. Just walking along
the sidewalks of Main Street immediately evokes the authenticity of
a genuine, close-knit town with the attributes of sociability, individual
energy, and even quirkiness. The imprint of many hands and minds
is palpable.
Throughout the country it has been increasingly difficult for small,
local-serving businesses to operate in this age of online shopping
and big-box stores. While downtown Bozeman has a tremendous
group of these types of businesses, they can’t help but be affected
by seasonal cycles, the changing expectations and behaviors of
consumers, and the current economic downturn.
Downtowns like Bozeman’s used to be well supported when single
family houses contained six people. Now they typically contain half
that number, or less. All thriving downtowns depend upon a solid
presence of residential density in close proximity – ideally within
walking distance. Fortunately, downtowns all over the country have
been seeing an influx of two demographic groups – people in their
twenties and people in their sixties – who wish to live close to arts,
entertainment, interesting shops and restaurants, and an active
“street life.” These groups are fueling a demand for condominiums,
row houses, lofts, flats, cottages, and many other forms of denser
housing around the edges of commercial cores.
The result is a place that everyone can enjoy immensely – existing
residents, new residents, shoppers, and visitors. Infill development
can be designed sensitively so that the long-standing character,
scale and craft of the established townscape can be maintained.
This requires policies, codes, design standards, incentives, and
public investments – as well as creative partnerships. Many of the
strategies recommended by the plan will need additional analysis
and stakeholder direction in advance of implementation. Specific
development examples and opportunity sights are meant demon-
strate potential sites, scales and locations, and are in no way meant
to be prescriptive.
Downtown Plan Area
Boundary
389
5
RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS PLANS
Downtown Bozeman has been the subject of numerous plans over
the last 30 years, the most recent being the 1998 Downtown Im-
provement Plan, also known as the MAKERS Plan. Many of the
recommendations in this plan have been completed; numerous ob-
jectives remain unaccomplished yet are still relevant. While the 2009
Downtown Improvement Plan takes a broader view and suggests
some fundamental restructuring of codes, policies, and operating
procedures, the MAKERS Plan should still be referenced regarding
additional physical improvements and the overall urban design of
the downtown district. Unlike the MAKERS Plan, the 2009 Down-
town Improvement Plan, once adopted by the City Commission, will
BOZEMAN COMMUNITY
PLAN VISION STATEMENT
“Bozeman’s unique identity,
characterized by its natural
surroundings, its historic and
cultural resources, and its
downtown, which is the heart
and center of the community,
is preserved and enhanced.”
Source: Bozeman Community Plan,
Chapter 1, Addressing Growth &
Change, pg 2.
have legal status as a guiding document for downtown development
as a part of the Bozeman Community Plan, the City’s growth policy.
All of the recommendations contained in this plan are realistic. But
in some cases, they will require more analysis of options and tech-
niques. They may also require that various stakeholders, particularly
City departments, view downtown a bit differently than in the past.
This means applying different criteria than what might be found in
typical manuals or regulations. The planning team firmly believes that
downtown Bozeman is unique and that its vital importance to the city
should be recognized in a deliberate, focused collection of efforts and
actions to make it a dynamic and sustainable community center.
Downtown Plan Area
Boundary
390
6
I n t r o d u c t i o n
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOCUS
Too many downtown plans either under-perform, fall far short of
their objectives, or outright fail. However well intentioned, many
simply do not match the expectations so enthusiastically supported
during the planning process. Why? The reasons can be many, but
there are some fundamental principles that should be followed if
a plan is to become successful. First and foremost, revitalizing a
downtown is a highly competitive business. There is always some-
one, another city, a developer, or a combination thereof that wants
to steal the energy that might otherwise go downtown—pulling
shoppers, potential downtown residents, office tenants, and more.
And, as with any business, to be successful it needs to be led, it
needs to be championed, managed, staffed, capitalized, marketed,
operated, and quite simply treated like the competitive business
that it is. The plan is only a part. Individual projects are only parts.
Success requires leadership, consistency, assertiveness, tenacity,
and commitment.
While many people might say that the downtown is Main Street,
in fact a healthier definition is the collection of districts that com-
prise the greater downtown. The retail core is the most visible with
its bright lights, colorful storefronts, and heavier traffic flows. But
just as important is the transit center, the nearby neighborhoods of
homes that touch the edge of the retail core, the concentrations of
employment, public open spaces, institutions such as the library,
or cultural facilities like Emerson Center, and the other small dis-
tricts that collectively comprise
the larger downtown and give it its
many personalities.
There is a direct correlation be-
tween the health of a downtown
and the health of the city in which
it is located. As a downtown
moves from struggling to healthy
to superior, there is generally a
corresponding increase in the
larger community that rises with
the tide of success.
So, a great downtown helps contribute to and build a valued com-
munity that in turn attracts stable businesses and residents and
visitors, and that in turn creates tax base to support the community,
its amenities and services, and so continues the cycle of success.
Downtown is front line economic development.
Downtown’s impact on the entire community means that any in-
vestment in downtown Bozeman has the potential to increase the
livability, attractiveness,
and value of the whole City.
Thus, the “balance sheet”
against which invest-
ments should be judged
is not just a single block or
series of blocks on Main
Street. Rather, potential
investments should be
weighed against the value of the new investment that could reason-
ably occur in downtown in the next ten to fifteen years—estimated
at $120 million or more—or the market value of all property in the
City—approximately $2.4 billion. This is the asset base upon which
prudent public investments can have a positive impact.
In order to realize new development on the order of $100 million or
more, the City will need to create an implementation framework with
annual and multi-year targets for development, key public actions,
funding commitments, responsible parties, and additional imple-
mentation strategies. Such an “action plan” will give the City the
means to measure its progress toward the vision described here,
and the tools to make it happen.
Enduring, durable places can realize greater revenues and appre-
ciate over time. Strong place making principles should, properly
designed and controlled, realize greater appreciation in a well-de-
fined and rigorously controlled environment such as a successful
downtown versus their counterpart in a less controlled, more subur-
ban setting where something unfortunate might get built next door.
391
7
Private investors seek communities with:
1. Realistic plan with multiple components2. Multi development opportunities and areas3. Strong governmental and community leadership4. Appropriate level of community quality of life factors5. Available infrastructure6. Appropriate level of governmental and community service, prod-ucts, and resources7. Appropriate balance between assistance and regulation8. Strong partnership both public/private and private public9. Ability to finance needed public investment10. Willingness of leadership and community to take calculated risks
KEYS TO REVITALIZATION
Downtown revitalization requires property rehabilitation, new devel-
opment, and injections of new capital, and these actions, in turn,
require a region in which the population, employment, and incomes
are healthy and growing. In fact, a recent study of the conditions
needed for successful mixed use development found that the first
one is “a strong local economy.”
This means that Bozeman must cultivate its regional and downtown
economic drivers, including Montana State University and Bozeman
Deaconess Hospital and other healthcare services; the growing
technology industry; hospitality, tourism, and recreation; its extremely
desirable outdoor-oriented lifestyle; manufacturing; government em-
ployment; and other business and economic clusters identified in the
2009 City of Bozeman Economic Development Plan.
A healthy business climate requires a number of variables that the
private sector seeks out when making a decision to invest in a com-
munity. These are shown in the table at right.
A recent MSU graduate with a new job in the technology field adds
one more Bozeman resident with the ability to live, work, shop, and
play downtown. A single new high-tech business with $5 million in
annual revenues will add 97 new jobs and 97 times the new spend-
ing power to the city, according to the City’s Economic Development
Plan.
The health of Downtown Bozeman and the strength of the regional
economy are symbiotic, now more so than ever. In the 21st cen-
tury economy, a high quality of
life—of which a vibrant downtown
is an important part—has the ability
to attract businesses, professional
workers, visitors, and ultimately
drive economic growth. This repre-
sents a dramatic change from much
of America’s past, when natural
resources, agriculture, and trans-
portation were the key drivers of the
economy.
“A strong urban core… plays a critical economic role. The
urban center of metropolitan areas is the focus of cultural
activities, civic identity, governmental institutions and usu-
ally has the densest employment, particularly in financial,
professional and creative services. Urban cores are also
the iconic centers of cities, where interaction and connec-
tions are strongest.” -- City Vitals, by CEOs for Cities, 2006.
“Support the continued economic vitality of the Downtown
Bozeman business district, which is broadly recognized
as one of Bozeman’s strongest assets. Continue to sup-
port and promote Downtown Bozeman as the economic
and cultural center of the region, and encourage develop-
ment and re-development through the use of incentives for
future investment and development.”
-- Bozeman’s Economic Development Plan
392
8
NATIONAL TRENDS
Recent American downtown renaissances have been driven by new
housing. This should come as some surprise since “downtown” was
once largely synonymous with “central business district”—the place
where employment and industry took place and most residential life
did not. Some keys to understanding downtown housing in general
and specifically to Bozeman include:
During the last two decades, downtown housing has grown from a
tiny niche market to major national trend, largely due to changing
consumer demand. Today, the national market of potential for ur-
ban dwellers numbers in the tens of millions of households. These
people are seeking an active, exciting environment with abundant
retail and cultural opportunities, and less upkeep and maintenance
than would be required for a traditional single family home.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR BOZEMAN
Most urban residents fall into one of two demographic categories:
first, young singles or couples in their 20s or 30s, and second, down-
sizing baby boomers or retirees approximately 60 or more years old.
Bozeman also has a third group of potential residents: second home
and vacation homeowners. According to the University of Montana,
these households are typically relatively wealthy, with average an-
nual incomes of $100,000, and are
attracted to the state by friends,
family, and the beautiful natural
surroundings. Along with age
and household size, another key
indicator for downtown residential
demand is high levels of education-
al attainment. Nationally, forty-four
percent of downtown residents hold
a bachelor’s or higher degree.
These three key urban residential
markets hold significant promise for
residential and mixed use develop-
ment in downtown Bozeman. 67.2
percent, or approximately 9,000, of all City of Bozeman households
are made up of one or two people. Compared to the approximately
400 households that live in downtown today, this represents a very
large market, even if only a small percentage moves to downtown.
Bozeman is also a relatively young city, with 16.7 percent of its popu-
lation between 25 and 34 years of age, compared to 12.0 percent for
the State of Montana. Within the state, only Missoula has a compa-
rable percentage of residents in this age group. Bozeman is also an
exceptionally well-educated city—52.2 percent of its residents have
completed a bachelor’s degree or more. This is the highest of any
major city in the state, and also higher than cities such as Boise,
Idaho and Spokane, Washington. Each of these demographic indi-
cators shows that there is significant potential for residential growth
downtown. By contrast, the early baby boomer demographic, now
55 to 64 years old, makes up 7.1 percent of Bozeman’s population.
This is lower than the state average and the level of most other
Montana cities.
Downtown residents energize the rest of downtown because they
support more local retailers, events, and other commercial activities
than residents of other areas or down-
town employees. Downtown residents
tend to support three or more times as
much square footage of retail compared
to downtown employees. This is good
not just for downtown businesses, but
for all of Bozeman’s citizens who value
a vibrant downtown.
Over the long term, downtown residents
will attract businesses downtown as
well. There is an established correlation
between where business executives
and their employees live, and where
businesses locate. When residences
moved to the fringes of urban areas in
the late 20th century, so too did busi-
nesses. Now, the reverse is beginning
to happen.
I n t r o d u c t i o n
393
9
Examples of mixed-use urban development in other cities
Bozeman can expect the new housing seen in downtown to evolve
and increase in scale and density. Typical early-phase downtown
housing includes historic renovations, attached townhouses, and two
or three story wood frame apartments. These are usually followed
by more expensive and ambitious projects that include steel and con-
crete structures of three to five stories. This evolution takes place
as developers test the market to determine the popularity of urban
housing and particular preferences of the local market. While the
Village Downtown and other planned developments have introduced
higher density dwelling types, the current economic downturn is likely
to slow or turn the clock back on the evolution of downtown housing,
and generate more modest projects in the short and medium terms
(within the next five years). During this time frame, it is unlikely that
the current height limits in downtown will become a major constraint
to downtown development.
The consultant team’s initial experience-based assessment is that
there is potential in the Bozeman downtown market for approximately
500 additional residential units. Approximately 200 of these would
be condominium units and the remaining 300 would be apartments.
Due to the still-emerging nature of Bozeman’s downtown residential
market, the condo projects will tend to be smaller—approximately 30
or 40 units each—while the apartment projects will tend to be larger
due to the economies of scale required—ranging between 80 and
150 units each. Additional site specific and Bozeman-area market
research will be needed in order to attach more specific timeframes,
benchmarks, and site specific recommendations to this assessment.
Private investment follows public commitment. In other words, most
developers, business owners, and others want to put their money
and life’s work where it will be reinforced and amplified by established
public goals and investments. It is usually the public sector’s goal to
set the stage and standards and demonstrate that its downtown is a
safe, attractive, exciting—and ultimately profitable—place to invest.
394
10
Like many other cities, Bozeman faces challenges it must address to
keep its downtown prosperous, lively, and appealing. Competition from
the outward growth of retail and other commercial businesses is an
ongoing struggle for downtowns as they try to remain at the center of
commerce and civic life. The following is an overview of the particular
issues facing Downtown Bozeman, and the opportunities – both big and
small – that exist to strengthen and enhance downtown’s role as the
heart of the community and the region.
ISSUES
Access and Circulation
• Vehicular circulation patterns, including the Mendenhall/Babcock
one-way couplet, encourage through traffic and high speeds. One-
way streets make it unnecessarily difficult for cars and pedestrians
to move within downtown.
• Main Street’s truck route designation is at odds with the other func-
tions and character of downtown’s signature pedestrian street.
Maximize Underutilized Parcels
• Many sections of the downtown district contain underutilized
parcels. Such parcels are often located abruptly on the sidewalk
edge and create “dead” spaces at many key locations. Consider-
ing downtown’s pedestrian focus and a finite amount of land for
infill projects, these parcels should be further analyzed to determine
their highest and best use, which may be redevelopment.
Lack of Vitality on Key Streets
• Currently, Main Street defines downtown’s identity because of its
continuous block pattern lined with a mix of active street level shops,
cafes and restaurants. Other key thoroughfares, including Men-
denhall, Babcock, and north-south streets, have significant “gaps”
in their development patterns. These areas lack a critical mass of
activity associated with a higher concentration of development.
• The amount and quality of sidewalks, street trees and street furni-
ture varies throughout downtown. Some areas are appealing, while
many others do not encourage and support getting around on foot.
The lack of a coordinated level of street design compromises the
ability to establish a cohesive district identity.
Connections and Wayfinding
• Parts of downtown feel disconnected from one another. For ex-
ample, downtown houses a variety of arts and cultural facilities
that is not evident on the street to a visitor. Connections need to be
strengthened so that the parts can add up to a stronger and more
accessible whole.
Street-level Conditions
• Downtown Bozeman contains many fine examples of traditional
storefront design, with generous shop windows and ground level
details that add interest and comfort to the pedestrian experience.
However, downtown’s attractiveness is diminished by the design of
some development and façade renovations which are not sympa-
thetic to Bozeman’s architectural heritage.
Little Sense of “Entry”
• Key arrival points into downtown do not signify that you are entering
a special district. Improvements could include big moves (anchor
redevelopments, entry plazas, etc.) and modest improvements.
Regulatory Impediments
• A strong and healthy downtown requires public sector support. Clear
and reasonable zoning and incentives can help remove hindrances
to development under current regulations.
• Although not a zoning issue, it appears that State licensing regu-
lations for restaurants that wish to serve alcohol present financial
and procedural hurdles, making it difficult to open new restaurants
in downtown. Changing this would require legislative efforts at the
State level.
OPPORTUNITIES
Public Support
• Build on the commitment and support to enhance and improve
downtown from all sectors of the community to advance various
initiatives.
O P P O R T U N I T I E S A N D I S S U E SI n t r o d u c t i o n
Surface parking on Mendenhall
395
11
Authentic Main Street Experience
• People are attracted to downtowns to experience the type of vital-
ity and diversity difficult to replicate in more suburban centers.
Bozeman’s intact, historic core and great retail and restaurants
help to distinguish the city from others in the region and should
be used to increase economic competitiveness. Keeping Main
Street healthy in the future will continue to draw visitors, and
contribute to community livability downtown – which is vital to
economic development.
Partnerships
• Attracting new development downtown can be a challenge. Pub-
lic-private development can help mitigate risk and can encourage
projects that otherwise might not be built. This approach should
be explored, particularly for catalyst developments suggested in
this document.
Recent Public Investments
• Investment and maintenance of the public realm is the founda-
tion for a successful downtown. Recent investments, including
the parking garage, library, and streetscape improvements have
provided quality development, efficient use of land, and an attrac-
tive public realm to support private development in the area.
Arts and Culture
• Nationally, the role of entertainment, art, and culture downtown
has been strong and growing. Bozeman has the opportunity to el-
evate its downtown arts and culture scene to attract more people
downtown at night and on the weekends.
“Complete Streets”
• Most streets downtown are in need of improvements. Design
streets to make it safe, easy and enjoyable to get around on foot
and bicycle. “Complete Streets” is a transportation and planning
concept that provides for all modes of use
More Housing Downtown
• Increase the limited amount of housing, taking advantage of the
proximity of local services and stable residential neighborhoods
nearby containing several schools and parks.
New parking garage Retail next to the Baxter Hotel
Vacant Kenyon Lumber siteRecent townhouse development
396
12
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1 Downtown Bozeman should be the location of buildings of
the greatest height and intensity in the community.
2 All streets and sidewalks in downtown should be designed
to make the experience of pedestrians and bicyclists safe,
comfortable and visually appealing.
3 Downtown should be the focus of civic life, with a concen-
tration of local, state and federal government as well as arts
and culture.
4 The scale and character of the historic core should be
protected but other downtown districts should be able to ac-
commodate contemporary development of greater height and
density.
5 Parking should not govern development poten-
tial; the amount of parking relative to development
should decrease. Parking inventory should be man-
aged so as to ensure convenient access for customers.
G U I D I N G P R I N C I P L E SI n t r o d u c t i o n
The following principles are intended to provide the philosophical
foundation to the Plan and the recommended next steps. As various
actions are considered, these principles can be checked to ensure
that every action is accomplishing one or more of them.
397
13
6 Transit should be expanded to serve downtown more
extensively and frequently.
7 Public spaces – both large and small – should be en-
hanced and made active through programming or adjacent
uses that can animate and oversee them.
8 Housing – for all income levels – should be encouraged by
a variety of methods.
9 Sustainable methods and techniques should be applied
to infrastructure, street design and redevelopment to contrib-
ute to a healthier and greener community.
10 New buildings should be designed to the level of per-
manence and quality appropriate for a downtown setting.
11 Create strong connections between sub-districts, and
from Downtown to the surrounding community.
12 Natural features and the surrounding mountain setting
should be highlighted and emphasized whenever possible,
strengthening the amenities unique to the city of Bozeman.
398
14
C R E A T E D I S T I N C T D I S T R I C T S
S t r a t e g i e s
Neighborhood
Conservation Area
Neighborhood
Conservation Area
Historic
Downtown
Core
North Village
South Village
East Gateway
Northeast
Neighborhood
West Gateway
NOTE: The district boundaries have been intentionally loosely delineated because further analysis may be required.399
15
Historic Downtown Core (Retail/Office)
Right now, there are great “bones” of a Commercial Core District,
as it has already been given attention in the City’s zoning ordinance
and other documents. This is Bozeman’s historic main street area
and is one that has seen great care and investments by a wide
range of people, agencies and organizations. This district should be
further strengthened by a handful of strategic but delicate improve-
ments, but it is well on its way to being lively, dynamic and solid.
Only the recent tragedy of the gasline explosion has presented a
temporary setback, but recovery and infill will be forthcoming. This
plan suggests some ideas for the now empty parcels, but much
thinking will undoubtedly be given to healing this emotional and
physical wound in the townscape. Until then there are a number of
ways of enhancing the core, such as emphasizing brightly lighted
display windows, unique signs, special decorative lighting, so that
it is clearly seen by all as a place to use 18 hours a day.
CREATING DISTINCT DISTRICTS
Downtown Bozeman is not a single, monolithic area. It is large
enough and complex enough that, a number of distinct areas have
begun to emerge. It would be useful to provide a separate identity
for these areas, although still keeping them firmly within the frame-
work of downtown.
Having different districts serves a number a purposes. First, they
could have regulatory implications with differing standards for
height, parking, and other aspects. This approach is described
in the Code section of this plan. Second, each district should be
identified according to its unique character. It is common for down-
town neighborhoods to take on historic or unique names that con-
vey a character and identity. On the maps we have suggested
some names, but these are intended to be place-holders. One can
imagine at some point, there being a “Lindley District” at the east
end, or an “Emerson District” at the west end. Such unique place
names can evolve as people begin to live there and identify with
them and their attributes.
Baxter Hotel BozemanHotel
Historic Downtown Core
400
16
C R E A T E D I S T I N C T D I S T R I C T S
S t r a t e g i e s
“North Village”
(Residential Emphasis)
This area of downtown has the greatest potential to become a new urban
neighborhood, filled with hundreds of dwelling units of all different types,
unique public spaces, landscaped alleyways, and small service businesses
aimed at local residents both within and near downtown. The presence of
significant housing is the most critical missing piece of Bozeman’s down-
town, and for it to be vital and sustainable over time, housing should be de-
veloped in great numbers and varieties, at all price-points, both rental and
for-sale. This recommendation is a “cornerstone” of this plan. The very fu-
ture of downtown is dependent upon the successful development of hous-
ing -- both for people in the community who wish to stay but downsize as
well as for newcomers.
However, there is one major impediment to this happening. That is the
amount and speed of traffic on Mendenhall. In order for people to want to
invest there and for others to want to live there, this impediment must be
changed. The current state of Mendenhall – narrow sidewalks, many in
disrepair, minimal street trees, flanked with asphalt or dirt parking lots –
presents an uninviting corridor between the neighborhoods to the north and
Main Street. Many other cities, larger and smaller, have been successful in
converting one-way couplets back to two-way without undesirable conse-
quences (see “Tame the Traffic” page 26). This is a key recommendation
that gets at the heart of downtown’s economic vitality and longevity.
“West Gateway” (Office/Mixed Use)
This district could extend from 5th Avenue to Grand. This is a very impor-
tant area that now seems somewhat ragged with parking lots, empty par-
cels, and vacant buildings. This area detracts from the image of downtown
and needs major investment – both public and private. In addition, the
streetscape should be enhanced with more trees, lighting, furnishings and
seasonal planting eventually connecting to the North 7th Avenue Connec-
tivity Plan. New buildings should adhere to design standards that do not
allow setbacks but place windows and doors on the sidewalk with parking
lots prohibited along the street. There is a “suburban” look to this area that
could be dramatically enhanced both in the short term with streetscape and
in the longer term with development.
In addition, four other districts are suggested:
Willson School
Emerson CulturalCenter
Bridger Park Garage
City Hall Building
North Village
West Gateway
401
17
“South Village”
(Commercial/Mixed Use)
The blocks along Babcock between Wilson and Rouse contain a
wide-ranging mix of uses from governmental (Federal Building)
to office, to some retail, to housing, to churches, with no one use
seeming to dominate. Nor is there that much property that could
be converted to other uses. Nonetheless, over time parking lots
especially on the north side of Babcock could have new buildings
containing commercial and residential uses. As a street, Babcock
deserves improvements in sidewalks and the addition of street
trees as it is kind of a visual moat along the south side of down-
town. Some of the parking lots associated with churches are used
for parking during weekdays through private agreements. The
Parking Commission should look at this parking resource more
comprehensively to ensure its most effective use.
“East Gateway” (Office/Mixed Use)
The East Gateway is east of Rouse and centered around the li-
brary, grocery store, and Lindley Park. This district has properties
that can be redeveloped to greater intensity, just as has already oc-
curred on some. Care should be taken, however, not to attempt to
extend the retailing too far east. The retail core is already long and
there is evidence (closed stores and unleased space) that retail
might not be the best ground floor use this far away from the core.
Office space or professional services could be acceptable and still
add to the vitality of downtown. There might be some pockets of
retail, such as around the library, but the Main Street retail core
should be kept compact and walkable. There might also be a ma-
jor art feature that denotes the idea of “gateway.” One candidate
location is the public space in front of the library.
Library
US Federal Building
South Village
East Gateway
402
18
B U I L D H O U S I N G
S t r a t e g i e s
BUILD HUNDREDS OF UNITS OF
HOUSING
A healthy downtown must attract people to live, work and play. Hous-
ing plays a key role in this formula for success, since attracting more
people to live downtown establishes a base to support downtown
businesses, allowing retailers such as restaurants and other shops
to thrive. Today, Downtown Bozeman includes only a small amount of
housing, with a limited range of housing types. Nationally, market-rate
residential development has been a powerful force in bringing new
life and economic support to downtowns. This plan includes a pre-
liminary examination of the downtown area through this lens, identify-
ing opportunity areas, and testing the feasibility of these locations for
a range of downtown residential development types. As mentioned
previously, attracting downtown residential development to Bozeman
can help accomplish many goals at the same time:
• provide a new use for many downtown properties currently un-
derutilized;
• increase the customer base for existing businesses and provide
the spending power to attract new businesses and cultural activi-
ties; and
• add more people downtown at all times of the day, increasing
safety, and providing an expanded base of support for future im-
provements, events, and activities.
HOUSING CHOICES
National trends showing a growing demand for downtown housing
suggest a potential market exists in Bozeman. Numerous larger un-
derutilized parcels in this area can be in-filled with primarily housing
redevelopment. Potential downtown residents are a diverse group –
from younger residents to empty nesters, demanding both rental and
ownership housing, and express preferences for a range of housing
types, from townhouses to multifamily dwellings, to rehabs of older
buildings for lofts. Downtown Bozeman has the capacity for this and
contains many of the amenities - including an attractive Main Street,
cafes, shops and restaurants - that are drawing new residents to re-
surgent downtowns across the county. Moreover, Bozeman has its
own special qualities, including its scenic natural setting, homegrown
business, and active social life, from which new development can
draw.
The site analysis of opportunity areas downtown identified potential
accommodation of as many as 500 units over five to fifteen years,
with a concentration in the “North Village” district, and in particu-
lar along Mendenhall. Numerous larger underutilized parcels in this
area can be in-filled with primarily housing redevelopment. The table
and illustration found on page 20 and 21, highlight possible areas
Examples of urban housing in other cities
403
19
Possible Main Street infill development
Areas of opportunity
Possible mixed-use development along Mendenhall
and types of residential projects that may be feasible or attractive to
developers and future residents These ideas are examples intended
to demonstrate the considerable potential for residential and com-
mercial infill.
In addition to new development, there may also be opportunities to
provide or renovate housing in the upper floors of buildings along
Main. Making this happen may require amending the Building Code,
seeking low-income tax credits, or changing height limits and requir-
ing step-backs for added floors, as has been done in other historic
districts.
404
20
1
4
A
B C
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
B U I L D H O U S I N G
S t r a t e g i e s
NOTE: THE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS ON THIS MAP AND ACCOMPANYING TABLE ARE
INTENDED ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR INFILL OF COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL USE. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
D
405
21
BOZEMAN CREEK
10-15 higher end townhouses can breathe new life into this underutilized amenity as part of an improved Creek and trail system.
• 10-15, 2-3-story townhouse units with rear loaded garages from two ac-cess drives off the alley• Enhanced Creek buffer with public trail through middle of site• Density: 20 units/acre
• Parking ratio: 1/du
KENYON NOBLE AREA
These parcels provide opportunities to provide multifamily dwellings on Men-denhall, and smaller townhouses (1,000-1,5000 SF) grouped in a neighbor-hood setting to transition to the surrounding single family area.
Block One Facing Mendenhall– Stacked Flatssite area: 48,000 sf (320’ x 150’)• 80-110 units (2 U-shaped buildings above podium with 4 floors of 15,400 sf each)• 1 story parking (300’ x 120’): 110 stalls• Shared Courtyard: 4,800 sf• Mid-Block Walkway: 1,500 sf• FAR: 2.56• Parking ratio: 1/du
Blocks Two & Three Flanking Lamme – Townhousessite area: 86,400 (320’ x 150’ and 320’ x 120’, respectively)• 50-60, 2-3-story townhouse units with front and rear loaded garages off alley and Lamme Street• Mid-Block Walkway: 3,000 sf• Density: 28 units/acre• Parking ratio: 1/du
OTHER MENDENHALL INFILL SITES
Site 1: NE Corner, Wilson & Mendenhall Stacked Flatssite area: 15,400 sf (110’ x 140’)• 1 story parking: 47 stalls• 4 stories residential above: approx. 40-45 units• FAR: 3.1• Parking ratio: 1/du
Site 2: NW Corner, Bozeman & Mendenhall Mixed-Usesite area: 27,000 sf (180’ x 150’)• 28,800 sf office (2 floors of 14,400 sf each)• residential (2-story, 1200 sf townhouse units above office on floors of 12,600 sf each): 12 units• 1 story parking (180’ x 120’): 66 stalls
• FAR: 2.0• Parking ratio: 1/du; 2/1000 for office
Site 3: SE Corner, Bozeman & Mendenhall Stacked Flatssite area: 14,000 sf (140’ x 100’)• 1 story parking:18 stalls• 2 stories residential (9,100 sf per floor): 18 units• FAR: 1.3
• Parking ratio: 1/du
BOZEMAN CREEK INFILL
(where Bozeman Creek passes under Babcock Street)site area: 9,800 sf (70’ x 140’)• 8,400 sf office/retail (ground level)• 3 Loft units above• 8 surface parking stalls behind building off the alley for residential units and commercial.
• Parking ratio: 1/du; 2/1000 office
TOTAL:
Residential: approximately 210-260 units
4
1
ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS
(THEORETICAL EXAMPLES)
2
3
A POSSIBLE CONFERENCE CENTER AND HOTELB POSSIBLE BOUTIQUE HOTELC POSSIBLE OFFICED POSSIBLE THEATER/ MEETING FACILITY
406
22
C R E A T E A N E T W O R K O F O P E N S P A C E S
Existing street trees
Examples of open space in other cities
Examples of street trees
S t r a t e g i e s
The City of Bozeman is surrounded by natural beauty and boasts
numerous parks, trails and recreational areas. Downtown would
benefit from the thoughtful integration of plazas and courtyards, the
creation of pocket parks along Bozeman Creek, and the greening
of streets and alleys surrounding Main Street. This Plan outlines a
strategy to “green” Downtown Bozeman through the careful integra-
tion of street trees and the introduction and improvement of public
spaces.
Plazas, courtyards, and alley improvements will require careful
sighting and attention to solar access, and would be enhanced by
creative lighting and seating solutions in order to maximize the use
and comfort of such spaces throughout the year.
GREEN THE STREETS
Although neighborhoods flanking Downtown Bozeman have tree-
lined streets with lush, dense, canopies, much of the downtown area
is devoid of street trees. (Street trees, by definition, are always lo-
cated with a “sidewalk amenity zone” directly behind the curb. Other
trees may be present on private property but the longevity of those
trees is never assured because of potential development and, there-
fore, they do not have the same role as true street trees.) As part of
an integrated traffic and streetscape improvement plan, street trees
should be planted throughout the downtown core area to enhance
the urban environment.
Economic studies have shown the presence of trees encourage
people to walk greater distances in downtown areas, therefore ex-
posing them to more retail shops and restaurants, increasing spend-
ing along tree-lined streets. Additionally, trees provide a more re-
laxed ambiance, by softening busy streets and reducing the sense
of traffic noise. They create safer walking environments, and have
even been found to reduce perceived travel times of both motorists
and pedestrians. Finally, horticultural research has shown that street
trees contribute both to lowering ambient temperatures in the sum-
mer and to providing valuable urban habitats. Recent improvements
along Main Street provided scores of street trees along that street.
But Mendenhall, Babcock and most side streets are still largely de-
void true street trees
407
23
TRANSFORM ALLEYS
Alleys are often an underutilized, forgotten part of the city. While
they still need to provide service, delivery and emergency access,
they remain unused except for a few hours a day. Many cities have
recognized this and have begun to give alleys a civic or ecological
function. The alleys that wrap around Main can be planted with
greenery, provide natural drainage, create a unique pedestrian network,
and provide usable outdoor spaces for residents and businesses.
When and where possible widen
sections of the alleys to improve
functionality and consider adding
bicycle amenities. In greening
these areas, natural drainage
features could be utilized, and
small plazas and pocket parks
tucked along the edges. These
improvements would serve to
provide a new, unique connection
between downtown businesses and residences, and reinforce the
finer scale of the downtown area.
ADD PLAZAS AND COURTYARDS
Surrounding Downtown are several parks and open spaces, but
Downtown itself has very few. Courtyards and plazas should be
made a priority in new development, and the city should consider
working with property owners to implement a public plaza along the
north side of Main Street.
Downtown would benefit from more functional open spaces that
can be used and enjoyed day and night by residents, visitors, and
workers nearby. Incentive-based requirements for new development
to provide accessible public spaces, such as plazas and entry
forecourts, could add considerably to the amount and variety of open
spaces in the public realm.
C R E A T E A N E T W O R K O F O P E N S P A C E S
Existing downtown alleys
Existing open space
408
24
C R E A T E A N E T W O R K O F O P E N S P A C E SS t r a t e g i e s
409
25
OPEN UP BOZEMAN CREEK
Bozeman Creek should be revealed and made a centerpiece of a
downtown open space system. An intermittent “Bozeman Creek
Park” would provide a natural connection from the north and
south neighborhoods to the downtown commercial area. Where
the creek cannot be daylighted, such as under streets and his-
toric buildings, its presence could be highlighted with public art
or special streetscape surface treatments. Where space is avail-
able, such as through existing parking lots, public open space
should be provided along the creek, complete with seating areas
and viewing platforms, so that this unique natural feature can be
appreciated by both residents and visitors to downtown.
Downstream from downtown, the creek is a natural system that
fish and other wildlife depend on for survival. Currently run-off
from streets and parking lots are draining directly into the creek,
allowing it to be contaminated by petroleum products and other
pollutants. The city has a buffer requirement in place and is en-
couraged to enforce it for the health and quality of the creek, and
improved character and open space for downtown.
Current creek condition Examples of parks along creeks and streams
C R E A T E A N E T W O R K O F O P E N S P A C E S
Open space opportunities along Bozeman Creek and alleys
410
26
T A M E T H E T R A F F I CS t r a t e g i e s
REDUCE TRUCK TRAFFIC AND INVITE
BICYCLISTS TO MAIN STREET
Currently, only two types of users are accommodated on Main
Street: motor vehicles, and pedestrians. Bicyclists have lanes and
signed trails in other areas of the city, but aren’t given any priority
in the downtown core. Cyclists of all levels of experience should
be welcome and invited to visit downtown, by providing bike “shar-
rows” (see photo) on outermost vehicular lanes and racks along
Main Street. Sharrows are physical markings within a vehicular lane,
indicating that the travel lane is shared between motorists and bi-
cyclists. They help to increase the awareness of drivers to the pres-
ence of cyclists, and also communicate to bicyclists that the streets
are designed for them as well.
To further reduce noise, congestion, and pedestrian and bicyclist
discomfort, large through-truck traffic should be diverted around
downtown on I-90. Although Main Street is currently on the Nation-
al Truck Route Network, there is a procedure through the Federal
Highway Administration to alter the system. (This procedure can be
found in Federal Standard 23 CFR part 658).
Additionally, the previous street improvements along Main should be
extended to 5th to meet with the North 7th Avenue Connectivity Plan
improvements, and to the east as far as the library. The library,
Lindley park and the surrounding trails are regional destinations for
Bozeman residents and visitors, and should be better connected to
the downtown core. Users of the park and library should be drawn
downtown for dinner or coffee, and the sidewalk and streetscape
should be inviting and convenient to encourage this crossover of
users.
Lastly, the 2007 update to the area transportation plan calls for a
signalized pedestrian crossing to be added at Broadway and Main
Street. This improvement will increase the comfort and safety for
pedestrians visiting the library and adjacent businesses by helping
to make the highway traffic approaching downtown more aware
that they are entering a lively and bustling downtown district, where
people live, walk, and shop. An additional mid block crossing in
front of the library site would also be advantageous, to break up
the long block length and better connect the library to surrounding
businesses. These traffic improvements will greatly improve the
pedestrian environment of the East Gateway area, and should be
implemented as soon as possible.
View to street from library
411
27
North-south side street with improvements
CONNECT BABCOCK TO LIBRARY SITE
The long term vision for the site design of the library is to con-
nect Babcock to the library’s property on the west side. The City
of Bozeman and Bozeman Public Library should keep this goal in
mind, completing the connection when it is possible to do so in the
future. Connecting Babcock to the library parking area will serve
to lace the library into the existing street grid, reinforcing its close
proximity to downtown.
COMPLETE SIDE STREET
ENHANCEMENTS
Completing the side street enhancements that have already been
developed for downtown – The Downtown Streetscape Project
– will help to strengthen the connection between downtown and
surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally, by making those streets
more pleasant places to be, the businesses along those side
streets will benefit from increased foot traffic as people are drawn
onto the auxiliary streets along Main Street.
Complete side street enhancements
Add “sharrows” for cyclists along Main Street
Convert Mendenhall and Babcock to two-way
Connect Babcock to library site
Existing conditions and opportunities
412
28
T A M E T H E T R A F F I C
S t r a t e g i e s
Babcock section (50ft condition)
Mendenhall section
CONVERT MENDENHALL AND
BABCOCK TO TWO-WAY
A major obstacle to introducing housing to downtown right
now, is the one-way couplet of Mendenhall and Babcock.
With most of the housing density encouraged on Mendenhall,
the city must create a neighborhood-friendly environment
through the form and character of the streets. Currently,
Mendenhall acts
more as a major
through-way, get-
ting people through
downtown, than
moving people within
downtown. The lack
of street trees and
vehicular focus will
likely discourage future residents from moving Downtown.
People choose to live downtown because of the benefits
of urban living which include close access to services, en-
tertainment and walkability. Currently, both Mendenhall and
Babcock have a very poor pedestrian environment, with
narrow or inconsistent sidewalks flanked by long stretches
of surface parking
lots. In order to attain
the future vision of
denser, urban hous-
ing downtown, the
city should restore
the original two-way
network of these
streets and provide
pedestrian amenities
such as wider sidewalks, street trees, and safe, comfortable
crossings. The 1998 MAKERS Plan originally recom-
mended the conversion of Mendenhall and Babcock back
to two-way streets in addition to transforming the pedestrian
environment along these corridors.
413
29
T A M E T H E T R A F F I C
One way streets were created when downtowns were not
considered a place to live, but an employment center, and
it was important to get a large volume of traffic in and out
as efficiently as possible. Many cities are now recognizing
the benefits of creating a balanced and comfortable envi-
ronment for all modes of travel in their downtown areas as
they attempt to attract other uses such as housing during
revitalization efforts. Below are three cities that have suc-
cessfully transformed one-way streets to two-way, effec-
tively restoring their lively downtown grid.
Vancouver, Washington: Since the switch of three streets
in the downtown Main Street area of Vancouver, Washing-
ton, many retailers have reported an increase in pedestri-
ans, and “drive-by” traffic at their stores. The three streets,
each extending roughly 10 blocks, cost the city $612,000.
The project was completed in September of 2007, and was
closely tied to additional work done by their local transit
agency as part of the revitalization effort. Contact: Bill Whit-
comb, Deputy Transportation Manager. (360) 487-7702
Sacramento, California: Began a conversion of 5 streets
to two way in February of this year. Two of the streets have
been successfully converted and two additional streets
were narrowed and bikes lanes were added. There were
no street closures during the construction, and residents
and business owners are already declaring the conversion
a success. Contact: Fran Halbakken, Operations Manager.
(916) 808-7194.
West Palm Beach, Florida: A community of a population
of 80,000 converted their historic retail street back to two-
way, and two State roads. The retail street previously sat at
an 80% vacancy rate, with rents as low as $6/sq ft. After the
conversion, rental rates increased to $25/sq ft and vacancy
rates went down to 10%.
2 - W A Y S T R E E T C O N V E R -S I O N C A S E S T U D I E S
Additional cities that have reversed one-way couplets:
Fairfax, VA
Population: 23,349
Project Description: Two streets were converted to two-way (Main
and North Streets) as part of a larger street enhancement project.
Contact: Alexis Verzosa. Transportation Director,
(703) 385-7889
Norfolk, VA
Population: 234,403
Project Description: Two streets converted in 1998.
Contact: Brian Townsend, Planning,
(757) 664-4752
Toledo, OH
Population: 316,851
Project Description: Two streets were converted in 1997.
Contact: Joe Moran, Downtown Toledo Vision,
(419) 244-3747
Austin, TX
Population: 743,074
Project Description: Ceasar Chavez Avenue was turned from a
one-way street to a two-way street in 2008 as part of a Great Streets
Master Plan.
Contact: Rick Colbrunn, Project Manager,
(512) 974-7089
Chattanooga, TN
Population: 168,293
Project Description: The conversion of M.L. King Boulevard and
McCallie Avenue from one-way to two-way traffic was completed in
2003.
Contact: Todd Womack, Communications Director,
(423) 757-5168
For more information on one-way to two-way conversions, visit
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/circulars/ec019/Ec019_f2.pdf
414
30
FAÇADE IMPROVEMENTS
S t r a t e g i e s
Downtown Bozeman is fortunate to have
numerous intact historic structures, many of
which are well-maintained. Over the years
though, some of the buildings have been
updated with new or restored facades, while
others have been less well maintained. It
is important that all frontages along Main
Street be preserved or enhanced and main-
tained, in order to retain and strengthen
the quality historic character of the district.
Facades that cover or obscure the original
structure or detailing should be removed.
The Downtown Partnership and the City of
Bozeman should start a grant and technical
assistance program to help shopkeepers
and business owners with these restora-
tions. The City of Bozeman is encouraged
to support any such program by offering
incentives like expedited approval.
The City of Billings has been very success-
ful in encouraging the renovation of facades
and buildings through grant programs.
One program offers funding for design as-
sistance. Another provides financing for
improvements
This historic brick facade was covered with additional brick work.
While the business provides a useful service to the neighborhood, the fa-cade doesn’t do much for the character of Main Street.
The Ellen Theatre is an excellent ex-ample of preservation and restoration.
The modern renovation to this facade complements the existing style and structure well.
The US Bank building was at one time a structure similar to the Baxter Hotel or The Bozeman, but has been com-pletely covered. The original windows are still intact behind the black glass paneling .
Large, opaque, dome awnings obscure historic details, as well as windows and entrances. Less bulky awnings are en-couraged. Refer to the Secretary of Interior’s Historic Guidelines for guid-ance.
C R E A T E A U N I Q U E P L A C E
415
31
Historic Main Street has many building signs
that likely date back to the early decades of
the 20th Century. These signs help to tell
the story of Bozeman, as well as add to the
pedestrian environment and interest on the
street. Bozeman should encourage the pres-
ervation of historic signs, as well as encour-
age new and unique pedestrian scale signs.
New and historic signs add to the vibrancy
of Main Street as a place to shop, browse,
work or play. In some cases historic repro-
ductions or representations of original signs
may be appropriate.
Artistry, detail and even playfulness should
be encouraged in new signs to promote
energy and activity in the pedestrian en-
vironment. The existing sign code for the
downtown district should be reviewed to
determine whether unique sign designs are
being unnecessarily curtailed, or whether in-
centives could be offered for unusual graph-
ic design.
SIGNAGE PRESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT
C R E A T E A U N I Q U E P L A C E
416
32
C R E A T E A U N I Q U E P L A C E
S t r a t e g i e s
Many cities provide technical assistance grants
for renovation and preservation. The grants can
be used by property owners, developers or ten-
ants, to hire technical advisors to help them with
studies, improvements, and other types of as-
sistance. The City of Bozeman and the Down-
town Bozeman Partnership should consider
implementing financial and technical assistance
programs within the Downtown Plan area for fa-
cade improvements.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS The City of Billings Montana has implemented a Technical
Assistance Bank, overseen by the Downtown Billings Part-
nership. The program provides up to 70 hours of consul-
tant time for such services as:
Facade improvement assistance
Feasibility studies
Preliminary building assessment
Restoration and renovation opinions
Renovation and reuse studies
Site selection assistance
Landscape/Hardscape Improvements
and Code analysis
Design and construction work is not eligible for assistance
through this grant, but is eligible through the facade im-
provement grant.
In 2006 the Billings TIF awarded $44,500 in Technical
Assistance grants which resulted in $356,000 in private
investment. This represents a return of $8 of private invest-
ment for every assistance dollar awarded.
The Billings Facade Improvement Grant is also overseen
by the Downtown Billings Partnership and is intended to
assist in the maintenance and reuse of buildings in the
downtown area and to “encourage a higher level of qual-
ity and design.” In order to be eligible for the grant monies
the facade improvements must support the Billings Frame-
work Plan.
B I L L I N G S M O N T A N AT E C H N I C A L A S S I S T A N C E B A N K
B I L L I N G S M O N T A N A F A C A D E I M P R O V E M E N T G R A N T
417
33
C R E A T E A U N I Q U E P L A C E
EMPHASIZE “LOCAL AND UNIQUE”
The City of Bozeman was first settled in 1864, and by
the end of the year, a hotel, and a smattering of cab-
ins and shops lined the wagon trail that is now Main
Street. Many of those buildings remain today and
local businesses still persist. Additionally, downtown
Bozeman has strong roots in culture and community
that started with opera houses and festivals and con-
tinue today with the Downtown Art Walks, Emerson
Cultural Center, the recent revitalization of the Ellen
Theatre, and numerous galleries and artists. All of
this is tucked into a breathtaking natural setting with
virtually limitless opportunities for recreation. These
characteristics should be highlighted and emphasized
through preservation, architecture, art, and urban de-
sign, and made accessible to the public through their
integration with the downtown public realm
One of the positive attributes of Downtown Bozeman
is that it attracts a wide variety of locally-owned,
family-owned businesses, some of which have been
in the community for decades. There are no national
brands, fast food places, or large consumers of floor
space. Instead, are small businesses that each pro-
vide their own individualized style of merchandising
and service. This is reflected in interesting storefronts,
unique signs, well-maintained facades, and many
indications of a place being cared for. This is what
distinguishes downtown Bozeman from other retail
areas and, indeed, from other downtowns.
418
34
S T R E N G T H E N D O W N T O W N B U S I N E S S E S
S t r a t e g i e s
ATTRACTING START-UPS
The community needs to find ways to build upon the strength by
nurturing start-up businesses. Some of these might be users of office
space such as high tech firms. Others
might be seedling retailers who could
eventually grow into larger spaces.
The City could offer incentives to
attract these businesses, or even offer
inexpensive space to operate. Some
existing structures in downtown could
be adapted to provide smaller spaces.
Or new structures could be built with
basic, loft-like spaces for start-ups.
The idea would be to let them grow, get
familiar with being downtown and then help them find other spaces
in buildings above shops. This is not unlike how the Emerson Arts
Center functions: small spaces at reasonable rates.
BUILDING OFFICE SPACES
Although this plan places great emphasis upon providing housing
within the downtown, it is also important to make sure that space
for office users is available. While many office users are small and
can fit into existing buildings, some are not. It is useful for the City to
look at properties that can accommodate new buildings with larger
footprints. One possibility is to encourage this type of development
in the East and West Gateway districts, or on a City owned lot
Downtown. If the latter is done, it would be an excellent opportunity
to make full use of the parking garage and could provide an income
stream to help cover the facility’s operating costs.
DECREASE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
FOR OFFICE USE
Just as high parking ratios are an impediment to building housing
downtown, so are they for office users. Again, downtowns attract
workers who live nearby and can walk or bike. Others take transit.
Bozeman is investing in transit precisely to alter the mode split of
travel patterns. So it makes little sense to continue requiring parking
ratios closer to what one sees in outlying areas. But an automatic,
across the board reduction might not be the only method. Some cities
have allowed reductions when a developer or user submits evidence
of a “parking management program” which involves escalating
fees for parkers, providing transit passes, or preferential spaces
for carpools, or shared cars for daytime use. The current parking
requirement seems to be standing in the way of attracting some
potential office users and should be lowered. The recommended “as
of right” requirement should be reduced to 2 parking stalls / 1000 sf.
ELIMINATE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL RETAILERS
Within a downtown like Bozeman’s, with a “tight pack” of historic
buildings, it is almost impossible for small businesses to provide for
parking on site. In fact, this would be largely undesirable because it
would carve up potential buildings and leave “missing teeth” in the
streetscape. As it is, the parking standards are producing large fields
of asphalt on the streets parallel and perpendicular to Main, which
is detracting from income and tax revenue streams by keeping land
in unproductive use. It also creates
a moat around the downtown core.
Parking requirements should be
eliminated for any retail or food/drink
establishment for the first 3000 sf of
floor area. This will require a method
to ensure that on-street parking
spaces are available for customers
and workers should not be allowed
to occupy these spaces.
EFFECTIVELY MANAGE PARKING
Parking plays a role in every aspect of downtown. Cooperative ef-
forts should be made to maintain the availability of convenient
public parking for customers, employees, and visitors throughout
the downtown district. The variety of public parking resources—on-
street spaces, surface lots, and the Bridger Park Garage—should be
419
35
S T R E N G T H E N D O W N T O W N B U S I N E S S E S
managed and maintained to provide a flexible assortment of parking
options for all downtown patrons.
The Bozeman Parking Commission, in coordination with the Down-
town Bozeman Partnership, should conduct regular parking studies
determine and track the inventory of on-street, surface and structured
parking spaces in addition usage patterns and trends. Periodically,
the Parking Commission
and Downtown Partner-
ship should consult with
the business and prop-
erty owners to discuss
anticipated future park-
ing demand and parking
management strategies.
The public parking lots
should be enhanced with
pedestrian scale lighting, way-finding signage, and aesthetic ele-
ments such as screening and landscaping. These improvements were
proposed in the 1998 MAKERS Plan but have yet to be implemented.
Public parking inventory, the 2-hour free spaces both on-street and
in the public lots, must be managed for customer and visitor use.
Business employees, owners, and residents should be encouraged,
and perhaps incentivized, to utilize one of the many leased parking
options downtown, including spaces in the public lots and the Bridger
Park Garage.
The 2-hour free parking spaces in downtown necessitate enforcing
the rules. Effective parking management involves enforcing the rules
while promoting downtown as a friendly place to shop, live, work and
do business. A primary role of all parking employees operating in
the downtown district should be to serve as ambassadors that are
knowledgeable about downtown and helpful to citizens and visitors.
When performing enforcement duties, parking staff should be
empowered to exercise good judgment and common sense.
The following is an excerpt from the 1998 Downtown Bozeman
Improvement Plan—the MAKERS Plan.
Parking Lot Improvements
Upgrade public parking areas with the following improvements:
• Seal coat, reconfigure, and restripe existing parking areas.
• Install landscape buffers and planting areas where appropriate,
including along Bozeman Creek.
• Upgrade security lighting for late afternoon and evening users.
• Improve access signage for new customer convenience.
• Add new, secure bicycle parking lockers in selected lots.
• Plan for artwork and possible footprint inlays to designate
public parking.
• Improve parking-lot-to-Main Street access.
420
36
S T R E N G T H E N D O W N T O W N B U S I N E S S E S
S t r a t e g i e s
CAPITALIZE ON BOZEMAN AS
A REGIONAL HUB
Downtown benefits greatly from the fact that Bozeman serves as
a regional service and educational hub in addition to a national
tourism destination. Bozeman’s proximity to three national parks
(Yellowstone, Grand Teton and Glacier) and three downhill ski areas
(Bridger Bowl, Big Sky and Moonlight Basin) brings considerable
economic activity to the area. Institutions such as Montana State
University and Bozeman Deaconess Hospital function as significant
economic engines for the community.
The Downtown Partnership should develop a strategic plan to
capitalize on the regional and national economic drivers unique to
Bozeman. This might include implementing a comprehensive local
and regional way-finding sign plan. Such a plan could consider a
creative marketing strategy that would not only target local residents
but also regional visitors.
As a side note, much can be learned by analyzing the best and worst
practices of downtowns similar to Bozeman’s such as Ketchum, ID;
Burlington, VT; Boulder, CO; and Missoula, MT.
COORDINATE INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS
While reliable and safe core infrastructure is critical for redevelopment,
the disruption of maintenance and improvements cost businesses
losses of revenue. Considerable time and effort should be invested
to balance the need for infrastructure work and the resulting
disruptions. To this end, public works and utility infrastructure should
be assessed and a comprehensive maintenance and upgrade plan
should be devised. All parties should regularly coordinate efforts to
minimize construction and disruption in the downtown core.
The Downtown Partnership, as the representative of business
and property interests, should play an active role in the planning
of infrastructure projects. The City of Bozeman should consider
higher standards for
infrastructure integrity and
upgrades for downtown
as extra expense may be
justified to preserve and
enhance the community’s
historic core.
POSSIBLE
CONFERENCE
CENTER
Few investments stimulate a local economy over the long term as
much as conference centers do. In fact, its somewhat curious that
Bozeman does not already have such a center, given its national
reputation. It is also noted that the city does not have a “first class”
hotel. Unfortunately, this class of hotel often only comes to a
community if there is a high quality meeting facility. Occasionally,
conference centers are tied to a hotel and they are built as a
package. But since this means it is a for-profit business, all users of
the center must pay full-price for use. Often, communities see the
value in helping fund such a center so that local, non-profit and civic
groups can make use of it on a reduced-fee basis. In such centers,
421
37
S T R E N G T H E N D O W N T O W N B U S I N E S S E S
there is usually one large space that is designed for larger events
such as banquets, big celebrations, and important civic events. In a
sense, many conference centers are not unlike community centers
in which something interesting is happening all day and evening –
every day. And that is precisely how the successful ones operate:
with a continual mix of private and public events – sometimes even
at the same time in side-by-side spaces. Furthermore, such centers
attract user groups from a wide region, business and professional
organizations book them on a cyclical basis over years – assuring
a continual income. Most communities also recognize that visitors
to conference centers spend hundreds of dollars every day they are
in town, using restaurants, hotels, shops, and other attractions. The
result, in terms of business income and tax revenue, typically offsets
any initial public investment within a few years. The City should
explore the market demand and economic feasibility of a conference
center, as many other communities have done. It also appears that
the City’s room hotel room/bed tax could be increased to be more
consistent with the other communities; the resulting income stream
could help fund not only this study, but an eventual center.
A conference center could also be a joint effort between the City,
MSU, and Deaconess Hospital. In that way, multiple sources of
funding could be used, and a wide range of users would be attracted.
“BOUTIQUE” HOTEL
In some ways it is surprising that a community of Bozeman’s stature
does not already have a small 50-80 room, “four star” hotel. The
university, the hospital and other corporate entities report that such
a hotel is needed for many types of visitors. One impediment, as
indicated above, is that often such hotels want to see a conference
center they can use or at least plans to build one in the near future.
But other impediments may exist as well. A highly visible, well-located
property of sufficient size may be hard to find. Required parking might
be a barrier. Or even height limits could be a factor, as views are often
a consideration. Often communities will actively solicit proponents
of such hotels, offering them assistance with aspects that may be
preventing the development. It is recommended that the City or the
TIF District fund a study of the feasibility and possible sites for
such a hotel and explore financing and property assembly options.
The addition of a conference center or hotel to downtown Bozeman
will require a more detailed study to help determine the size,
location and form most appropriate for the current and projected
market demands.
422
38
A D O P T A C O D E U N I Q U E T O D O W N T O W N
S t r a t e g i e s
DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
The City should adopt a set of regulations that are tailored to down-
town and the various districts that are suggested. But first, the very
nomenclature should change. Rather than having merely a “B-3”
designation, which might be anywhere, the word “Downtown” should
be used in all titles. This indicates its importance, that downtown is
different than any other part of the community, and that totally differ-
ent methods and standards will be used.
Basic development standards, such as building heights, minimum
and maximum FAR, and parking requirements, should be consid-
ered “entitlements” that are not subject to modification by the City
Commission. They should be presented clearly as measurable
regulations used in a predictable review process to meet the de-
sired urban form. Design standards and guidelines should supple-
ment these basic standards and are best written in a way that offers
choices and allows for projects that are innovative, creative, and of
superior design as individual buildings while also contributing to a
cohesive Downtown district.
BUILDING HEIGHTS
This plan does not recommend any changes to allowable height for
downtown districts. However, a new code should consider reducing
heights for some small distance where a downtown district abuts a
single family district. This is a common technique used in many cit-
ies to ensure a comfortable transition from greater intensity to lower
intensity. The horizontal dimension for this transition might be in the
range of 50 to 100 feet and the height might be equivalent to what
is allowed in the residential district or perhaps slightly higher. There
also might be additional screening requirements. The City might also
consider allowing additional height to developments in downtown if
it provides an extraordinary item of public benefit that involves extra
cost, such as a live theatre, public meeting rooms, a public park, a
high level of sustainable features, or if it has unique functional re-
quirements. Downtown Bozeman already has a few buildings that
exceed the current height limits and they serve as landmarks. It is
also a common device not to allow new development within a down-
town to compete with long-standing landmark structures.
MIX OF USES
Beyond the naming, the regulations should reflect a very different
approach than is typically used for zoning regulations. First, since
all downtown districts are intended to allow a mixture of uses, there
is little point to having a long list of permitted and conditional uses.
With a handful of exceptions (e.g. storage yards), every use should
be allowed – especially if they are contained within buildings. Down-
towns typically accommodate the widest range of uses and so long
as standards are being met, there should be no special permitting
process other than design review to ensure compliance with such
standards.
FLOOR AREA RATIO
The development community has a terminology that is well-ac-
cepted throughout North America. That is Floor Area Ratio or FAR.
Although sounding complicated, it is not. It is simply a factor that,
when multiplied by the lot size, gives an immediate indication of
yield in square feet. Many cities, particularly in their downtowns, use
FAR because developers want to know the basic yield on a site so
they can do necessary financing pro-formas. Floor Area Ratios are
not discretionary; they are contained in the basic code and provide
a certainty to investors and even the public as to what can be built in
a given district. It is also possible to vary FAR’s by different districts
423
39
A D O P T A C O D E U N I Q U E T O D O W N T O W N
and to set up an “incentive system” so that added FAR is granted if
public amenities are provided. FAR and associated bonus systems
are increasingly used to guide development in downtown areas. For
a downtown of the size, nature, and development pattern of Boze-
man’s, floor area ratios in the range of 3.5 to 5.0 (not including park-
ing) are recommended depending on the district. The transition areas
in the outer edges of downtown may have lower FARs. Development
standards should include a minimum FAR to ensure that new devel-
opment achieves a building form and level of intensity appropriate to
a downtown setting.
PARKING STANDARDS
One of the aspects of the current code is that relatively high parking
ratios are required. This factor adds significant costs to new develop-
ment – both as a result of expensive structured parking and because
a “cash in lieu” is frequently triggered. Many downtowns across the
country have no parking requirements, others have reduced them
dramatically, and still others have low requirements for commercial
and none for residential. Even some have maximum parking stan-
dards that are quite low. Currently, the parking requirements in the
code present a real limitation on development intensity, which is not
the purpose of parking standards. Moreover, it is widely recognized
that accommodating automobile storage for every use does not make
economic or fiscal sense for downtowns, since many customers walk
in, bike, take transit, or park once in shared lots or garages and then
walk to multiple destinations. The City should also seriously consider
eliminating the “cash in lieu” provision altogether, as it – by itself – is
presenting a barrier to downtown development. At the very least the
parking requirement for downtown should be reduced to one parking
stall per unit for residential, two stalls per 1000 sq ft of office, with no
parking requirement for the first 3000 sq ft of retail and restaurant
spaces.
PARK FEE
It is very unusual for development within any downtown to be charged
a fee for parks. This is for several reasons. First, parkland is most
usually needed on the outer edge of a community where families
with children are settling. Downtowns do not typically attract that de-
mographic and thus if development is charged such a fee, in a
sense it is subsidizing edge development. This is contrary to plan-
ning principles involving infill. Second, downtowns usually already
have, or are close to, existing parks with sufficient capacity for
more use; rarely are entirely new parks needed. Finally, the people
who live in, work in, and visit downtowns use public space differ-
ently. They tend to use the sidewalks, cafes and coffeehouses for
relaxing, passive recreation and socializing. In some ways parks
are superfluous.
We recommend this fee be specifically dedicated to the downtown
district and used as a funding source for the “green” strategies
outlined in this plan; improving sidewalks, greening streets and al-
leys, creating small parks along Bozeman Creek, and creating or
improving other public spaces and facilities within the downtown.
DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
It is vitally important that downtown development be guided by a
sound set of design standards and guidelines. Downtown is cur-
rently governed by a set of guidelines, but these are principally
applicable to the core and not other ar-
eas. A set of standards and guidelines
should be created to help inform new
development outside of historic Main
Street. Some should be numerical and
fixed (such as set-to lines, heights, up-
per level step-backs, and requirements
for storefront windows.). But most can
be descriptive and inspirational and
use graphics to explain (such as en-
couraging overhead canopies, artful
signs, rich details, etc.) These need
not be onerous or lengthy but should
be displayed in a concise, highly-illustrated, user-friendly docu-
ment. Finally, by their very nature, design guidelines (in contrast to
standards) are intended to allow flexibility and choices, producing
many different solutions, so long as their intent is fulfilled.
424
40
C U L T I V A T E E F F E C T I V E L E A D E R S H I P
A N D P A R T N E R I N G
S t r a t e g i e s
A STRATEGIC PLAN AND COMMITTED
LEADERSHIP
Bozeman has already made progress on at least one of the most
important requirements for great downtowns—it has a plan, now in your hands.
Now, the City needs to be sure that its leaders—including elected
leaders, business executives, nonprofit managers, and active citi-
zens of all stripes—get behind it and work to see that its strategic
goals are implemented in the days and years to come.
A strategic plan recognizes that some things will change. Not every
recommendation or prediction made here will take place exactly as
envisioned—and that’s okay. There is both great value and danger
in the details that inform a strategic plan. One danger is that the
details drag all stakeholders down into debates about the minutia—
for example, details in the zoning code or the precise number of
housing units that will be built by 2030. A strategic plan, on the
other hand, is about the big picture, and staying true to the vision
is of the utmost importance. For this plan, the big picture is about
Making a Great Place. This big goal is reinforced by 12 Guiding
Principles on pp. 12 and 13 that will steer more specific actions.
Committed leadership is essential in order for this plan to succeed
and maintain and grow Bozeman’s healthy, vibrant downtown.
Downtown must be a priority for the City Commission and other
key public bodies that support the commission. Downtown’s status
as a priority should be reflected in attention to the redevelopment
of key sites, funding allocation, marketing and public outreach,
streetscape and infrastructure improvements, attention to more
specific planning efforts that will deal with parking, transportation,
individual sites, and more. The best downtowns are a source of
pride for citizens, mayors, and city commissioners, who are their
most visible advocates.
SIMPLIFYING THE DECISION-MAKING
PROCESS
One of the barriers to downtown development may be the process
of reviewing and making decisions on development proposals. Fre-
quently, projects being reviewed are seeking multiple “deviations”
from the code and that triggers review by advisory boards, public
hearings, and even City Commission involvement.
Any City that desires to see its downtown develop must offer a clear
and smooth decision-making process for projects. And such a pro-
cess cannot trigger uncertainties caused by political considerations.
Confusing or unpredictable review processes can deter new devel-
opment from occurring.
The City should restructure its review and decision-making
procedures. All development proposals should be reviewed admin-
istratively with advice, if needed or required, by appointed bodies
having specified expertise such as the Design Review Board. Minor
deviations should be able to be reviewed and approved (or not)
administratively. Only major deviations should require scrutiny by
boards. If more than one board is involved, there should be a con-
solidated review including representatives form both groups. This
avoids a proponent receiving conflicting directions. The City Com-
mission should rely upon its fine professional staff and skilled boards
to make development decisions.
The test of any review should be: “Does it comply with adopted City
standards?” Project design should not be subject to widely varying
personal opinions. The standards should be adopted by the City
Commission, upon recommendation by an appointed body such as
the Planning Board or DRB. The standards must be carefully crafted
to reflect community concerns such as quality and compatibility with
adjacent, existing development. The review of a specific project
is not the time to debate these; the issue during review should be
whether the project comports with current standards.
It is possible that one reason that many projects seek deviations is
that the current standards do not reflect building forms and dimen-
sions commonly associated with contemporary development. As
425
41
indicated elsewhere in this plan, standards for downtown buildings
outside of the historic commercial core should be developed to al-
low modern forms of residential and mixed-use development and not
attempt to recreate older patterns as is more appropriate within the
core.
The review process must be objective, open, and offer ample no-
tice to affected and interested parties. The standards must be clear
and available for anyone to read and see how the project complies.
There could be improvements to public notice, such as erecting a
very prominent sign that announces the application and gives perti-
nent information and contacts. It should be noted that the recently
completed economic development plan contains similar recommen-
dations
KEYS TO EFFECTIVE PUBLIC-PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIPS
Public-private partnerships (PPP) are an important tool that have
been used to advance downtown revitalization efforts in cities across
the country, by combining the individual strengths of the public and
private sectors. Partnerships have produced breakthrough, catalyst
real estate developments in a wide range of locales—from small
town downtowns up to the nation’s biggest urban centers. Typically,
public sector strengths—such as leadership, advocacy, convening,
planning, infrastructure investment, and more—are combined with
private sector strengths—such as site-specific design, real estate
development, market analysis, and financing—to produce a deal that
delivers both public benefits and a reasonable return on investment.
Although this section applies mostly to Partnerships in an urban real
estate development context, there are many other types of partner-
ships, such as ones that build infrastructure or build organizations.
For example, the Downtown Bozeman Partnership can be consid-
ered a PPP, since it brings together contributions of time, effort,
and funding from both public and private sources.
Public-private partnerships are important to this plan and the long-
term success of downtown Bozeman for the following reasons.
Public-private partnerships:
• Implement the vision. The additional development envisioned
as part of this plan—including new housing, office, hotel, retail,
and other uses—will only take place if private investment is
attracted to supplement public efforts.
• Provide community amenities beyond a single project. While
individual projects serve their residents and users, they also
build a better downtown by including community amenities
such as plazas, fountains, improved streetscapes, and active
retail facades.
• Allow the City and other public sector partners to strategically
target and leverage their funds. No city has enough funds to
implement all its visions. Thus, cities seek to strategically direct
public funds to the sites and uses that will leverage the most
private investment. Over the course of a multi-phase down-
town redevelopment, the ratio of public to private dollars will
ideally be in the range of 1 public for 4 or 5 private dollars. The
investment leverage realized on individual projects, however,
varies widely depending on levels of risk, scale, and more.
• Help to manage public and private risk and enhance project
feasibility. For the public sector, partnerships increase the
likelihood that projects will be attractive, and built and man-
aged at a high quality. For the private sector, they mitigate
risk associated with project approvals, funding, and political
barriers. Public-private partnerships can enable projects that
would not otherwise be built, accelerate investment timelines,
and overcome the five types of development barriers: physical,
market, financial, regulatory, and political.
426
42
M O V E T O W A R D A S U S T A I N A B L E C I T Y C E N T E R
S t r a t e g i e s
• Low Impact Development (LID). Bozeman is currently
in the process of adopting LID regulations. Green Infra-
structure and Green Streets can serve as the foundation
for future development downtown, and a key contributor
to community development. Innovative approaches, such
as porous pavement, rain gardens, reduced hardscape
and preserved native vegetation can protect water re-
sources, restore the urban forest, and promote sustain-
able design in the public realm.
• Integrate into Development Regulations.
• Removing barriers to sustainable development,
such as excessive parking requirements for
mixed-use development, is a first step to enabling
sustainable development to occur.
• Consider allowing demonstration projects that
provide model development techniques and
showcase new green building technologies
• Provide incentives, such as FAR bonuses for
LEED silver or gold certification
• Consider new approaches to requirements, such
as landscaping and incentives for adapative
reuse, in ways to better meet sustainability goals
and policies.
• Encourage higher residential densities downtown.
• Livable and Complete Streets to safely accommodate all
users of all ages – pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and
transit riders. In some cases, street standards and poli-
cies would likely need to be revised.
STRATEGIES FOR INCORPORATING SUSTAINABILITY
427
43
M O V E T O W A R D A S U S T A I N A B L E C I T Y C E N T E R
CREATING A SUSTAINABLE DOWNTOWN
Above all, this plan for downtown Bozeman is intended to ensure
that it is sustainable over the long term. A truly sustainable place
requires attention to three spheres of activity equally and at the
same time: environmental sustainability, economic sustainability,
and social sustainability – an approach that is sometimes referred
to as the “triple bottom line.” The plan addresses all three subjects
and establishes clear and explicit directions -- some dramatic,
some less so. They require a wide range of stakeholders, includ-
ing the City, the Downtown Bozeman Partnership, property own-
ers, merchants, and even residents to accomplish; no one person
or group can do it all.
These elements – environmental, economic and social – are also
intertwined. For example, recommended changes to traffic patterns
and street design affect the microclimate, livability and pedestrian
appeal, the marketability of properties, and ultimately tax revenues
resulting from new development occurring in a more accommoda-
tive setting. No one recommendation stands on its own, but ac-
complishes multiple objectives. Choosing to not pursue such a di-
rection would affect many other aspects of downtown and threaten
its sustainability.
Downtown Bozeman is an amazing place. It is cared for, revered
and valued by many individuals and organizations. This plan will
strengthen its unique place in the community and the region and
will carry it well into the Twenty First Century. The Plan will allow
downtown to flourish and attain an even deeper diversity and vital-
ity over the next several decades.
428
44
N E X T S T E P S
The “Next Steps and Top Priorities” described on the following page
were developed by the consultant team and the Downtown Boze-
man Partnership to help guide the users of this document through
the process of accomplishing the strategies and recommendations
outlined in this improvement plan. This list should be reviewed and
discussed by the City of Bozeman, the downtown community, and
stakeholders, to confirm the priority established for these objectives.
Successful downtowns have multiple projects and programs occur-
ring at the same time. Some are short in duration, others require
more time and consideration. Pursuing a number of actions simul-
taneously can help ensure a positive outcome.
PRELIMINARY NEXT STEPS
• Adopt the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan
• Establish Technical Assistance Programs
Finalize TIF programs providing financial and technical
assistance for complete redevelopment project analysis
and façade improvements.
• Prepare Code Revisions
Initiate UDO modifications regarding: parking regulations;
design guidelines; and development regulations
and entitlements.
• Parking Study/Analysis
Conduct regular parking studies determine and track the
inventory of on-street, surface and structured parking
spaces in addition usage patterns and trends.
• Perform a Downtown Success Audit
A Downtown Audit examines the economic health of down-
town, both from an income/cost perspective and a tax
revenue perspective. It looks at vacancies, mix of tenan-
cies, “missing” businesses, and ways to specifically support
various market sectors.
• Create “Greening Downtown” Plan
Better identify opportunities to green the alleys, establish
pocket parks, and enhance Bozeman Creek.
• Implement the Downtown Streetscape Project
Complete the plans to make the following improvements
along the side streets between Church and Grand Avenues:
install new sidewalks, street lamps, pedestrian benches,
trash receptacles, and bicycle racks.
• Initiate Exploration of Possible Development Sites
Identify specific properties and evaluate the uses that
could likely be marketed on them. Begin to seek out
development companies and financial institutions that
could take on projects of varying types and sizes. Begin
discussions with the City on the potential disposition of
parcels they currently own.
• Analyze Traffic Calming Methods
Full Cost and Benefit study: social, economic, and
traffic considerations for one-way street conversion,
shared lanes, streetscape improvements, and truck
route modifications.
429
45
N E X T S T E P S
Objective Completion
Goals
Lead Entity Potential Partners Nature of Objective
Adopt Downtown
Improvement Plan
November 2009 City of Bozeman Downtown Partnership Administrative
Establish Technical
Assistance Programs
November 2009 Downtown Partnership Administrative & Financial
(TIF Funding approved)
Prepare and Adopt
Code Revisions
January 2010
July 2011
City of Bozeman Downtown Partnership Administrative
(COB staff time)
Parking January 2010 Bozeman Parking
Commission
Review/Approval
Process
June 2010 Economic Development
Advisory Board
Design Standards July 2011
Conduct Downtown
Success Audit
January 2010
(repeat annually)
Downtown Partnership Montana State University
City of Bozeman
Administrative
Conduct Parking
Inventory/Use Study
March 2010
June 2010
Parking Commission Downtown Partnership Financial & Administrative
(prepared by consultants)
Prepare “Green
Downtown” Plan
January 2011 Downtown Partnership Gallatin Valley Land
Trust
Financial & Administrative
(prepared by consultants)
Implement
Streetscape Project
Ongoing Downtown Partnership City of Bozeman Administrative & Financial
(may require future SID)
Explore Public-Private
Partnerships
Ongoing Downtown Partnership
and City of Bozeman
Administrative & Financial
(may involve consultants)
Develop Traffic
Calming and
Streetscape Projects
Ongoing
January 2012
Downtown Partnership
and City of Bozeman
Western Transportation
Institute
Financial & Administrative
NEXT STEPS MATRIX
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan
Draft Release Comments
June 2009
Keri Thorpe
thorpe_22@hotmail.com
I like the suggestions for alleys: adding vegetation and enhancing the alleys for courtyard and pedes-
trian use are great ideas, but keep in mind, the garbage has to be collected somewhere...hopefully
creative solutions are already in practice elsewhere.
The idea of sharrows for bicyclists down Main Street is a good idea since bicyclists can’t ride on the
sidewalks. These sharrows should connect to bike lanes on either end.
I LIKE that Mendenhall and Babcock are one-way. To bypass the congestion of downtown (especially
if a sharrow is installed), these street are great options.
Downtown, including Mendenhall, doesn’t have a pedestrian connectivity problem. I walk these
streets almost daily. I certainly don’t feel that Mendenhall is a “chasm”. It needs some enhancements,
but doesn’t need to be made a two-way street (Babcock either).
Hauling snow out of downtown and off Mendenhall and Babcock more frequently would greatly im-
prove pedestrican circulation around downtown during the winter. Snow, slush, ice and enormous
puddles are the more frequent obstacles for walkers.
Greg Neil
gneil@1stwestinsurance.com
Sounds like a well thought out plan. I don’t see any reason why the public would not be in favor of
implementing a structure focused on improving our downtown in a responsible fashion.
Chris Pope
cspope@mac.com
Just a quick comment: could/would you be able to recommend ideas on how to manage through the
transition period, assuming some of these ideas become accepted into the City plan/code. The inter-
est here is one of timing: if a project comes to the City in the next month, are there ways to connect a
project to a potential future zone or code change so that the project enjoys a potential benefit, but not
at the expense of having to be delayed while the City goes through the formal process of reviewing
and adopting these initiatives.
Doug Wales
dw@bridgerbowl.com
No question that a healthy downtown is in the best interest of our entire community.
I think that it is important that while we make improvements, we work hard at preserving our historical
buildings and retain as much of our heritage as possible. The armory is a prime example of a building
that needs to be preserved. We don’t want to become a cookie cutter downtown with “anywhere-ville”
445
architecture.
I would strongly encourage the Bozeman City Commission to pass a resolution requiring infill before
allowing any new development. San Louis Obispo, CA requires new businesses to use previous com-
mercial space for any new businesses before they allow them to break new ground. This is a must
for Bozeman or we will forever have this ever expanding development quandary.
I’m glad to hear that the One Way streets would go away. The project was never completed in the
first place, and it puts a real strain on small residential streets like Lamme that can’t accommodate
through traffic.
Though the North 7th project is technically separate from this DIP, I think that both plans need to work
simultaneously and in concert with one another. So much of this is traffic flow related as well as the
multi-use residential/business development needs to happen between Main and Tammarack. Again,
restoring two way streets on Mendenhall and Babcock would provide for better flow for pedestrians,
bikes, cars and ultimately business in that whole zone.
Thanks for all your good work.
Dave Berghold
dave@lastwindup.com
Hello D.B.P.,
I’ve read the majority of the Improvement Plan and I would like to thank all who were involved... there
are some very good idea.
My comments to follow elaborate or enhance your plan.
1. Hotel and conference center DOWNTOWN! There is not one good place to host folks coming
from out of the area to stay for a conference that is DOWNTOWN. If they stay out on No. 19th or No.
7th, that’s were they are likely to shop and eat. Not to coin the saying... but if you build it, they will
come..... DOWNTOWN! A viable place is where it was proposed a couple of years ago and never
came to fruition... at the old Kenyon Noble store between Black and Tracy. This would further the ex-
pansion of Downtown in the N/S direction as per my next point.
2. The alley-ways between Main and Babcock and Main and Mendenhall should be for pedestrian
foot traffic only. It would take some doing, but to make the alley a potential venue of walking traffic
only, it would open up an entire new avenue for business owners to offer their customers. The eater-
ies, coffee shops, subdivided smaller shops, outdoor seating would all entice a lot more business to
downtown. It would also increase the N/S streets potential for business opportunities. A little more
green, public benches, etc... would expand the area of downtown not just to the east west direction,
but and north south. The delivery trucks (which already block traffic in the alleys) should be given one
slot on the N/S streets (both sides) to park for their deliveries. No more blocking the alleys.
3. I-90..... For as long as I’ve been in Bozeman (1990), I didn’t understand why we could allow 18
wheelers to be using our downtown Main Street for part of their route. Get Main Street Bozeman back
to Bozeman so that we can determine its own destiny. Also, I’m in agreement with making Babcock
446
and Mendenhall two way streets.... Currently, these are streets that let one “avoid” downtown, the
lights, traffic, and a main street with no center turn lane.
4. There are signs (and very generic ones too) at the entrance ramps coming into Bozeman that of-
fer hotels that are available, eateries, etc.... Why is there nothing about downtown businesses, other
than “Welcome to Bozeman”? Do we want to be “promoting” Day’s Inn, Motel 6 and McD. or the small
independent business that really make a town like Bozeman unique? Put up a larger sign that would
feature 6-10 downtown shops for a 6 month period... for a fee. The city pays for the space and the
businesses pay for the ad.
I could go on, but I don’t want to muddy the waters too much. There is a lot to be done to bring more
good growth to Bozeman’s downtown and surrounding area.
Having a business on Main Street for nearly 20 years, I’ve seen the changes and seen what could
be done to make the “expansion/improvement” plan. So I am glad that there is at least some good
insight into the potential.... just please, do not under estimate the potential for this town! Don’t build a
road of two lanes when in 5 years it needs 4. And I know that no improvement can be accomplished
overnight, but the planning of some of the improvements can be accomplished so as not to greatly af-
fect the businesses downtown. It seems that for the last 10 years or so, there has been some form of
disruption for Main Street businesses that has caused frustration...some of it justified and some not.
Needless to say, if there are only two seasons in Montana (winter and Construction) then the con-
struction period better be done with speed and integrity in an effort to appease those who are most
likely effected by the process.
Thanks for all of your efforts and I hope that I’ve not over stepped my bounds and that my words are
heard by those who can make the difference.
Regards,
Dave Berghold - The Last Wind-Up
Jon Edwards
jon@schnees.com
Dear Mr. Naumann and the Downtown Bozeman Partnership,
I respectfully urge extreme caution before proceeding to implement any downtown re-development,
re-vitalization, or other similarly denominated effort to “improve” downtown. The draft plan is, in
my opinion, fundamentally flawed. Its introduction proclaims, correctly, that Downtown Bozeman is
“healthy, vibrant, and strong,” and “is looked upon with envy by many communities.” Yet, the plan
thereafter reads like projects I have read for dilapidated downtowns, and areas that are true re-
development projects. Our downtown in Bozeman is fundamentally healthy. It is not East Palo Alto,
East St. Louis, or even Butte or Billings. It is, as your Draft acknowledges, the “envy” of these other
communities. Bozeman is the exception, not the rule. Your Draft pays lip service to this fact, but then
proceeds to ignore it. It says Downtown is vibrant and vital, then proposes a “re-vitalization.” It is a
non-sequitur. “Interested in...walkable, liveable streets?” Yes, and we are fortunate to have them.
Keep Main Street, the side streets, and the alleys open and we have great foot traffic, even if the aes-
thetic may not happen to suit someone’s particular ideal.
Downtown Bozeman is indeed fundamentally healthy, but is also fragile. Your Draft plan is expensive
and enormously risky, and threatens the very viability of Downtown. If you get government and quasi-
447
government meddling around you will run the very serious risk of destroying that which you claim you
are seeking to preserve. When Main Street closes for sidewalk work, re-paving, new signal lights,
work on adjacent alleys, and the like, i.e., necessary albeit relatively routine infrastructure mainte-
nance and upgrades, businesses feel it. When you tackle a larger scale project, such as the parking
garage, the stakes are much higher. For example, Black Street was closed for nearly 2 years during
the construction of the parking garage. Not surprisingly, that construction was not completed on time,
but was many months delayed. (I have seen worse.) It very much remains to be seen whether that
structure will ever compensate for the dramatic loss of business occasioned by its co! nstruction. So
far this summer, the early returns do not look promising. Add an explosion, Yellowstone Club bank-
ruptcy, the worst economy since the Great Depression, and you have the makings of a critical situa-
tion for Downtown businesses. What Downtown needs is not more “projects”, but simply time to heal.
As your plan says, the most important ingredient for the long term prosperity of Downtown Bozeman
is healthy and diverse private business. Large scale, or even modest, “redevelopment” plans, how-
ever well-intentioned, are simply antagonistic to healthy private enterprise. They will be expensive,
fraught with risk, and will inevitably continue the unfortunate series of disruptions that Downtown is
currently fighting to survive.
Assuming your intentions for the true well-being of Downtown Bozeman are genuine, and there are
no hidden agendas or conflicting interests at work here, then I applaud your efforts to help to insure
the CONTINUING vitality of one of the last remaining western downtowns that is truly a survivor of
strip mall, big box mania. Please do not try to re-vitalize that which is already vital. And in any ef-
fort that you may feel will lead to improved conditions downtown, we must carefully take into account
the cost, the risk, the time, and the incremental improvement in the uncertain event that the initiative
proves ultimately to be successful.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. I do appreciate your concern for Downtown,
in which I have invested, and I share your desire to maintain its health. Please keep me informed as
your process proceeds. I would like to participate actively and provide any constructive input that I
could offer.
Regards,
Jon Edwards
Richard Hixson
rhixson@BOZEMAN.NET
Chris, in general I agree with the comments of both Andy and Chris, although I am probably much
less sanguine about eliminating the one-ways than they are. Having read the plan twice and walking
the downtown for the last few weeks with the plan in mind, I simply do not see the barriers the consul-
tant states is formed by Babcock and Mendenhall. Quite the contrary, I see a fairly efficient network
of streets adjacent to which, as is stated in the very first paragraph of this plan, a downtown which “is
looked upon with envy by many communities” has steadily grown and prospered.
I particularly take exception to the text under “North Village: Mendenhall District (Residential Empha-
sis)”. The characterization of “The current state of Mendenhall - narrow sidewalks, no street trees,
flanked with asphalt or dirt parking lots” – is at least overstatement and in the case of street trees,
simply untrue. All you have to do is walk down Mendenhall and you see that these statements are not
accurate. The beginning of this paragraph states that a major impediment to the “North Village” is “the
amount and speed of traffic on Mendenhall.” The speed limit on Mendenhall is 25 mph, the same as a
448
local street, and given the parking on both sides of the street I’d be willing to bet that the 80th percen-
tile speed is very close to that. I don’t think it helps make your point when you have to stretch it that
far.
That being said, if a plan was made based on a detailed study of the effects of changing the one-
ways to two-ways, including the costs and required improvements, and the community endorsed it, I
would do everything I could to help it succeed. I think we are a long way from there at this time.
Thanks for the opportunity to read and comment on the plan. I look forward to the upcoming steps in
the process.
Rick Hixson
City Engineer
Bozeman, Montana
406-582-2280
rhixson@bozeman.net
Andy Epple
aepple@BOZEMAN.NET
Let me start by saying there is a terrific amount of clear visonary language and thought that has gone
into this plan, and I really appreciate that.
When adopted, it will be a valuable supplement to our overall planning program to guide further de-
velopment / re-development of Downtown. I just have a couple of comments to make, in addition to
the ones Chris has made.
1. I think the language in the first bullet under ISSUES, Access and Circulation, on page 10 is worded
a bit too strongly, especially given the (much appreciated) language at the end of the document rec-
ommending a full economic benefit analysis be undertaken before any final decision is made
re: changing the one ways to two-ways. I would suggest the second sentence of that bullet read:
“One-way streets may be making it unnecessarily difficult for cars to move within downtown.” This
slight shift in tone reflects the fact that the “consultant team’s initial experience-based assessment” of
our downtown conditions need further study and analysis to be verified.
2. Similarly, the first sentence of the third full paragraph on page 16 could be worded better for the
same reasons stated above: “However, initial observations reveal there may be one major impedi-
ment to this happening.”
Again, that shift in tone reflects the fact that this notion has not yet been proven in Downtown Boze-
man (through statistically valid surveys, etc.).
I recommend the rest of the language in the paragraph be modified accordingly, to reflect this reality.
3. Under the TRANSFORM ALLEYS section on page 23, I would preface the sentence in the middle
of paragraph that starts with: “The alleys that wrap around Main can be planted with greenery” with
the phrase “Wherever practical”. While it may be possible to transform some of our Downtown alleys
(great idea!), many of them currently play such an import transportation / delivery / utility function I
would avoid making such a blanket statement.
4. Predictably, I would similar suggest that the rhetoric be toned down a bit in the first sentence on
page 30, under CONVERT MENDENHALL AND BABCOCK TO TWO-WAY, TO PERHAPS READ:
“An obstacle to introducing housing to downtown right now may be the one-way streets of Mendenhall
and Babcock.” The implication of my suggestion is that this assertion needs further study and analy-
449
sis for verification. I would suggest editing the rest of the paragraph similarly to hedge the notion a
bit.
Incidentally, Rick Hixson and I have spoken extensively about converting the one-ways to two-ways.
While we see no empirical evidence to support the notion, we have no intention of trying to thwart any
community effort to do so. If the citizens and elected officials feel it would be in the best interest of
everyone to do so, we will embrace the concept and make it work.
I just feel that we should determine if that’s truly the will of the people, and fully investigate the cost /
benefits of doing so, before concluding absolutely it’s the correct thing to do in our unique downtown.
I hope you and the consultant team will consider making these changes. But regardless, I am very
eager to hear the public comments on the document, see it adopted in a form that the City Commis-
sion is comfortable with, and then implement it.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment, and great job on the overall document!
Andy Epple
Director Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman
Christopher Wardle
cwardle@bozemanwatch.com
I took the liberty to meet with a man Ted Fuller, who has been a major land holder in Birmingham,
MI for 35 plus years. He has been individually instrumental in the restructuring and recovery of our
upscale down town. He is quite familiar with plans like the one provided recently. I have asked him to
review it and he is happy to do so for me as a favor. I would suggest you Google him.
We had a long conversation covering Birmingham’s developmental history and he mentioned a num-
ber of mistakes made and corrected over the last 30 years. Though there were a number of items
discussed, the ones below did sound with me during our time together.
1. He did mention the importance of parking as an infrastructural component – check to that
2. 1-2 Anchor tenants in both office space and retail – No to that
3. Upscale residential vicinity directly surrounding the down town - No to that
4. Dining brings stroller, stroller bring shopping, shopping brings more stable tenants. - No to that
5. Michigan Liquor Control Commission enacted a “Bistro” license which is like a mini license,
less expensive but provides protections for Large license holders.
6. The City of Birmingham now allows at its own end to honor other city licenses within the county
owned to be brought in and used. So the parallel in Montana, someone owned a Gallatin Gateway
License, they could use it in Bozeman because the city enacted local law to this situation.
These are my initial thoughts after reading the document. I have a number of others that I will save
for another day.
Also, many if not most of the business owners in town have never seen a copy of this document. I
would highly suggest you make sure everyone receives a copy, if you can do it with ferns, you can do
it with this.
By the way, Bend, OR has over 15.1% unemployment right now, mention that to Ellie.
450
Christopher F. Wardle
cwardle@bozemanwatch.com
I appreciate the update and draft plan.
I have had a chance to look through the document and in theory much of it makes sense, however
I have lived in a once thriving, then failing and now recovering small downtown district. Here are a
couple observations if you are interested in perspectives that are not engaged legally, financially or
directly benefitting from this plan.
I have a home in downtown Birmingham, Michigan. This upscale and expensive city is best known
for its once fine shopping and affluences. This was in the eighties before the massive expansion
of one of America’s highest end malls knocked them off the perch. They lost some staple shopping
franchises like Banana Republic, the Gap, the Limited etc... While rents stayed high, shopping all
but died and since there was more coffee houses in town than people and store fronts with for Rent
signs, the city had hard choices to make. See much like Bozeman, the liquor licenses were expen-
sive and rarely did one come up for sale limiting what draws most traffic; dining choices. Consumer
statistics represent the significance of the Female shopper and the trends that follow these individu-
als. Even our store in downtown though 90% of our watch owners are male, 60% are purchased by
females for their men. Back to Birmingham, Michigan; the city lost shoppers, diners and visitors to
the big box stores and malls because it was no longer the place to experience. WHY? Limited dining
choices. See, where there are a variety of restaurants, there are shopping breaks. Shopping does
not thrive without dining choices. Explore other small but thriving towns, Jackson Hole, Ketchum,
Aspen for examples. The city has come out with a new and affordable license that allows liquor, beer,
wine but the café/restaurant has to meet certain requirements to protect the values of the major Li-
quor license owners. 1. It must have 54 seats or less and only 12 can be at the bar. 2. It must have
an outside / curbside dining area. 3. It can only be open until 11PM. Miraculously, business is start-
ing to boom again for this little town, especially with expanded dining and more attractive retail traffic
are causing stores to expand (not all certainly). The large restaurants and bars are actually positively
affected because of increased traffic which has limited the downside of competition.
How are you going to draw traffic when dining is so limited?
I only pose these questions so as the city ventures into another project, we do not have the cata-
strophic problems associated with change that downtown experienced during the last 2 improvements
to the city.
I am open to coming to any planning meetings, when are they?
Respectfully,
Christopher F. Wardle
451
Catherine Savery
I’ll include my comment here, in case emailing you is ok. My only thought is not exactly original. As
a member of the Bozeman performing arts community, I continually hear from fellow artists and the
attending community that there is a great need for a real performing arts space, with proper acoustics
and seating, to replace the Willson. With such great resident arts companies such as the Bozeman
Symphony, Intermountain Opera, Montana Ballet, and a number of theater organizations, as well as
the touring Broadway productions, it seems like a Performing Arts Center would be more valuable
than a Conference Center. In fact, I believe a bona fide Performing Arts Center could serve the same
purpose as a Conference Center, and better serve the needs of local non-profits, too! So then you
have both your for-profit (hotel) and community (non-profit) buy-in. Has that been considered for this
current plan?
Just my two cents!
Best,
Catherine
Catherine Savery
Director of Office Operations
American Wildlands
321 E. Main St. Suite 418
Bozeman, MT 59715
www.wildlands.org
Josh Allen
Josh Allen here from Dee-O-Gee. I think the plan looks great! One suggestion I have (granted, I am
biased b/c of the location of our business) is that the “west gateway” area be extended to cover the
8th & Main intersection. 8th Ave is a main thoroughfare to MSU, 8th & Main is the start of the Sweat
Pea kids run, and the location of 6-8 new businesses in the Snowload building. It is my opinion that
the area around the Snowload building will improve dramatically in the coming years. So, would you
please consider extending the “west gateway” one block more to the West?
Allyson Bristor
COB Planning Department
Historic Preservation Officer
I’ll start off by saying that I’m pleased the Downtown Bozeman Partnership took the initiative to get
this plan developed. I believe the underlying reasons for developing this plan are justified. Down-
town Bozeman is working in many ways and there are many successes from the past that should be
celebrated. I will always feel confident when I say we have the best downtown in the state. But there
is always room for improvement. Our community is growing from a small town into a small city, which
is a difficult transition. An out-of-state consultant has the advantage of looking from the outside and
seeing problems and opportunities that might not be so obvious to an insider. But it is the insider that
452
lives and works in this community every day. I hope the community residents, business owners, and
government employees take the suggestions from this plan and then continue a conversation be-
tween each other. We should continue to ask more questions about the relevance of each suggestion
and whether or not it is the best solution for this unique place. The plan lays out exciting ideas, sev-
eral which may require further analysis and evaluation before implementation. If the groups keep the
main goal in sight, which as the plan states is to make downtown Bozeman “a dynamic and sustain-
able center of the community,” then the right solution will emerge. It is because of our community’s
uniqueness that a planning solution that is found to be working across the nation (especially in larger
metropolitan communities on the west and east coasts) might not work in this small city.
Specific Comments:
Page 4, Paragraph 1: Note that “Western Drug” is about to move from its Main Street location. The
store’s pharmacy is moving into Heeb’s Grocery.
Paragraph 2: W.C. for “quirkiness”
Paragraph 4: Add a couple more conclusion statements. When you say that the household size has
decreased, add something like “which has created a reduction in revenue for downtown businesses.”
And after stating the demand for denser housing, add “adding residents will promote downtown busi-
nesses.” I know these points are made later in the plan, but I think are important to include in the
introduction.
Page 5, Paragraph 1: City employees know the first plan as the “Makers Plan.” I would just make
sure the title you are using is the most accurate one.
Paragraph 2: The tone of this paragraph suggests that City departments have been viewing down-
town in a negative view. Several pages of the Growth Policy/Community Plan (approved in 2001)
state the significance and importance of the downtown community. I don’t see the zoning code as
being an example of a “typical manual or regulation.” There are several unique provisions in the
UDO that promote downtown. Severe parking relaxations exist for mixed-use development. Relaxed
setbacks exist for all buildings. Flexible height restrictions exist for all buildings (through the devia-
tion process). My main point in this comment is that while the plan suggests exciting and new ideas,
several of the recommendations need further analysis (for example, traffic studies, cost estimates,
parking counts, etc.) and further discussions among the key stakeholders (both private and public). I
think the last sentence in this paragraph is one of the best in the entire plan!
Page 6, Paragraph 1: A citation for “recent study” would be helpful. Overall, citations of all studies
referenced in the plan would be helpful. Perhaps an appendix can be added?
Maybe a pie chart diagram could be added to this section? Showing the percentage of the desirable
distribution of residential, retail, office, and civic/government.
Page 10, “Access and Circulation”: I wish the emphasis was on the removal of truck traffic on Main
Street. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard this complaint from out-of-town guests and com-
munity friends! I’m not clear why “high speeds” is mentioned repeatedly for the traffic speed on Men-
denhall and Babcock. They are both local streets and the posted speed limits are 25 MPH. Parking
is permitted on the streets and it is proven that parked cars help to slow traffic. Adding buildings that
front the streets, rather than parking lots, would also help to slow the traffic. I guess the point I’m try-
ing to make is that I don’t believe it’s the one-way traffic direction that is the primary problem.
453
“Lack of Vitality on Key Streets”: This is a somewhat valid issue. It touches on the more relevant
need for the recommended street enhancements (street trees, repair broken sidewalks, street lights,
buildings closer to the street, landscaping of parking lots). I think Main Street is the perfect example
of how street enhancements help pedestrians more comfortable when traveling through an urban
space.
“Street-level Conditions”: I can’t find the complete logic in this statement. Is it referencing recent store
rehabs that are inappropriate? Or past alterations done in the 1970s/80s that could be improved? I
feel the City’s design review program is very detailed and provides great good insurance for down-
town property owners that building rehabs will be sensitive to the surrounding historic character. The
rehabs that have occurred on Main Street since the 1980s should be celebrated! This statement
implies that downtown hasn’t done enough. Sure, there are some buildings that could benefit from
some additional rehab work. But we also don’t want the entire Main Street to look like c. 1910 with
red brick. The US Bank, though it is an example of cladding over original materials, will soon be an
example of Bozeman’s recent past architecture.
“Little Sense of Entry”: I think the development of “gateway entries” is a valid idea.
Page 11: Great ideas listed here. I think it would be smart to mention theater use under the “Arts and
Culture” section. Also, is it valid to list opportunities before issues?
Page 12: Let’s highlight this list! I feel like it’s lost in the plan.
Page 15: I think the idea of having different districts is one of the best ideas in the plan (the other be-
ing the increase in housing)
Page 16, “West Gateway”: I think it’s very extreme to say “area that now seems somewhat ragged
with parking lots, empty parcels, and vacant buildings.” This paragraph ignores the fact that one of
the best streetscapes exists in this area: West Babcock between 7th and 5th Avenues (mature trees,
sidewalks, historic homes, etc). It also doesn’t mention that a historic district overlaps a part of this
section (Cooper Park Historic District extends as far north as Main Street and includes the buildings
that front Main Street between 5th and 7th Avenues). There is truth in the statement that the area is
clustered with surface parking lots. This area in particular is concentrated with school buildings and
churches (Willson School, Emerson Center, Holy Rosary Church). All of these properties have park-
ing lot areas that could be better shielded or eventually replaced with structure parking or mixed-use
development. Because of active schools are in this district, the Bozeman School District is an im-
portant stakeholder to involve. I think the predominant challenge in this district is what to do with the
historic houses fronting Main Street between 5th and 7th Avenues. Several are in disrepair and offer
challenges for commercial uses.
“North Village”: I love the idea of having this district focus on residential uses. And there are many
surface parking lots where this type of development can occur. I should mention that we be careful
of the idea of tearing down a large percentage of existing housing stock (possibly historic buildings)
to achieve this goal. We should first focus on the underutilized lots (a.k.a. surface parking). Public-
private-partnerships will be the key for this district’s success.
I can’t find any truth in these statements: “the amount and speed of traffic on Mendenhall…this bar-
rier must be changed…dirt parking lots…a wide chasm between neighborhoods to the north and Main
Street.” I think several conclusions are rushed in these statements. Anyone who examines pedes-
454
trians walking in this town can see that Mendenhall and Babcock don’t prohibit people crossing them
to get to the north or south sides of town (farmer markets’ days are the perfect time to watch). As a
downtown pedestrian walker myself, I don’t find truth in the statement that Mendenhall is a “barrier”
or “chasm.” I contacted LT Rich McLane of the Bozeman Police Department, and he made the fol-
lowing statement: “This street [Mendenhall], as is indicated by the accident numbers, does not cause
dangerous situations for pedestrians crossing the street in its current configuration and use.” The
accident numbers he references is the following figure: “34 traffic crashes, only 1 of which involved a
bicyclist, none involved a pedestrian.” This accident count was from a 12 month period between July
1, 2008 and June 30, 2009. LT McLane continues to say the following: “Overall – speeding on this
portion of Mendenhall is a problem at times, due to the openness of the road and often used means
to avoid Main Street. However, seldom have we had speeds from “normal” driving that cause sub-
stantial problems. Most high speed on this one-way street is due to impaired drivers or inexperienced
drivers, or those that will speed no matter where they are at. We see more wrong way drivers west
of N. 7th and usually are those new to our community, however very few of the accidents were from
wrong way driving, with most accidents caused by intersection, running red light at 7th and Menden-
hall and by improper lane changes.” His statements lead me to make the conclusion that more street
enhancements can occur on Mendenhall to help close the “open” feeling (street lights, street trees,
parallel parking spaces, buildings located on the property lines, etc). Pedestrian safety improvements
can also occur (stamped concrete crosswalks, blinking pedestrian crossing signs, etc). But it does not
lead me to the conclusion that Mendenhall should change to a two-way traffic configuration.
If the community speaks and believes the two-way concept is valid, I would hope all stakeholders
agree that further study should occur before the conversion begins. Traffic counts should be taken,
accident counts should be recorded, cost estimates should be obtained for the required intersection
improvements, etc.
Page 17, “East Gateway”: Just a note that the zoning code does allow office uses on the ground floor
outside of the Main Street core area (defined as between Grand and Rouse Avenues, one-half block
north and south of Main Street).
“South Village”: The suggestion of shared parking arrangements is already occurring. Several park-
ing agreements exist between the downtown churches, banks, the Emerson Center, etc.
Page 18: Awesome idea and one of the best ideas of the plan! I would just like to see more emphasis
in the idea of providing housing that accommodates all income levels. I’m worried that developers
will build small square footage units and sell/rent them for top dollar prices. This will create several
units to be occupied by the part-time (typically more wealthy) residents, which won’t help the cause of
increase revenue for our downtown businesses.
Page 23, “Create Greenways and Trails”: I don’t find truth in the statement “Currently the easiest way
for people to get downtown is to drive.” I think if GVLT was contacted they would confirm that the trail
system around town has been greatly improved over the last 5 years. Yes, there is still more to do
but the bike route system that is overlaid on our street system is a great incentive for bikers riding to
downtown. The difficultly with trail systems is our winter months (if they are not cleared, people won’t
use them).
“Add Plazas and Courtyards”: It should be included that the design of plaza spaces must be sensi-
tive to our winter months. No one wants to sit on a cold concrete bench in the winter time. Fountains
don’t work for the winter either. Creative location, landscaping, benches and lighting are important for
these types of spaces.
455
Page 25: Great idea! You could add the suggestion for the City to search for applicable grants to
improve the Creek’s setbacks.
Page 26: Main Street’s completed enhancements are a great example of how such work improves
the pedestrian experience. I think this strategy is extremely important in improving the vitality on key
streets (cross streets and Mendenhall/Babcock).
Page 28, “Convert Mendenhall and Babcock to Two-Way”: I fully agree with the statement: “must cre-
ate a neighborhood-friendly environment.” But I’m confused to why that can only be achieved through
the conversion of the one-way streets to two-way. Rather, I think the emphasis should be on street
enhancements (preserve the existing mature street trees, add new trees in the locations where miss-
ing, add street lights, repair the existing sidewalk system, add stamped concrete pedestrian cross-
ings). All of these improvements can happen before a conversion to two-way. And I think these en-
hancements would add more pedestrian activity to the already existing pedestrian movement across
and along these streets. I wish more attention was focused on the issue of buildings’ rear entrances
and rear parking lots are fronting Mendenhall and Babcock. How can this pattern be improved to help
pedestrians feel more comfortable traveling through the street space? I don’t see a change in traffic
pattern helping this issue. Rather, I see street enhancements being the better solution.
Are there ways to add clearer signage to help visitors understand the one-way streets? Can we
better indicate the one-way streets on maps to help visitors? Residents who work downtown travel
Babcock and Mendenhall because they are reliable and move traffic efficiently. Note that I didn’t say
move traffic at high speeds. If the one-ways change to two-ways, and light signals are added to the
streets for traffic reasons, where does the traffic go to avoid the intersection “congestion.” Bozeman
is still small town in the sense that many residents rely on the fact that you can get to one end of town
to the other in a relatively short time. Mendenhall and Babcock are a part of this reliable system. Is
the argument that the one-ways don’t give an incentive for a driver to go walk on Main Street? That
might be correct for the downtown office worker before 8 a.m. or after 5 p.m. But if downtown is an
enjoyable experience, won’t people figure out a way to get there no matter what? You can still easily
get to Main Street from both Mendenhall and Babcock.
Please also read my comments under the “North Village” district section.
Page 29: The examples on this page are large metropolitan areas on the east and west coasts.
Bozeman doesn’t compare to these examples. Could we include some other western states (such as
Colorado, Wyoming, and Idaho) where this conversion has taken place and has worked? Also, I’m
curious if street enhancements also occurred with these conversion projects.
Page 30: I think Bozeman is filled with examples of great façade improvements. This is a subject
where we can celebrate our successes! A façade improvement grant program is a valid incentive for
our downtown property owners.
Page 31: Already established and plan to continue the efforts.
Page 32: Great idea! Billings’ program has some great successes. If a technical assistance grant
program was developed, I would recommend requiring preservation consultants to be involved. This
type of assistance can help property owners recognize the value of their existing building stock. It will
help them see the benefits of preservation and adaptive reuse. This program could also spark the
much needed community conversation on what buildings are important for our downtown?
456
Page 34, Paragraph 1: Repeated paragraph from previous page.
“Decrease Parking Requirements for Office Use”: How were these numbers developed? There is
also the possibility of eliminating the requirement of “minimum of four parking spaces” for office use.
“Eliminate Parking Requirements for Small Retailers”: The following statement “As it is, the parking
standards are producing large fields of asphalt on the streets parallel and perpendicular to Main” is
not true. The surface parking areas is a result of past parking standards. A Bozeman specific parking
plan/study should occur before implementing drastic parking reductions.
Page 35: Great ideas. Did the consultant team look at the current hotel use parking demands in the
zoning code? Do they seem extreme?
Page 37, “Parking Standards”: Again, before drastic parking reductions are implemented a Bozeman
specific parking plan/study should occur. Also, transit options must improve at the same time parking
reductions occur.
“Park Fee”: This paragraph contradicts with the plan’s earlier promotion of parks and open space
needed in our downtown area. If the park fee is eliminated, where does the money come from for
future open space enhancements downtown?
Page 38, “Simplifying the Decision-Making Process”: I think the perceived delay in projects is when
applicants see the final decision making body (City Commission or Board of Adjustment) not following
Rob Pertzborn, the recommendations from their professional staff members.
Rob Pertzborn
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan.
Overall, the draft plan is very good and represents a great step forward for the future of downtown
Bozeman. I would like to submit the following personal comments for the group to take into consider-
ation during further discussions and final drafting of the plan.
1. The title of the document would suggest a specific plan, whereas the document reads more
like an analysis of conditions, outlined opportunities and suggestions. As discussed – perhaps
“Framework” could describe the contents better.
2. Page 4 – Intent: possibly include ‘residents & developers’ to the list of those the plan can
guide. In the second paragraph, the wording is a little strong that the 6-8 blocks along Main Street
are downtown. We know downtown was, is and will be much broader.
3. Page 5 – Map. As a first map stating the boundary, it is extremely hard to understand. Per-
haps a reference to a larger more detailed map later in the document would be helpful. North Arrows
would be good on all maps.
4. Page 5 – second paragraph, first sentence: add “intended to be” before realistic and doable, as
they can be different depending on your perspective.
5. Page 8 – National Trends. As a near-by north side resident, business owner and employee
downtown, I personally feel that I spend more time and money downtown as an employee. Specific
457
studies may show otherwise. Can we add specific references to various assertions? I would assume
the plan will get tough questions through its final reviews and it would be better to back issues up in
advance.
6. Page 10 - Issues / Regulatory Impediments. Businesses on Mendenhall and Babcock that
attempt to reuse the existing houses for offices or retail have trouble with the backing into alleys rule
– perhaps this should be revisited to allow for more flexible reuse of existing buildings and redevelop-
ment of former single family parcels.
7. Page 10 - Issues/Opportunities. Underdevelopment of sites downtown would seem to be a
significant issue. Example: if the Kenyon Noble site is redeveloped as low rise offices or poor quality
rental housing, it would be a significant wasted opportunity. Perhaps encouraging redevelopment at
an appropriate scale would be prudent.
8. Page 14 – Districts. It is my personal opinion that the boundary of downtown should extend
west to North 7th and east to Lindley Park. I also feel that the proposed creation and branding of
districts are too small to become effective or meaningful. The West End neighborhood in Seattle,
although a cool idea and seemingly larger, appears to be have limited traction today.
9. Page 16 – West Gateway. The description suggests extending to North 7th, which is good,
yet the map stops at 5th. There are several landmarks that are significant in this district that should
be called out: Courthouse Building, Pioneer Museum, and Hotel. The Willson acts as the city’s 1200
seat performing arts venue. I believe the Willson will become even more significant when the school
district builds an auditorium at the high school in the future. We know the old Gallatin County High
School Building (East Willson) sits vacant and needs attention. The entire property could be sold
once a new auditorium is built. Also, with significant parcels around the Magnusson Hotel under
common ownership, I believe redevelopment of this area is immanent, presenting a significant oppor-
tunity and possible major influence on the downtown landscape (new retail, hotel, restaurants, mixed
use).
10. Page 16 – North Village. There are at least two landmarks that are significant in this district
that should also be called out: Medical Arts complex & Hawthorne School. With proximity to the
new parking garage and significant sites prime for redevelopment, I believe this area presents fertile
conditions for a downtown hotel. I disagree with the notion that Mendenhall is a “major impediment”
to housing development on the north side. Mendenhall could be significantly improved, but private
ownership, market forces and a variety of other issues are more significant in redevelopment than a
single street condition.
11. Page 16 – East Gateway. The Galligator Trail is the arterial of trails connecting the university
and south neighborhoods to downtown and should be identified along with Burke, Lindley and per-
haps Bogert Parks.
12. Page 16 – South Village. The Stiff Building could be identified on the map. I disagree with
the statement “Nor is there that much property that could be converted to other uses.” It could all be
converted over time depending on various factors.
13. Page 18 – Build Housing. “Live work and play” perhaps should be expanded to include “shop,
eat, recreate, and be entertained.”
14. Page 18 – Map. Perhaps the title should read: “Significant” Areas of Opportunity, as most
existing properties are either underdeveloped and/or are considered existing non-conforming uses.
Only larger parcels are highlighted currently.
15. Page 18 – Map. The north block of Kenyon Noble should be highlighted as well.
16. Page 20 – Map. More labels of existing landmarks would be helpful (City Hall, Medical Arts,
Hawthorne School, Parking Garage, Baxter Hotel, Emerson, etc.)
17. Page 21 - #2 Kenyon Noble Area. Again – I personally feel this site, adjacent to the Park-
ing garage, is primed for a hotel. The parking garage was designed to have a bridge from the north
stair tower to the Kenyon site, as part of the currently shelved Arts at City Center plan. The Kenyon
458
sites are very important, and should be considered for others major development as well (municipal
complex, medical offices, theater, performing arts, mixed uses). Also – in the conceptual diagram
of housing redevelopment – it appears to suggest housing units fronting alleys and garages fronting
Beall Street. Expanding the map a bit to the north to show the north Kenyon site would also be good.
18. Page 23 – Transform Alleys. Personally, I feel that the notion of landscaped alleys is a bit far
fetched, as the alleys are a necessary service corridor that allows for other areas to look and function
better. Improving alleys yes – making them difficult to place dumpsters in and drive down will likely
be met with resistance and/or never materialize, dragging down the legitimacy of the plan.
19. Page 25 – Map. Highlight Burke Park and Galligator trail.
20. Page 27 – Open Up Bozeman Creek. A continuous/connective trail along the creek – crossing
downtown is not likely with the significant existing buildings. This should be noted. It should also be
noted that significant stretches of the creek are currently open and little has been done improve them.
The creek is often cited as a significantly wasted opportunity that runs through downtown, when in
fact it is not likely to connect north and south. The images showing a boardwalk through a nature
preserve are a bit odd. Perhaps images with a more urban setting would be more appropriate and
better received.
21. Page 28-29-30 – Taming Traffic. Whereas the two way conversions seem like a fine idea, I
see one major benefit of the one ways as allowing Main Street to be closed for our major events (pa-
rades, Taste of Bozeman, Christmas Stroll, car shows, Music on Main, demonstrations, etc). What is
the impact of losing the efficient detour routes for a State Highway?
22. Page 33 – Signage. It would be nice to have additional content and recommendations relating
to signage. Perhaps subjects such as Neon, Projecting vs. Wall, sandwich boards, non-conforming
existing signs, etc. Many of our most treasured signs are not allowed by code today. Most have been
grandfathered, but are we stifling creativity for the future?
23. Page 35 – Emphasize Local and Unique. We do have locally owned franchises Downtown
now (Ace Hardware, Pita Pit, Helly Hansen, O’Reilly Auto Parts, etc). Are we discouraging national
chains? We have all been to active downtowns that mix local and chains quite successfully. It would
be good to address the pros and cons of each, and give direction. Frankly, an occupied shop with
Patagonia Store would be better than a vacant one. This is a slippery slope, but one that we need
insight on here.
24. Page 36 – Building Office Spaces. As with residences, ownership and renting have significant
differences. Ownership is a wise business move when possible. I speculate that downtown does not
currently offer enough for-purchase office space. Outlying areas (ex: Stoneridge) offer office condo-
miniums and thus attract businesses that might otherwise move to or stay downtown. Encouraging a
mix of lease and own properties seems wise.
25. General - Another issue that should be addressed is the demolition and/or relocation of exist-
ing houses in the downtown district. Many old homes are non-conforming uses in B3, yet significant
redevelopment is often seen as a threat other existing non-conforming uses. Property owners are
often not aware of, or do not understand, the ramifications of zoning and land designations. Good
development can be stifled or killed with lack of clear understanding of planning documents.
26. General - The Plan continuously states that height limits are not limiting factors in the Unified
Development Ordinance. While I would agree that the actual numbers for permitted heights in the B-3
zone are not too limiting, it would be helpful to have the consultant’s opinion on the “not taller than the
Baxter” unofficial rule.
Again, thank you for the chance to comment as well as the group’s hard work and focus. I look
forward to having a solid and comprehensive plan in place that will benefit our downtown in the short
and long terms.
Regards,
459
Rob Pertzborn, AIA
433 North Black Avenue
Bozeman, Montana 59715
406.580.0422
Paul Burns
City of Bozeman Parking Manager
I agree there is too much surface parking, but the private spaces are just as common as the public.
Selling the Carnegie Lot makes sense, but doing something on the land on Mendenhall behind the
explosion site would be worthwhile as well. Plus selling the parking lot next to Sabol Attorney and the
parking lot owned by First Security Bank at Bozeman and Mendenhall. I am in favor of infill and the
garage allows many of these parking spaces to be developed. It’s hard to believe the land is more
valuable as a parking lot than anything else. Currently, as stated, Mendenhall, with its open spaces,
creates a barrier to Main Street.
The study suggests the BPC chatting with church owners about freeing up their parking lots M-F. I
don’t think that’s BPC’s place. Further, many of the churches (the Catholic, for instance) already al-
lows business owners to park their during the week. If I work downtown, it think it’s in my best interest
to approach the church to inquire about parking, not the BPC’s responsibility.
I like the recommendations to adjust the parking requirements. I don’t know, however, what the magic
formula is. Is it 2 spaces per 1,000 sf? Should parking requirements be eliminated for businesses less
than 3,000 sf? But that’s a place to start the dialogue. I do agree about 1 parking space per residen-
tial unit, not per bedroom.
A boutique hotel, as stated, is lacking in Bozeman. Depending on its location, the parking require-
ments can be eased. If it’s close to Bridger Park Downtown, then the requirements are different than if
it’s located at the old City Center Hotel.
In fact, parking requirements in areas around the garage should be more relaxed then elsewhere.
Say in a 1-block region on all sides of the garage, parking has one set of rules. Areas further away
would have more requirements. Then, if someone at the Ale Works didn’t like it, that could create mo-
mentum for another parking lot on the east. There’s no sense, in my mind, to have any sort of park-
ing requirements near the garage. Why would a developer of Kenyon Noble be required to create X
amount of parking spaces, when there’s an empty garage across the street?
I don’t think the Fed Building is a good spot for another garage, too close to the one we have.
Chris Saunders
AICP
City of Bozeman Assistant Director of Planning
1. The end of the sentence appears to be missing as it terminates in an awkward way. Page 7,
460
last paragraph on the left
2. We do currently have procedures in place to preserve historic signs. This has already pro-
tected the rotating horse which is the cover icon for the plan draft. We do encourage creative and
relevant signs in our code and design guidelines. Page 33, call out box. Perhaps the wording could
be “…continue to encourage…”
3. Parking standards, page 39. The reference to dropping the cash-in-lieu provision does not
match with the following content. Cash-in-lieu provides the revenue stream to build the garages that
allow redevelopment of the parking lots to more productive uses. It also allows the aggregating of
small parking areas and needs, which as the consultants note can be a difficult thing to provide. The
cash-in-lieu acts as a relief option so that an otherwise good project which is short parking can meet
requirements rather than fail. How the CIL then creates a barrier doesn’t logically follow. It is like argu-
ing that variances prohibit site development. If the parking requirements are correctly set then the
community has found that appropriate. No disagreement with reviewing and examining existing nu-
meric requirements. The CIL doesn’t seem to fit in that though.
Ileana Indreland and Michael Delaney
delaneynco@earthlink.net
We believe there are many good points brought forward by this plan.
Our areas of concern are:
1. There needs to be an emphasis to encourage private parties to develop downtown by relaxing
impact fees and making the process less cumbersome.
2. Do not be heavy handed with parking enforcement. This puts you at a disadvantage.
3. The cash in lieu parking program needs a total overhaul. Fairness to those property owners
who paid in is paramount. There should be a separate open and public process to change this pro-
gram.
4. Do not spend money on more research now; instead spend money on improving lighting and
sidewalks on side streets and keeping parking lots and green areas immaculate. This will attract
people downtown.
5. Historic Downtown Core: We suggest that this area be expanded 3 blocks north and south
of Main Street. Expand East to Broadway (Library) and west to Eighth (Entrance to MSU). Make a
large rectangular six (6) block (north/south) by sixteen (16) block core.
In other words improving infrastructure now is the foundation for helping the other developments hap-
pen.
Use this document carefully. It should not be a hammer or an absolute, rather simply a framework
that provides great flexibility.
Thank you,
Ileana Indreland and Michael Delaney
461
Mike England
mike@outsidebozeman.com
Hey Chris, it’s been a busy couple days and I haven’t had as much time to pore over this as I’d
hoped. Here are some thoughts, though:
1. Don’t we want to widen downtown’s retail area, to include Babcock and Mendenhall? As Boze-
man’s population grows, we’ll need more physical commercial space to keep the downtown a main
attraction. I’m thinking Missoula here, with their enormous downtown that provides opportunity for a
wide range of businesses and tons of bars, restaurants, and coffee shops which keep it the social epi-
center of the community. Putting housing in the old Kenyon Noble site seems to contradict this effort,
as almost all of Mendenhall is being converted TO commercial FROM residential, not the other way
around. Seems like we’re going backward there.
2. Anywhere for a walking-only street? Think about Denver and other cities where they have a
small downtown section blocked off to cars. Those are huge attractions for shopping, socializing, and
for downtown events. Maybe somewhere along the creek?
3. LOVE the plazas and courtyards, as well as opening up the creek like I mentioned. I’m sure
Gallatin Valley Land Trust would be a huge help here, getting funding and helping with easements,
etc. Tying in the Main Street to the Mountains trail system would be sweet.
4. Bike lanes, hell yeah. I don’t understand why bike lanes aren’t mandatory anytime a street is
re-done, kinda like handicapped access is required for every remodel. But that’s a rant – er, discus-
sion for another day.
5. I don’t think Babcock and Mendenhall need to be two-way. There are plenty of success stories
with one-way streets. However, they kinda go the wrong way now, necessitating left-hand turns to get
through downtown when it should be right-hand turns.
6. As I mentioned before, a conference center is important. We need more large venues, and
they need to have character. Nobody wants to hold an event in some sterile Holiday Inn meeting
room. The Emerson ballroom is a great example of what people want, and what we should be build-
ing. We have so many talented, community-oriented architects in this town, should be a piece of
cake to get a good design.
7. What about the performing arts center? Is that dead in the water? Kenyon Noble site would
be ideal. Could combine it with the conference center: good location, plenty of parking, etc. Kill two
birds with one stone.
That’s all! Like I said, wish I could’ve spent more time but I hope this is at least of some value. I’ll be
in touch about the article.
Mike
Kevin Stein
Having participated in the public input meeting and after reading through the Improvement Plan, I
urge all involved with this proposal to exercise extreme caution in championing its implementation for
the following reasons:
The Plan appears to hold simultaneous contradictory positions, making it fundamentally flawed. The
Plan commends the fact that, Downtown still retains a locally-owned hardware store, drug store, and
grocery store businesses that have long ago departed downtowns in many smaller and mid-sized
towns. There should be an occasion to ask why this is. I seriously doubt that the factor plaguing these
462
other downtowns was Too Much Surface Parking, as your study suggests. In fact, I would argue that
the principle of the path of least resistance is in play. In other words, consumers (and businesses)
will frequent places that have the least amount of obstacles between themselves and the cash regis-
ter (ample parking, realistic ordinances & rents etc) To make the point crystal clear when it becomes
easier for folks to shop on North 19th Ave than downtown, the Main Street hardware store, drug store
and grocery store that we all value so much will find themselves precariously close to extinction, just
like those other downtowns referred to in the Plan. Your Plan states that, Parking should not govern
development potential. Well maybe it shouldn’t, but it does. Is an Ace Owenhouse customer really
going to drag a new garbage can, stepladder and a can of paint 2 blocks away and 3 floors up to
the new parking garage? Or will they simply just park in the front row of the Home Depot parking lot
where they can wheel a cart to their vehicle?
At the public input meeting I suggested that the architects of this plan should take a close look at the
parking studies done in Boulder, Colorado. Bozeman and Boulder are very similar in many regards.
Interestingly, Boulder has implemented many of the ideas and strategies present in the Downtown
Improvement Plan. I have attached those studies to this email. Downtown Boulder has much more
going for it than Bozeman in many ways (hundreds of downtown restaurants, huge influx of tourists,
much larger population base etc) and yet, they too are losing consumer traffic to another commerce
center (the recently re-constructed 29th St Mall.) This is analogous to our Main St versus North 19th
shopping area challenge. Why are they losing consumer traffic? Their study suggests that, in part,
visible & easy parking and convenience are major factors. They’re in the process of rolling back the
parking fees to include an hour of free parking to re-vitalize the downtown-shopping district.
In the Opportunities and Issues portion of the Plan, I find it impossible to believe that Too Much Sur-
face Parking is ranked 2nd as an impediment to the continued vitality of our downtown, while there
is no mention of a real obstacle to downtown growth: liquor licensing. I can’t think of anything more
obstructive to new businesses (restaurants) coming to downtown Bozeman. Main Street should be
jammed with a range of dining experiences. But, as we all know, restaurants don’t work without beer,
wine & liquor. With a street value of $800K or more, not many restaurateurs are willing or able to af-
ford these licenses. This is an issue with many complexities and challenges it isn’t easily solved. But
ignoring it doesn’t seem like a viable option, though it appears to be a popular choice.
It has been increasingly difficult for small, local-serving businesses to operate. Yes- I agree. As a
small, local-serving business owner, I am asking you not to make it worse. The Plan says, There is
always some- one, another city, a developer, or a combination thereof that wants to steal the energy
that might otherwise go downtown pulling shoppers, potential downtown residents, office tenants, and
more. I would argue that we need not worry about others stealing away the energy, shoppers and
tenants from downtown implementing this plan in its entirety would be the equivalent of giving it all
away.
Kevin Stein
Montana Fish Company
119 East Main Street
Bozeman MT 59715
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT
DOWNTOWN BOZEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN GPA APPLICATION #P-09011
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 1
Item: Application #P-09011, to consider the adoption and integration of the
“Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” as a neighborhood plan under the
City’s growth policy (Bozeman Community Plan).
Applicant &
Representative: Downtown Bozeman Partnership
224 East Main Street
Bozeman, MT 59715
Date/Time: Before the Bozeman Planning Board on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 at 7:00
p.m. in the City Commission Room, City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman,
Montana.
Report By: Allyson C. Bristor, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Approval
_________________________________________________________________________________
PLAN LOCATION AND MAP
The downtown Bozeman neighborhood plan area includes the combination of the “B-3” (Central Business
District) zoning district, the “Community Core” land use designation category, the Downtown Special
Improvements District and public facilities locations (e.g. Bozeman Public Library, Willson School, etc.).
Please see the following map that shows the plan area.
481
PROPOSAL
The Downtown Bozeman Partnership, 224 East Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715, commissioned LMN
Architects of Seattle, WA, and partnering firms, to develop a downtown Bozeman neighborhood plan. The
plan is entitled “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” and its underlying goal is to provide guidance and
direction for future development that solidifies downtown Bozeman’s place in the community and the Gallatin
region. The plan takes a broad approach and identifies strengths and weaknesses of the current downtown
Bozeman area. Furthermore, the plan suggests some fundamental restructuring of codes, policies and
operating procedures that could occur over a longer period of time.
The proposal at hand is to consider the adoption and integration of the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement
Plan” as a neighborhood plan under the City’s growth policy (Bozeman Community Plan). By incorporating
the improvement plan into the Bozeman Community Plan, the plan is given legal strength and requires all
downtown stakeholders to consider its recommendations with future development. Future changes to codes
and policies are independent of this growth policy amendment review. If changes were proposed, additional
opportunities would be given to the public to comment on the revisions. The City Commission would
determine if the revisions are appropriate for the overall community.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Bozeman Community Plan is an example of long range planning. The City of Bozeman conducts long
range planning to:
1. Protect the public health and safety and advance the well being of the community at large, while
respecting and protecting the interests of individuals within the community.
2. Provide a supportive framework for private action which balances the rights and responsibilities of
many persons.
3. Facilitate the democratic development of the public policies and regulations that guide the community.
4. Improve the physical environment of the community as a setting for human activities, more functional,
beautiful, healthful, and efficient.
5. Coordinate technical knowledge, political will, and long-range thinking in community development in
both short and long term decisions.
6. Identifies the citizen's goals and priorities for their community and how they wish to carry out those
ideals.
7. Encourage efficiency and effectiveness by government through coordinated policies and programs.
8. Serves as a reference bench mark for community priorities, physical attributes such as size, and social
and economic information such as housing and jobs. A growth policy is an abstract of a community.
9. Support economic development by providing basic information about the community to prospective
citizens and employers. A well done, and implemented, plan shows that a community is actively
trying to improve their area.
The formal term for a community’s comprehensive plan is ‘growth policy’. The development of a growth
policy is guided by Sections 76-1-601 through 76-1-606, MCA. Bozeman has had a formal comprehensive
plan since 1958. Careful planning by individuals and small groups prior to that time created the historic areas
of the community. Since 1958, Bozeman has had six comprehensive plans. Most recently, the City adopted
the Bozeman Community Plan (BCP) on June 1, 2009.
To further the purposes of community planning, state law authorizes the preparation of “neighborhood plans.”
These plans are prepared for a portion of the entire community area and must be in conformance with the
overall growth policy of the City. These smaller plans allow the investigation of more detailed issues which
would be burdensome to examine in a community wide planning process. Because of the difference in scale
between a Citywide growth policy and the “neighborhood plans,” the smaller-scale plans will rely on the basic
background information prepared for the overall growth policy such as population projections and the
discussion of development trends.
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 2 482
Neighborhood plans allow for a greater degree of citizen participation in planning efforts which will directly
influence their place of residence or work. The smaller scale of plans allows local land owners, residents, and
others most affected by the finer detail of the neighborhood plan a greater autonomy than would be likely if
the fine level details were determined as part of a community wide plan. The neighborhood plan provides a
context to evaluate development proposals and the connections through them and to the surrounding
community. Neighborhood plans are similar in use to community-wide growth policies, in that they establish
guidelines to development. It is recognized that there are many different specific development proposals
which can comply with those guidelines. The preparation of the neighborhood plans is a means of increasing
predictability during the development review process by establishing in public documents the expectations for
the area.
Since neighborhood plans may apply to already developed areas, there is less of an opportunity to alter an
existing land use pattern. Therefore, the creation of neighborhood plans is optional and provides a tool for
neighborhood cooperation to focus on improvements to primarily existing conditions.
A neighborhood plan must contain the following elements:
• A map showing the reasonably simple boundaries of the plan, with an explanation as to why those
boundaries are appropriate. Maps should terminate at easily identifiable boundaries if possible;
• A description of specific goals to be achieved by the neighborhood if goals specific to the area are
developed;
• An inventory of existing conditions;
• A transportation network, including non-automotive elements, that conforms with adopted facility
plans, reinforces the goals and objectives of the overall community growth policy, and connects the
major features of the area such as parks, commercial areas, and concentrations of housing;
• Locations of parks of adequate area to represent at least sixty percent of expected parklands to be
dedicated through development in the area. The parks shall be of a size and configuration which
supports organized recreational activities such as soccer or baseball, as well as passive recreation as
discussed in the PROST plan; and
• Location of various land uses including commercial, public, school locations if known, and residential
activities.
The preparation of any plan entails certain costs for advertising, publishing materials, City staff time, and other
expenses. A variety of parties may request the preparation of a neighborhood plan. It is expected that there
will be financial participation from those owning or residing in the area, especially in any implementations,
such as upgrading a park or trail. It is also expected that the City will substantially participate in the costs of
preparing a neighborhood plan through in-kind contributions such as staff support, materials preparation, and
data gathering.
The City of Bozeman contributed forty thousand dollars toward the creation of a downtown Bozeman
neighborhood plan. The City Commission approved a professional services agreement between the
Downtown Bozeman Partnership and the City of Bozeman on November 10, 2008 to establish a working
agreement between the two organizations during the neighborhood plan’s development. Additionally, the
Department of Planning contributed staff members during the call for proposals, consultant selection and
preliminary draft review of the neighborhood plan. Furthermore, Planning Staff assisted with the public
noticing of the growth policy amendment application.
Downtown Bozeman has been the subject of numerous plans over the last 30 years, including one completed
in 1998 also known as the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan,” which is more commonly known as the
“MAKERS Plan.” Many of the recommendations in this previous plan have been completed, including the
physical improvements to streets and sidewalks on Main Street and side streets.
Significant amounts of reinvestment in the downtown Bozeman area has recently occurred by both private and
public entities. This type of reinvestment provides for a healthy downtown core. Downtown Bozeman is
formally recognized as a critical component of the overall community, as shown in the 2001 Bozeman growth
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 3 483
policy plan, the 2007 Bozeman Citizen Survey, the 2009 Economic Development Plan and the 2009 Bozeman
Community Plan.
REVIEW CRITERIA
Section 76-1-601 MCA specifies the required contents of a growth policy. The same section also allows for a
number of voluntary items. The section specifically states that the degree to which any required element of a
growth policy is addressed is at the discretion of the governing body. There are some required steps for the
process to amend a growth policy. For this particular application of a new neighborhood plan, the Planning
Board will conduct one or more public hearings on the proposal. The Planning Board will then forward the
proposed plan to the City Commission for review. The City Commission will also hold a public hearing, and
if it believes the plan to be consistent with the Bozeman Community Plan, may adopt the plan by resolution. If
it finds sufficient flaws with the plan, the City Commission may return it to the Planning Board for further
work and review.
There are no specific statutorily required review criteria for a growth policy. The present growth policy, the
Bozeman Community Plan, contains locally developed criteria for amending the plan. These criteria are from
Chapter 17 of the Bozeman Community Plan. The description below is a summary. The complete intent and
compliance with criteria may be obtained by reviewing the full document.
1. The proposed amendment must cure a deficiency in the growth policy, or improve the growth
policy, to better respond to the needs of the general community;
Chapter 8, “Economic Development,” of the Bozeman Community Plan describes the importance of
the downtown Bozeman area:
“The original commercial heart of Bozeman, Downtown remains a significant economic
engine in the community. Businesses serve both local needs and visitors in an architecturally
rich and historic setting. Significant building additions and redevelopment in the past decade
has continued to strengthen the Downtown.”
The proposed “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” improves the growth policy by providing a
closer examination of downtown Bozeman’s current economic conditions and offering
recommendations tailored to those unique existing conditions. Future development and investment in
the downtown area will be appropriately guided by the neighborhood plan. An educated response by
all downtown stakeholders will secure the health of the Downtown area, and furthermore, strengthen
the greater the Bozeman community. As the neighborhood plan states” a great downtown helps to
contribute to and build a valued community that in turn attracts stable businesses and residents and
visitors, and that in turn creates tax base to support the community, its amenities and services, and so
continues the cycle of success.”
2. The proposed amendment does not create inconsistencies within the growth policy, either
between the goals and the maps or between different goals and objectives.
The adoption of the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” as a neighborhood plan does not appear
to conflict with other adopted policy documents of the City. The map graphic on page 5 of the plan
will be revised to match the planning area map included in the public notices.
3. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy.
The adoption of the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” as a neighborhood plan in the Bozeman
growth policy is consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy. The neighborhood plan
approach is permitted by state law and allows a closer examination of the existing conditions of a
defined neighborhood area. The “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” identifies twelve guiding
principles that provide direction for decisions on many aspects of the downtown Bozeman area,
including land use patterns and standards. A review of these principles shows them to be consistent
with the intent of the growth policy as established in the vision statement and goals of the various
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 4 484
chapters of the growth policy. The economic and physical health of the downtown Bozeman area is a
matter of specific interest and is encouraged by the growth policy.
As described in the “Background Information” section of this report, a neighborhood plan should
contain the following components:
• A map showing the reasonably simple boundaries of the plan, with an explanation as to why those
boundaries are appropriate. Maps should terminate at easily identifiable boundaries if possible;
• A description of specific goals to be achieved by the neighborhood if goals specific to the area are
developed;
• An inventory of existing conditions;
• A transportation network, including non-automotive elements, that conforms with adopted facility
plans, reinforces the goals and objectives of the overall community growth policy, and connects
the major features of the area such as parks, commercial areas, and concentrations of housing;
• Locations of parks of adequate area to represent at least sixty percent of expected parklands to be
dedicated through development in the area. The parks shall be of a size and configuration which
supports organized recreational activities such as soccer or baseball, as well as passive recreation
as discussed in the PROST plan; and
• Location of various land uses including commercial, public, school locations if known, and
residential activities.
A map graphic of the planning area is included on pages 4 and 5 of the plan. A description of goals is
achieved by the list of “Guiding Principles,” which is included on pages 12 and 13 of the plan.
Existing conditions are examined in the “Opportunities and Issues” section of the plan on pages 10 and
11. A transportation network that conforms to adopted facility plans, locations of parks and open
space adequate in area and locations of various land uses are all represented and discussed throughout
the “Strategies” section of the plan on pages 14 through 41. Therefore, the “Downtown Bozeman
Improvement Plan” contains all necessary components of a neighborhood plan.
4. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the community as a whole or significant
portion by:
a. Significantly altering land use patterns and principles in a manner contrary to those
established by this plan.
The adoption of the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” as a neighborhood plan does
not alter the land use principles or designations discussed in Chapter 3, “Land Use” of the
Bozeman Community Plan. The Downtown Bozeman Partnership, in coordination with other
downtown stakeholders, has the right to suggest future changes to both land use and zoning
under the guidance of the plan’s key principles. However, only the City has the authority to
consider changes to both future land use and zoning on a property as these are City programs
and remain in City control.
b. Requiring unmitigated larger or more expensive improvements to streets, water, sewer
or other public facilities or services thereby impacting development of other lands.
The “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” took a broader view than previous downtown
plans. National trends were examined and presented for consideration at the local level.
Therefore, the recommendations in the plan may require further analysis of options and
techniques in advance of implementation. Fiscal responsibilities needed to achieve these
recommendations shall also be analyzed prior to implementation.
The twelve guiding principles of the plan are followed by suggested strategies. The strategies
are suggested by the planning team based on their examination of national trends in downtown
areas and are not meant to be demonstrative rather than prescriptive. Again, further analysis is
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 5 485
warranted to determine if these suggestions are appropriate for the unique downtown
Bozeman area.
One strategy in particular suggests projects that would entail street, water and sewer
improvements. The strategy to “Tame the Traffic” suggests reducing the truck traffic on Main
Street, improving bicycle traffic on Main Street, complete side street enhancements and
convert Mendenhall and Babcock Streets to two-way direction. These recommendations may
be suggested by the downtown Bozeman stakeholders for future study and analysis. Upon
direction by the City Commission, City Staff may work with downtown Bozeman
stakeholders and determine if the economical and physical benefits outweigh the fiscal
responsibilities required to implement the recommended projects.
The plan suggests private/public partnerships. City of Bozeman commitment of funds is
recommended to be coordinated with private funding in future development projects.
Examples of City expenditures promoting the downtown core are the recently constructed City
parking garage (Bridger Park), the City Public Library, the enhancement of the Gallagator trail
next to the Public Library, and the ongoing street infrastructure improvements on the
downtown side streets.
c. Adversely impacting existing uses because of unmitigated greater than anticipated
impacts on facilities and services.
Adopting the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” as a neighborhood plan will not
require services contrary to that shown in the current City of Bozeman facility plans. The
neighborhood plan applies to an already developed area and provides a tool for neighborhood
cooperation and private/public partnerships to focus on improvements to existing conditions,
including facilities and services.
Additional development in the downtown area will impact the existing parking conditions.
The plan makes recommendations in regards to parking, specifically changes to the surface
parking lots and changes in parking policy requirements. Subsequent ordinance revisions
would have to occur before any of the parking recommendations are implemented. The
review of ordinance revisions would weigh the benefits and negatives of the recommended
parking changes.
d. Negatively affect the livability of the area or the health and safety of the residents.
The primary intent of the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” is to provide a solid
framework to move forward and solidify downtown Bozeman’s place in the community and
region. The end result is “a place that everyone can enjoy immensely – existing residents,
new residents, shoppers, and visitors.” The livability of the downtown Bozeman area is
emphasized in the neighborhood plan. A review of the plan’s recommended guiding
principles does not indicate they will negatively affect the health and safety of the residents.
Rather, the principles promote the livability of the downtown Bozeman area. Guiding
principle #2 speaks directly to the safety of residents: “All streets and sidewalks in downtown
shall be designed to make the experience of pedestrians and bicyclists safe, comfortable and
visually appealing.”
STAFF FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
Planning staff has reviewed this application for a growth policy amendment against the criteria set forth in
Chapter 17, “Review and Amendment,” of the Bozeman Community Plan. Staff finds the proposal satisfies all
of the required review criteria. The Bozeman Planning Board shall review the application through a public
hearing process and forward a recommendation to the City Commission. Based on the evaluation of the
criteria and findings by the Planning Staff APPROVAL of the growth policy is recommended.
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 6 486
#P-09011 BOZEMAN GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT Staff Report 7
PUBLIC COMMENT
Prior to submitting a Growth Policy Amendment application, the Downtown Bozeman Partnership and
planning team held community meetings in an attempt to involve downtown Bozeman business owners and
residents. Preliminary drafts were advertised as available for review in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle and by
local radio stations. The current draft version reflects the comments received by the public. The public
comments received by the Downtown Bozeman Partnership during the preliminary draft review are attached to
this report.
Growth Policy Amendment applications require a paper and posting public notice, both which were issued by
the Department of Planning in August 2009. Additionally, Planning Staff sent a courtesy mail notice to
property owners within the downtown planning area plus a 200-foot perimeter. All public notices contained
the Bozeman Planning Board and City Commission public hearing dates where the application would be
considered for adoption.
A draft of the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan” document was made available for public review in
August 2009. The document was available in paper format at both the Department of Planning and the
Downtown Bozeman Partnership offices. A digital format of the plan was available on both the City of
Bozeman and Downtown Bozeman Partnership websites.
No public comment has been received since the public notice of the Planning Board and City Commission
public hearing dates.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft copy of the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan”
Copy of public comments received by Downtown Bozeman Partnership during preliminary draft review
487
P r e p a r e d f o r t h e D o w n t o w n
Bozeman Partnership
June 29, 2009
DOWNTOWN
BOZEMAN
I M P R O V E M E N T
PLAN
488
Team
LMN ARCHITECTS
LELAND CONSULTING GROUP
TD & H Engineering
HIGH PLAINS ARCHITECTS
Walt Niehoff
Mark Hinshaw
Mike Kimelberg
Sarah Durkee
Dave Leland
Chris Zahas
Brian Vanneman
Dave Crawford
Randy Hafer
489
3
Table of Contents
Introduction
INTENT 4
RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS PLANS 5
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOCUS 6
ISSUES 10
OPPORTUNITIES 11
GUIDING PRINCIPLES 12
Strategies
CREATE DISTINCT DISTRICTS 14
BUILD HOUSING 18
CREATE A NETWORK OF OPEN SPACES 22
TAME THE TRAFFIC 28
CREATE A UNIQUE PLACE 32
STRENGTHEN DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES 36
ADOPT A CODE UNIQUE TO DOWNTOWN 38
EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND PARTNERING 40
MOVE TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE CITY CENTER 42
NEXT STEPS 45
490
4
Introduction
INTENT
This Downtown Improvement Plan is intended to guide decisions by
public bodies, private businesses, and non-profit organizations for
at least ten years to come. It provides a solid framework to move
forward and solidify downtown Bozeman’s place in the community
and the region.
Over the past twenty years, Bozeman has spent considerable re-
sources and energy making its downtown healthy, vibrant and
strong. The six to eight blocks along Main Street, with its wide array
of shops, services, high quality restaurants, coffee houses, and pre-
cious architecture is looked upon with envy by many communities.
Downtown still retains a locally-owned hardware store, drug store,
and grocery store – businesses that have long ago departed down-
towns in many smaller and mid-sized towns.
Often a major impediment in many communities is a lack of leader-
ship. This not the case with downtown Bozeman where it is quite
evident from merchants who care deeply about how their business
is perceived, from property owners who have invested in renova-
tions and new construction, and from residents who continue to
view downtown as their “shared” neighborhood. Just walking along
the sidewalks of Main Street immediately evokes the authenticity of
a genuine, close-knit town with the attributes of sociability, individual
energy, and even quirkiness. The imprint of many hands and minds
is palpable.
Nonetheless, despite all this earnest effort and attention, downtown
Bozeman might be seen as a victim of its own success. It has been
such an attractive place for locating upscale businesses aimed at
a seasonal and regional customer base, that consequently, it has
been increasingly difficult for small, local-serving businesses to op-
erate.
All thriving downtowns depend upon a solid presence of residen-
tial density in close proximity – ideally within a few blocks walk-
ing distance. Downtowns like Bozeman’s used to be well supported
when single family houses contained six people. Now they typically
contain half that number, or less. Recently, downtowns all over the
country have been seeing an influx of two demographic groups –
people in their twenties and people in their sixties – who wish to live
close to arts, entertainment, interesting shops and restaurants, and
an active “street life.” These groups are fueling a demand for condo-
miniums, row houses, lofts, flats, cottages, and many other forms of
denser housing around the edges of commercial cores.
The result is a place that everyone can enjoy immensely – existing
residents, new residents, shoppers, and visitors. Infill development
can be designed sensitively so that the long-standing character,
scale and craft of the established townscape can be maintained.
This requires policies, codes, design standards, incentives, and
public investments – as well as creative partnerships.
Downtown Plan Area
Boundary
491
5
RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS PLANS
Downtown Bozeman has been the subject of numerous plans over
the last 30 years. Many of the recommendations in those plans have
been carried out. This plan, when adopted by the City Commission,
will become a part of the Bozeman Community Plan. In contrast to
the previous Implementation Plan, completed in 1998, it will have
legal status as the guiding document for downtown development.
Despite the lack of adoption, the previous plan contained a number
of recommendations, some of which have been followed. However,
it focused more on physical improvements to streets and sidewalks.
This plan takes a broader view and suggests some fundamental re-
structuring of codes, policies, and operating procedures that would
occur over a longer period of time.
All of the recommendations contained in this plan are realistic and
doable. But in some cases, they will require more analysis of options
and techniques. They may also require that various stakeholders,
particularly City departments, view downtown a bit differently than in
the past. This means applying different criteria than what might be
found in typical manuals or regulations. The planning team firmly be-
lieves that downtown Bozeman is unique and that its vital importance
to the city should be recognized in a deliberate, focused collection
of efforts and actions to make it a dynamic and sustainable center of
the community.
Bozeman’s unique identity, characterized by its natural •
surroundings, its historic and cultural resources, and
its downtown, which is the heart and center of the
community, is preserved and enhanced.
Bozeman’s economy is strong, diverse and sustain-•
able.
Our natural resources are protected and preserved for •
future generations.
A diversity of recreational facilities, activities, and parks •
are provided.
Public services and infrastructure support our growing •
population in a cost-effective manner.
The community development pattern is sustainable, •
and preserves our health, safety, and quality of life.
The housing stock provides quality, affordability, and •
choice.
Our development pattern encourages and enables the •
use of diverse modes of transportation.
Our quality of life is enhanced by the arts.•
Our governmental agencies, including the City of Boze-•
man and Gallatin County, work together in a coopera-
tive and coordinated way for the good of the region.
An actively engaged citizenry has a wide array of op-•
portunities to participate in civic life.
Our community recognizes that the individual and col-•
lective choices we make have consequences.
Source: Bozeman Community Plan, Chapter 1, Addressing
Growth & Change, pg 2.
BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN VISION STATEMENT
Downtown Plan Area Boundary
492
6
Introduction
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOCUS
Too many downtown plans either under-perform, fall far short of
their objectives, or outright fail. However well intentioned, many
simply do not match the expectations so enthusiastically supported
during the planning process. Why? The reasons can be many, but
there are some fundamental principles that should be followed if
a plan is to become successful. First and foremost, revitalizing a
downtown is a highly competitive business. There is always some-
one, another city, a developer, or a combination thereof that wants
to steal the energy that might otherwise go downtown—pulling
shoppers, potential downtown residents, office tenants, and more.
And, as with any business, to be successful it needs to be led, it
needs to be championed, managed, staffed, capitalized, marketed,
operated, and quite simply treated like the competitive business
that it is. The plan is only a part. Individual projects are only parts.
Success requires leadership, consistency, assertiveness, tenacity,
and commitment.
While many people might say that the downtown is Main Street,
in fact a healthier definition is the collection of districts that com-
prise the greater downtown. The retail core is the most visible with
its bright lights, colorful storefronts, and heavier traffic flows. But
just as important is the transit center, the nearby neighborhoods of
homes that touch the edge of the retail core, the concentrations of
employment, public open spaces, institutions such as the library, or
cultural facilities like Emerson Center, and the other small districts
that collectively comprise the larg-
er downtown and give it its many
personalities.
There is a direct correlation be-
tween the health of a downtown
and the health of the city in which it
is located. As a downtown moves
from struggling to healthy to su-
perior, there is generally a cor-
responding increase in the larger
community that rises with the tide
of success.
So, a great downtown helps contribute to and build a valued com-
munity that in turn attracts stable businesses and residents and visi-
tors, and that in turn creates tax base to support the community, its
amenities and services, and so continues the cycle of success.
Downtown is front line economic development.
Downtown’s impact on the entire community means that any invest-
ment in downtown Bozeman has the potential to increase the liv-
ability, attractiveness, and
value of the whole City.
Thus, the “balance sheet”
against which investments
should be judged is not
just a single block or series
of blocks on Main Street.
Rather, potential invest-
ments should be weighed
against the value of the new investment that could reasonably oc-
cur in downtown in the next ten to fifteen years—estimated at $120
million or more—or the market value of all property in the City—ap-
proximately $2.4 billion. This is the asset base upon which prudent
public investments can have a positive impact.
In order to realize new development on the order of $100 million or
more, the City will need to create an implementation framework with
annual and multi-year targets for development, key public actions,
funding commitments, responsible parties, and additional imple-
mentation strategies. Such an “action plan” will give the City the
means to measure its progress toward the vision described here,
and the tools to make it happen.
Enduring, durable places can realize greater revenues and appreci-
ate over time. Strong place making principles should, properly de-
signed and controlled, realize greater appreciation in a well-defined
and rigorously controlled environment such as a successful down-
town versus their counterpart in a less controlled, more suburban
setting where something unfortunate might get built next door.
493
7
KEYS TO REVITALIZATION
Downtown revitalization requires property rehabilitation, new devel-
opment, and injections of new capital, and these actions, in turn, re-
quire a region in which the population, employment, and incomes are
healthy and growing. In fact, a recent study of the conditions needed
for successful mixed use development found that the first one is “a
strong local economy.”
This means that Bozeman must cultivate its regional and downtown
economic drivers, including Montana State University and the MSU
College of Technology; the growing technology industry; hospital-
ity, tourism, and recreation; its extremely desirable outdoor-oriented
lifestyle; manufacturing; healthcare; government employment; and
other business and economic clusters identified in the 2009 City of
Bozeman Economic Development Plan.
A healthy business climate requires a number of variables that the
private sector seeks out when making a decision to invest in a com-
munity. These are shown in the table at right.
A recent MSU graduate with a new job in the technology field adds
one more Bozeman resident with the ability to live, work, shop, and
play downtown. A single new high-tech business with $5 million in
annual revenues will add 97 new jobs and 97 times the new spend-
ing power to the city, according to the City’s Economic Development
Plan.
The health of Downtown Bozeman and the strength of the regional
economy are symbiotic, now more so than ever. In the 21st century
economy, a high quality of life—of
which a vibrant downtown is an im-
portant part—has the ability to at-
tract businesses, professional work-
ers, visitors, and ultimately drive
economic growth. This represents
a dramatic change from much of
America’s past, when natural re-
sources and transportation.
“A strong urban core… plays a critical economic role. The
urban center of metropolitan areas is the focus of cultural
activities, civic identity, governmental institutions and usu-
ally has the densest employment, particularly in financial,
professional and creative services. Urban cores are also
the iconic centers of cities, where interaction and connec-
tions are strongest.” -- City Vitals, by CEOs for Cities, 2006.
“Support the continued economic vitality of the Downtown
Bozeman business district, which is broadly recognized
as one of Bozeman’s strongest assets. Continue to sup-
port and promote Downtown Bozeman as the economic
and cultural center of the region, and encourage develop-
ment and re-development through the use of incentives for
future investment and development.”
-- Bozeman’s Economic Development Plan
Private investors seek communities with:
Realistic plan with multiple components1. Multi development opportunities and areas2. Strong governmental and community leadership3. Appropriate level of community quality of life factors4. Available infrastructure5. Appropriate level of governmental and community service, products, and 6. resourcesAppropriate balance between assistance and regulation7. Strong partnership both public/private and private public8. Ability to finance needed public investment9. Willingness of leadership and community to take calculated risk10. s
494
8
NATIONAL TRENDS
Recent American downtown renaissances have been driven by new
housing. This should come as some surprise since “downtown” was
once largely synonymous with “central business district”—the place
where employment and industry took place and most residential life
did not. Some keys to understanding downtown housing in general
and specifically to Bozeman include:
During the last two decades, downtown housing has grown from a
tiny niche market to major national trend, largely due to changing
consumer demand. Today, the national market of potential for ur-
ban dwellers numbers in the tens of millions of households. These
people are seeking an active, exciting environment with abundant
retail and cultural opportunities, and less upkeep and maintenance
than would be required for a traditional single family home.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR BOZEMAN
Most urban residents fall into one of two demographic categories:
first, young singles or couples in their 20s or 30s, and second,
downsizing baby boomers or retirees approximately 60 or more
years old. Bozeman also has a third group of potential residents:
second home vacation homeowners. According to the University
of Montana, these households are
typically relatively wealthy, with av-
erage annual incomes of $100,000,
and are attracted to the state by
friends, family, and the beautiful nat-
ural surroundings. Along with age
and household size, another key in-
dicator for downtown residential de-
mand is high levels of educational
attainment. Nationally, forty-four
percent of downtown residents hold
a bachelor’s or higher degree.
These three key urban residential
markets hold significant promise for
residential and mixed use develop-
ment in downtown Bozeman. 67.2 percent, or approximately 9,000,
of all City of Bozeman households are made up of one or two people.
Compared to the approximately 400 households that live in down-
town today, this represents a very large market, even if only a small
percentage moves to downtown. Bozeman is also a relatively young
city, with 16.7 percent of its population between 25 and 34 years of
age, compared to 12.0 percent for the State of Montana. Within
the state, only Missoula has a comparable percentage of residents
in this age group. Bozeman is also an exceptionally well-educated
city—52.2 percent of its residents have completed a bachelor’s de-
gree or more. This is the highest of any major city in the state, and
also higher than cities such as Boise, Idaho and Spokane, Wash-
ington. Each of these demographic indicators shows that there is
significant potential for residential growth downtown. By contrast,
the early baby boomer demographic, now 55 to 64 years old, makes
up 7.1 percent of Bozeman’s population. This is lower than the state
average and the level of most other Montana cities.
Downtown residents energize the rest of downtown because they
support more local retailers, events, and other commercial activities
than residents of other areas or down-
town employees. Downtown residents
tend to support three or more times as
much square footage of retail compared
to downtown employees. This is good
not just for downtown residents, but for
all of Bozeman’s citizens who value a vi-
brant downtown.
Over the long term, downtown residents
will attract businesses downtown as
well. There is an established correla-
tion between where business executives
and their employees live, and where
businesses locate. When residences
moved to the fringes of urban areas in
the late 20th century, so too did busi-
nesses. Now, the reverse is beginning
to happen.
Introduction
495
9
Examples of Mixed-Use Urban Development in other Cities
Bozeman can expect the new housing seen in downtown to evolve
and increase in scale and density. Typical early-phase downtown
housing includes historic renovations, attached townhouses, and two
or three story wood frame apartments. These are usually followed
by more expensive and ambitious projects that include steel and con-
crete structures of three to five stories. This evolution takes place
as developers test the market to determine the popularity of urban
housing and particular preferences of the local market. While the
Village Downtown and other planned developments have introduced
higher density dwelling types, the current economic downturn is likely
to slow or turn the clock back on the evolution of downtown housing,
and generate more modest projects in the short and medium terms
(within the next five years). During this time frame, it is unlikely that
the current height limits in downtown will become a major constraint
to downtown development.
The consultant team’s initial experience-based assessment is that
there is potential in the Bozeman downtown market for approximately
500 additional residential units. Approximately 200 of these would
be condominium units and the remaining 300 would be apartments.
Due to the still-emerging nature of Bozeman’s downtown residential
market, the condo projects will tend to be smaller—approximately 30
or 40 units each—while the apartment projects will tend to be larger
due to the economies of scale required—ranging between 80 and
150 units each. Additional site specific and Bozeman-area market
research will be needed in order to attach more specific timeframes,
benchmarks, and site specific recommendations to this assessment.
Private investment follows public commitment. In other words, most
developers, business owners, and others want to put their money
and life’s work where it will be reinforced and amplified by established
public goals and investments. It is usually the public sector’s goal to
set the stage and standards and demonstrate that its downtown is a
safe, attractive, exciting—and ultimately profitable—place to invest.
496
10
Like many other cities, Bozeman faces challenges it must address
to keep its downtown prosperous, lively, and appealing. Competition
from the outward growth of retail and other commercial businesses
is an ongoing struggle for downtowns as they try to remain at the
center of commerce and civic life. The following is an overview of
the particular issues facing Downtown Bozeman, and the opportu-
nities – both big and small – that exist to strengthen and enhance
downtown’s role as the heart of the community and the region.
ISSUES
Access and Circulation
Vehicular circulation patterns, including the Mendenhall/Babcock •
one-way couplet, encourage through traffic and high speeds.
One-way streets make it unnecessarily difficult for cars to move
within downtown.
Main Street’s truck route designation is at odds with the other •
functions and character of downtown’s signature pedestrian
street.
Too Much Surface Parking
Many streets throughout downtown contain a number of surface •
parking lots. This is an inefficient way to park cars – particularly
in compact areas like downtown with a pedestrian focus and a
finite amount of buildable land. Also, these large expanses of
asphalt, often located abruptly on the sidewalk edge with little to
no screening, create “dead” spaces at many key locations.
Lack of Vitality on Key Streets
Currently, Main Street defines downtown’s identity because of •
its continuous block pattern lined with a mix of active street level
shops, cafes and restaurants. Other key thoroughfares, includ-
ing Mendenhall, Babcock, and north-south streets, have signifi-
cant “gaps” in their development patterns. These areas lack a
critical mass of activity associated with a higher concentration
of development.
The amount and quality of sidewalks, street trees and street fur-•
niture varies throughout downtown. Some areas are appealing,
while many others do not encourage and support getting around
on foot. The lack of a coordinated level of street design compro-
mises the ability to establish a cohesive district identity.
Connections and Wayfinding
Parts of downtown feel disconnected from one another. For ex-•
ample, downtown houses a variety of arts and cultural facilities
that is not evident on the street to a visitor. Connections need to
be strengthened so that the parts can add up to a stronger and
more accessible whole.
Street-level Conditions
Downtown Bozeman contains many fine examples of traditional •
storefront design, with generous shop windows and ground level
details that add interest and comfort to the pedestrian experi-
ence. However, downtown’s attractiveness is diminished by the
design of some development and façade renovations which are
not sympathetic to Bozeman’s architectural heritage.
Little Sense of “Entry”
Key arrival points into downtown do not signify that you are en-•
tering a special district. Improvements could include big moves
(anchor redevelopments, entry plazas, etc.) and modest im-
provements.
Regulatory Impediments
A strong and healthy downtown requires public sector support. •
Clear and reasonable zoning and incentives can help remove
hindrances to development under current regulations.
OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUESIntroduction
497
11
OPPORTUNITIES
Public Support
Build on the commitment and support to enhance and improve •
downtown from all sectors of the community to advance various
initiatives.
Authentic Main Street Experience
People are attracted to downtowns to experience the type of vi-•
tality and diversity difficult to replicate in more suburban centers.
Bozeman’s intact, historic core and great retail and restaurants
help to distinguish the city from others in the region and should
be used to increase economic competitiveness. Keeping Main
Street healthy in the future will continue to draw visitors, and con-
tribute to community livability downtown – which is vital to eco-
nomic development.
Partnerships
Attracting new development downtown can be a challenge. Pub-•
lic-private development can help mitigate risk and can encourage
projects that otherwise might not be built. This approach should
be explored, particularly for catalyst developments suggested in
this document.
Recent Public Investments
Investment and maintenance of the public realm is the founda-•
tion for a successful downtown. Recent investments, including
the parking garage, library, and streetscape improvements have
provided quality development, efficient use of land, and an attrac-
tive public realm to support private development in the area.
Arts and Culture
Nationally, the role of entertainment, art, and culture downtown •
has been strong and growing. Bozeman has the opportunity to el-
evate its downtown arts and culture scene to attract more people
downtown at night and on the weekends.
“Complete Streets”
Most streets downtown are in need of improvements. Design •
streets to make it easy and enjoyable to get around on foot and
bicycle. “Complete Streets” is a transportation and planning con-
cept that provides for all modes of use
More Housing Downtown
Increase the limited amount of housing, taking advantage of the •
proximity of local services and stable residential neighborhoods
nearby containing several schools and parks.
New Parking Garage Retail next to the Baxter Hotel
Vacant Kenyon Lumber SiteRecent townhouse development
498
12
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1 Downtown Bozeman should be the location of buildings of
the greatest height and intensity in the community.
2 All streets and sidewalks in downtown should be designed
to make the experience of pedestrians and bicyclists safe,
comfortable and visually appealing.
3 Downtown should be the focus of civic life, with a concen-
tration of local, state and federal government as well as arts
and culture.
4 The scale and character of the historic core should be
protected but other downtown districts should be able to ac-
commodate contemporary development of greater height and
density.
5 Parking should not govern development potential; over
time, parking in lots should shift into garages and the amount
of parking relative to development should decrease.
6 Transit should be expanded to serve downtown more ex-
tensively and frequently.
GUIDING PRINCIPLESIntroduction
499
13
7 Public spaces – both large and small – should be en-
hanced and made active through programming or adjacent
uses that can animate and oversee them.
8 Housing – for all income levels – should be encouraged by
a variety of methods.
9 Sustainable methods and techniques should be applied
to infrastructure, street design and redevelopment to contrib-
ute to a healthier and greener community.
10 New buildings should be designed to the level of per-
manence and quality appropriate for a downtown setting.
11 Create strong connections between sub-districts, and
from Downtown to the surrounding community.
12 Natural features and the surrounding mountain setting
should be highlighted and emphasized whenever possible,
strengthening the amenities unique to the city of Bozeman.
500
14
CREATE DISTINCT DISTRICTSStrategies
Neighborhood
Conservation Area
Neighborhood
Conservation Area
Historic
Downtown
Core
North Village
(Residential Emphasis)
South Village
East Gateway
Northeast
Neighborhood
West Gateway
NOTE: The district boundaries have been intentionally loosely delineated because further analysis may be required.501
15
Historic Downtown Core (Retail/Office)
Right now, there are great “bones” of a Commercial Core District,
as it has already been given attention in the City’s zoning ordinance
and other documents. This is Bozeman’s historic main street area
and is one that has seen great care and investments by a wide
range of people, agencies and organizations. This district should be
further strengthened by a handful of strategic but delicate improve-
ments, but it is well on its way to being lively, dynamic and solid.
Only the recent tragedy of the gasline explosion has presented a
temporary setback, but recovery and infill will be forthcoming. This
plan suggests some ideas for the now empty parcels, but much
thinking will undoubtedly be given to healing this emotional and
physical wound in the townscape. Until then there are a number of
ways of enhancing the core, such as emphasizing brightly lighted
display windows, unique signs, special decorative lighting, so that
it is clearly seen by all as a place to use 18 hours a day.
Downtown Bozeman is not a single, monolithic area. It is large enough and complex enough
that, a number of distinct areas have begun to emerge. It would be useful to provide a separate
identity for these areas, although still keeping them firmly within the framework of downtown.
Having different districts serves a number a purposes. First, they could have regulatory im-
plications with differing standards for height, parking, and other aspects. This approach is
described in the Code section of this plan. Second, each district could market itself somewhat
differently. It is common for downtown neighborhoods to take on historic or unique names that
convey a character and spirit. On the maps we have suggested some names, but these are in-
tended to be place-holders. One can imagine at some point, there being a “Lindley District” at
the east end, or an “Emerson District” at the west end. Such unique place names can evolve
as people begin to live there and identify with them and their attributes.
Baxter Hotel BozemanHotel
Historic Downtown Core
502
16
CREATE DISTINCT DISTRICTSStrategies
North Village: Mendenhall District (Residential Emphasis)
This area of downtown has the greatest potential to become a new urban
neighborhood, filled with hundreds of dwelling units of all different types,
unique public spaces, landscaped alleyways, and small service businesses
aimed at local residents both within and near downtown. The presence of
significant housing is the most critical missing piece of Bozeman’s down-
town, and for it to be vital and sustainable over time, housing should be de-
veloped in great numbers and varieties, at all price-points, both rental and
for-sale. This recommendation is a “cornerstone” of this plan. The very fu-
ture of downtown is dependent upon the successful development of hous-
ing -- both for people in the community who wish to stay but downsize as
well as for newcomers.
However, there is one major impediment to this happening. That is the
amount and speed of traffic on Mendenhall. In order for people to want
to invest there and for others to want to live there, this barrier must be
changed. The current state of Mendenhall – narrow sidewalks, no street
trees, flanked with asphalt or dirt parking lots – poses a wide chasm be-
tween the neighborhoods to the north and Main Street. Many other cities,
larger and smaller, have been successful in converting one-way couplets
back to two-way without undesirable consequences (see “Tame the Traffic”
page 26). This is a fundamental recommendation that gets at the heart of
downtown’s economic vitality and longevity.
West Gateway (Office/Mixed Use)
This district could extend from North 7th to Grand. This is a very impor-
tant area that now seems somewhat ragged with parking lots, empty par-
cels, and vacant buildings. This area detracts from the image of downtown
and needs major investment – both public and private. In addition, the
streetscape should be enhanced with more trees, lighting, furnishings and
seasonal planting eventually connecting to the North 7th Avenue Connec-
tivity Plan. New buildings should adhere to design standards that do not
allow setbacks but place windows and doors on the sidewalk with parking
lots prohibited along the street. There is a “suburban” look to this area that
could be dramatically enhanced both in the short term with streetscape and
in the longer term with development.
In addition, four other districts are suggested:
Wilson School
Emerson CommunityCenter
Bridger Park-ing Garage
City Hall Building
North Village: Mendenhall District
West Gateway
503
17
South Village: Babcock District (Commercial/Mixed
Use)
The blocks along Babcock between Wilson and Rouse contain a
wide-ranging mix of uses from governmental (Federal Building)
to office, to some retail, to housing, to churches, with no one use
seeming to dominate. Nor is there that much property that could
be converted to other uses. Nonetheless, over time parking lots
especially on the north side of Babcock could have new buildings
containing commercial and residential uses. As a street, Babcock
deserves improvements in sidewalks and the addition of street
trees as it is kind of a visual moat along the south side of down-
town. One “hidden resource” are the parking lots associated with
the churches. During the weekdays, these are largely vacant. The
Parking Commission could make an agreement with the churches
to allow downtown employees to park there during the weekdays,
so that they need not use on-street stalls intended for customers.
East Gateway (Office/Mixed Use)
The East Gateway is east of Rouse and centered around the li-
brary, grocery store, and Lindley Park. This district has properties
that can be redeveloped to greater intensity, just as has already oc-
curred on some. Care should be taken, however, not to attempt to
extend the retailing too far east. The retail core is already long and
there is evidence (closed stores and unleased space) that retail
might not be the best ground floor use this far away from the core.
Office space or professional services could be acceptable and still
add to the vitality of downtown. There might be some pockets of
retail, such as around the library, but Main Street should be kept
compact and walkable. There might also be a major art feature
that denotes the idea of “gateway.” One candidate location is the
public space in front of the library.
Library
US Federal Building
South Village: Babcock District
East Gateway
504
18
BUILD HOUSINGStrategies
Areas of Opportunity
A healthy downtown must attract people
to live, work and play. Housing plays a
key role in this formula for success, since
attracting more people to live downtown
establishes a base to support downtown
businesses, allowing retailers such as
restaurants and other shops to thrive. To-
day, Downtown Bozeman includes only
a small amount of housing, with a lim-
ited range of housing types. Nationally,
market-rate residential development has
been a powerful force in bringing new
life and economic support to downtowns.
This plan includes a preliminary examina-
tion of the downtown area through this
lens, identifying opportunity areas, and
testing the feasibility of these locations for
a range of downtown residential develop-
ment types.
BUILD HOUSING
SE Corner of Mendenhall and BlackMain Street
505
19
BUILD HUNDREDS OF UNITS OF HOUSING
As mentioned previously, attracting downtown residential de-
velopment to Bozeman can help accomplish many goals at the
same time:
provide a new use for many downtown properties currently •
underutilized;
increase the customer base for existing businesses and •
provide the spending power to attract new businesses and
cultural activities; and
add more people downtown at all times of the day, increas-•
ing safety, and providing an expanded base of support for
future improvements, events, and activities.
HOUSING CHOICES
National trends showing a growing demand for downtown
housing suggest a potential market exists in Bozeman. A de-
tailed market analysis would put a finer point on the demand
here in terms of numbers of units, however this plan’s analysis
revealed several locations that represent particularly attractive
opportunities for certain residential development types. Poten-
tial downtown residents are a diverse group – from younger
residents to empty nesters, demanding both rental and owner-
ship housing, and express preferences for a range of housing
types, from townhouses to multifamily dwellings, to rehabs of
older buildings for lofts. Downtown Bozeman has the capacity
for this and contains many of the amenities - including an attrac-
tive Main Street, cafes, shops and restaurants - that are draw-
ing new residents to resurgent downtowns across the county.
Moreover, Bozeman has its own special qualities, including its
scenic natural setting, homegrown business, and active social
life, from which new development can draw.
The site analysis of opportunity areas downtown identified po-
tential accommodation of as many as 500 units over five to
fifteen years, with a concentration in the “North Village” district,
and in particular along Mendenhall. Numerous surface parking
lots (many City-owned) and larger underutilized parcels in this
area can be in-filled with housing. Other areas in the down-
town area offer additional infill possibilities. The tables and
illustration on page 20 and 21, highlight specific areas and
the type of residential development that may be most feasible
or attractive to future residents and developed in these loca-
tions. These ideas are examples intended to demonstrate the
considerable potential for residential and commercial infill.
Examples of Urban Housing in other Cities
SE Corner of Mendenhall and Black
506
20
BUILD HOUSINGStrategies
A POSSIBLE CONFERENCE CENTER AND HOTELB POSSIBLE BOUTIQUE HOTELC POSSIBLE OFFICE
1
5
4A
B C
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3 .2
3.3 3.4
507
21
BOZEMAN CREEK
10-15 higher end townhouses can breathe new life into this underutilized
amenity as part of an improved Creek and trail system.
10-15, 2-3-story townhouse units with rear loaded garages from two ac-•
cess drives off the alley
Enhanced Creek buffer with public trail through middle of site•
Density: 20 units/acre•
Parking ratio: 1/du•
KENYON NOBLE AREA
These parcels provide opportunities to provide multifamily dwellings on Men-
denhall, and smaller townhouses (1,000-1,5000 SF) grouped in a neighbor-
hood setting to transition to the surrounding single family area.
Block One Facing Mendenhall– Stacked Flats
site area: 48,000 sf (320’ x 150’)
80-110 units (2 U-shaped buildings above podium with 4 floors of 15,400 •
sf each)
1 story parking (300’ x 120’): 110 stalls•
Shared Courtyard: 4,800 sf•
Mid-Block Walkway: 1,500 sf•
FAR: 2.56•
Parking ratio: 1/du•
Blocks Two & Three Flanking Lamme – Townhouses
site area: 86,400 (320’ x 150’ and 320’ x 120’, respectively)
50-60, 2-3-story townhouse units with front and rear loaded garages off •
alley and Lamme Street
Mid-Block Walkway: 3,000 sf•
Density: 28 units/acre•
Parking ratio: 1/du•
OTHER MENDENHALL INFILL SITES
Site 1: SE Corner, Wilson & Mendenhall Stacked Flats
site area: 11,200 sf (80’ x 140’)
1 story parking: 30 stalls•
3 stories residential above: approx. 30 units•
FAR: 3.2•
Parking ratio: 1/du•
Site 2: NE Corner, Wilson & Mendenhall Stacked Flats
site area: 15,400 sf (110’ x 140’)
1 story parking: 47 stalls•
4 stories residential above: approx. 40-45 units•
FAR: 3.1•
Parking ratio: 1/du•
Site 3: SE Corner, Black & Mendenhall Mixed-Use
site area: 27,000 sf (180’ x 150’)
28,800 sf office (2 floors of 14,400 sf each)•
residential (2-story, 1200 sf townhouse units above office on floors of •
12,600 sf each): 12 units
1 story parking (180’ x 120’): 66 stalls•
FAR: 2.0•
Parking ratio: 1/du; 2/1000 for office •
Site 4: SE Corner, Bozeman & Mendenhall Stacked Flats
site area: 14,000 sf (140’ x 100’)
1 story parking:18 stalls•
2 stories residential (9,100 sf per floor): 18 units•
FAR: 1.3•
Parking ratio: 1/du •
MAIN STREET INFILL
Existing Park Site (SW Corner, Rouse and Main)
site area: 9,800 sf (70’ x 140’)
8,400 sf office/retail (ground level)•
3 Loft units above•
8 surface parking stalls behind building off the alley for residential units and •
commercial.
Parking ratio: 1/du; 2/1000 office•
BABCOCK INFILL
Multifamily housing units at this location could take advantage of an improved
Bozeman Creek and related public open space, making it an attractive setting
for downtown living.
NW Corner, Rouse & Babcock Stacked Flats
site area: 14,000 sf (100’ x 140’)
1 story parking: 43 stalls•
4 stories residential: 40-50 units•
Shared Courtyard: 3,200 sf•
Adjacent to Enhanced Bozeman Creek trail and public open space•
FAR: 3.25•
Parking ratio: 1/du•
TOTAL:
Residential: approximately 280-345 units
5
4
1
A POSSIBLE CONFERENCE CENTER AND HOTEL
2
3
508
22
CREATE A NETWORK OF OPEN SPACES
Existing Street Trees
Strategies
GREEN THE STREETS
While the neighborhoods flanking Downtown Bozeman have tree-lined streets with lush, dense, canopies, much
of the downtown area is devoid of street trees. As part of an integrated traffic and streetscape improvement plan,
street trees should be planted throughout the downtown core area to enhance the urban environment. Economic
studies have shown the presence of trees encourage people to walk greater distances in downtown areas, there-
fore exposing them to more retail shops and restaurants, increasing spending along tree-lined streets. Additionally,
trees provide a more relaxed, ambiance, by softening busy streets and reducing the sense of traffic noise. They
create safer walking environments, and have even been found to reduce perceived travel times of both motorists
and pedestrians. The recent improvements along Main Street provided trees along the retail commercial street, but
Mendenhall, Babcock and most side streets still sit virtually bare.
509
23
CREATE A NETWORK OF OPEN SPACES
Existing Downtown Alleys
TRANSFORM ALLEYS
Alleys are often an underutilized, forgotten part of the city. While they still need to provide service and ac-
cess, they remain unused except for a few hours a day. Many cities have recognized this and have begun
to give alleys a civic or ecological function. The alleys that wrap around Main can be planted with greenery,
provide natural drainage, create a unique pedestrian network, and provide usable outdoor spaces for resi-
dents and businesses. In greening these areas, natural drainage features could be utilized, and small pla-
zas and pocket parks tucked along the edges. These improvements would serve to provide a new, unique
connection between downtown businesses and residences, and reinforce the finer scale of the downtown
area.
510
24
CREATE GREENWAYS AND TRAILS
The City of Bozeman is surrounded by natural beauty and boasts numerous parks, trails and recreational
areas. Unfortunately, there are few public open spaces within the downtown area as well as limited con-
nections “to and through” for trail users, cyclists, and even pedestrians. Currently the easiest way for
people to get downtown is to drive. Implementing the Main Street to Mountains trail system should be
a priority for downtown Bozeman. The regional beauty and recreational opportunities are largely what
draws people to Bozeman, and bringing this into the Downtown area will strengthen it by capitalizing on
existing assets.
CREATE A NETWORK OF OPEN SPACESStrategies
Existing Trails
511
25
Open Bozeman Creek:Existing Open Space
ADD PLAZAS AND COURTYARDS
Surrounding Downtown are several parks and open spaces, but Downtown itself has very
few. Usable open space should be made a priority in new development, and the city should
consider working with property owners to implement a public plaza along the north side of
Main Street.
Downtown would benefit from more functional open spaces that can be used and enjoyed
day and night by residents, visitors, and workers nearby. Incentive-based requirements for
new development to provide accessible public spaces, such as plazas and entry forecourts,
could add considerably to the amount and variety of open spaces in the public realm.
CREATE A NETWORK OF OPEN SPACES
512
26
CREATE A NETWORK OF OPEN SPACESStrategies
513
27
OPEN UP BOZEMAN CREEK
Bozeman Creek should be revealed and made a centerpiece of
a downtown open space system, eventually developing a con-
tinuous trail along the creek through the downtown area. A trail
will provide a much needed connection from the north and south
neighborhoods to the downtown commercial area. Where the
creek cannot be resurfaced, such as under streets and historic
buildings, its presence should be highlighted with public art or
special streetscape surface treatments. Where space is avail-
able, such as through existing parking lots, provide public open
space along the creek, complete with seating areas and viewing
platforms, so that this unique natural feature can be appreciated
by both residents and visitors to downtown.
The creek is a natural system that fish and other wildlife depend
on for survival. Currently run-off from streets and parking lots are
draining directly into the creek, allowing it to be contaminated by
petroleum products and other pollutants. The city has a buffer re-
quirement in place and is encouraged to enforce it for the health
and quality of the creek, and improved character and open space
for downtown.
Current creek condition
CREATE A NETWORK OF OPEN SPACES
514
28
TAME THE TRAFFICStrategies
Existing Conditions and Opportunities
COMPLETE SIDE STREET ENHANCEMENTS
Completing the side street enhancements that have already been de-
veloped for downtown will help to strengthen the connection between
downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally, by making
those streets more pleasant places to be the businesses along those
side streets will benefit from increased foot traffic as people are drawn
onto the auxiliary streets along Main Street.
North-South Side Street with Improvements
515
29
TAME THE TRAFFIC
Complete Side Street Enhancements
Add “sharrows” for cyclists along Main Street.
Convert Mendenhall and Babcock to Two-Way
Connect Babcock to Library Site
REDUCE TRUCK TRAFFIC AND INVITE BICYCLISTS TO MAIN STREET
Currently, only two types of users are accommodated on Main
Street: motor vehicles, and pedestrians. Bicyclists have lanes and
signed trails in other areas of the city, but aren’t given any priority
in the downtown core, discouraging those that commute by bike to
go downtown. Cyclists of all levels of experience should be wel-
come and invited to visit downtown, by providing bike sharrows on
outermost vehicular lanes and racks along Main Street. Sharrows
are physical markings on within a vehicular lane, indicating that the
travel lane is shared between motorists and bicyclists.
To further reduce noise, congestion, and pedestrian and bicyclist
discomfort, large truck traffic should be diverted around downtown
to I-90. Although Main Street is currently on the National Truck
Route Network, there is a procedure through the Federal Highway
Administration to alter the system. (This procedure can be found in
Federal Standard 23 CFR part 658).
Lastly, the previous street improvements along Main should be ex-
tended to 5th to meet with the North 7th Avenue Connectivity Plan
improvements, and to the east as far as the library. The library,
Lindley park and the surrounding trails are regional destinations for
Bozeman residents and visitors, and should be better connected
to the downtown core. The users of the park and library should
be drawn downtown for dinner or coffee, and the sidewalk and
streetscape should be inviting and convenient to encourage this
crossover of users. Additionally, a mid block crosswalk should be
added in front of the library site to make the library and surrounding
businesses more accessible to pedestrians.
CONNECT BABCOCK TO LIBRARY SITE
Connecting Babcock to the library parking area will serve to lace the
library into the existing street grid, reinforcing its close proximity to
downtown.
Example of a bike sharrow
516
30
TAME THE TRAFFICStrategies
CONVERT MENDENHALL AND BABCOCK TO TWO-WAY
A major obstacle to introducing housing to downtown right
now, is the one-way cuplet of Mendenhall and Babcock.
With most of the housing density encouraged on Mend-
enhall, the city must create a neighborhood-friendly en-
vironment through the form and character of the streets.
Currently, Mendenhall acts more as a major through-way,
getting people through downtown, than moving people with-
in downtown. The
lack of street trees
and vehicular focus
will likely discourage
future residents from
moving Downtown.
People choose to
live downtown be-
cause of the benefits
of urban living which
include close access to services, entertainment and walk-
ability. Currently, both Mendenhall and Babcock have a very
poor pedestrian environment, with narrow or inconsistent
sidewalks flanked by long stretches of surface parking lots.
In order to attain the future vision of denser, urban housing
downtown, the city
should restore the
original two-way net-
work of these streets
and provide pedes-
trian amenities such
as wider sidewalks,
street trees, and
safe, comfortable
crossings.
Babcock Section (50ft Condition)
Mendenhall Section
517
31
TAME THE TRAFFIC
One way streets were created when downtowns were not
considered a place to live, but an employment center, and
it was important to get a large volume of traffic in and out
as efficiently as possible. Many cities are now recognizing
the benefits of creating a balanced and comfortable envi-
ronment for all modes of travel in their downtown areas as
they attempt to attract other uses such as housing during
revitalization efforts. Below are three cities that have suc-
cessfully transformed one-way streets to two-way, effec-
tively restoring their lively downtown grid.
Vancouver, Washington: Since the switch of three streets in
the downtown Main Street area of Vancouver, Washington,
many retailers have reported an increase in pedestrians,
and “drive-by” traffic at their stores. The three streets, each
extending roughly 10 blocks, cost the city $612,000. The
project was completed in September of 2007, and was
closely tied to additional work done by their local transit
agency as part of the revitalization effort. Contact: Bill Whit-
comb, Deputy Transportation Manager. (360) 487-7702
West Palm Beach, Florida: A community of a population of
80,000 converted their historic retail street back to two-way,
and two State roads. The retail street previously sat at an
80% vacancy rate, with rents as low as $6/sq ft. After the
conversion, rental rates increased to $25/sq ft and vacancy
rates went down to 10%.
Sacramento, California: Began a conversion of 5 streets
to two way in February of this year. Two of the streets have
been successfully converted and two additional streets
were narrowed and bikes lanes were added. There were
no street closures during the construction, and residents
and business owners are already declaring the conversion
a success. Contact: Fran Halbakken, Operations Manager.
(916) 808-7194.
2-WAY STREET CONVER-SION CASE STUDIES
Additional cities that have reversed one-way couplets:
Fairfax, Virginia
Population: 23,349
Project Description: Two streets were converted to two-way (Main
and North Streets) as part of a larger street enhancement project.
Contact: Alexis Verzosa. Transportation Director,
(703) 385-7889
Norfolk, VA
Population: 23,349
Project Description: Two streets converted in 1998.
Contact: Brian Townsend, Planning,
(757) 664-4752
Toledo, OH
Population: 316,851
Project Description: Two streets were converted in 1997.
Contact: Joe Moran, Downtown Toledo Vision,
(419) 244-3747
Austin, TX
Population: 743,074
Project Description: Ceasar Chavez Avenue was turned from a
one-way street to a two-way street in 2008 as part of a Great Streets
Master Plan.
Contact: Rick Colbrunn, Project Manager,
(512) 974-7089
Chattanooga, TN
Population: 168,293
Project Description: The conversion of M.L. King Boulevard and
McCallie Avenue from one-way to two-way traffic was completed in
2003.
Contact: Todd Womack, Communications Director,
(423) 757-5168
For more information on one-way to two-way conversions, visit
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/circulars/ec019/Ec019_f2.pdf
518
32
FAÇADE IMPROVEMENTS
Strategies
Downtown Bozeman is fortunate to have
numerous intact historic structures, many
of which are well-maintained. Over the
years though, some of the buildings have
been updated with new facades, while oth-
ers have been less well maintained. It is im-
portant that all frontages along Main Street
be preserved, maintained, and enhanced
in order to retain and improve the quality
historic character of the district. Facades
that cover or obscure the original structure
or detailing should be removed. The City
should start a grant and technical assis-
tance program to help shopkeepers and
business owners with these restorations.
New construction along Main Street, such
as the possible redevelopment between
Bozeman and Rouse should be a sensitive
addition that complements the character of
the existing historic buildings.
This historic brick facade was covered
with additional brick work.
While the business provides a useful
service to the neighborhood, the fa-
cade doesn’t do much for the character
of Main Street.
The Ellen Theatre is an excellent ex-
ample of preservation.
The modern renovation to this facade
complements the existing style and
structure well.
The US Bank building was at one time
a structure similar to the Baxter Hotel
or The Bozeman, but has been com-
pletely covered. The original windows
are still intact behind the black glass
paneling .
Large, opaque, dome awnings obscure
historic details, as well as windows and
entrances. Less bulky awnings are en-
couraged. Refer to the Secretary of
Interior’s Historic Guidelines for guid-
ance.
CREATE A UNIQUE PLACE
519
33
Historic Main Street has many building signs
that likely date back to the early decades of
the 20th Century. These signs help to tell
the story of Bozeman, as well as add to the
pedestrian environment and interest on the
street. Bozeman should encourage the pres-
ervation of historic signs, as well as encour-
age new and unique pedestrian scale signs.
New and historic signs add to the vibrancy
of Main Street as a place to shop, browse,
work or play. In some cases historic repro-
ductions or representations of original signs
may be appropriate.
Artistry, detail and even playfulness should
be encouraged in new signs to promote en-
ergy and activity in the pedestrian environ-
ment.
SIGNAGE PRESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT
CREATE A UNIQUE PLACE
520
34
CREATE A UNIQUE PLACEStrategies
Many cities provide technical assistance
grants for renovation and preservation.
The grants can be used by property
owners, developers or tenants, to hire
technical advisors to help them with
studies, improvements, and other types
of assistance. The City of Bozeman and
the Downtown Bozeman Partnership
should consider implementing finan-
cial and technical assistance programs
within the Downtown Plan area for sig-
nage and facade improvements.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS The City of Billings Montana has implemented a Technical
Assistance Bank, overseen by the Downtown Billings Part-
nership. The program provides up to 70 hours of consul-
tant time for such services as:
Facade improvement assistance
Feasibility studies
Preliminary building assessment
Restoration and renovation opinions
Renovation and reuse studies
Site selection assistance
Landscape/Hardscape Improvements
and Code analysis
Design and construction work is not eligible for assistance
through this grant, but is eligible through the facade im-
provement grant.
The Billings Facade Improvement Grant is also overseen
by the Downtown Billings Partnership and is intended to
assist in the maintenance and reuse of buildings in the
downtown area and to “encourage a higher level of qual-
ity and design.” In order to be eligible for the grant monies
the facade improvements must support the Billings Frame-
work Plan.
BILLINGS MONTANAT E C H N I C A L A S S I S T A N C E BANK
BILLINGS MONTANA FACADE IMPROVEMENT GRANT
521
35
CREATE A UNIQUE PLACE
EMPHASIZE “LOCAL AND UNIQUE”
The City of Bozeman was first settled in 1864, and by the
end of the year, a hotel, and a smattering of cabins and
shops lined the wagon trail that is now Main Street. Many
of those buildings remain today and local businesses still
persist. Additionally, Bozeman has strong roots in culture
and community that started with opera houses and fes-
tivals and continue today with the Downtown Art Walk,
Emerson Center for the Arts and Culture, and numerous
galleries and artists. All of this is tucked into a breathtak-
ing natural setting with virtually limitless opportunities for
recreation. These characteristics should be highlighted and
emphasized through preservation, architecture, art, and
urban design, and made accessible to the public through
their integration with the downtown public realm
One of the positive attributes of Downtown Bozeman is that
is attracts a wide variety of locally-owned, family-owned
businesses, some of which have been in the community for
decades. There are no national brands, fast food places,
or large consumers of floor space. Instead, are small busi-
nesses that each provide their own individualized style of
merchandising and service. This is reflected in interesting
storefronts, unique signs, well-maintained facades, and
many indications of a place being cared for. This is what
distinguishes downtown Bozeman from other retail areas
and, indeed, from other downtowns.
522
36
STRENGTHEN DOWNTOWN BUSINESSESStrategies
ATTRACTING START-UPS
The community needs to find ways to build upon the strength by nur-
turing start-up businesses. Some of these might be users of office
space such as high tech firms. Others
might be seedling retailers who could
eventually grow into larger spaces.
The City could offer incentives to at-
tract these businesses, or even offer
inexpensive space to operate. Some
existing structures in downtown could
be adapted to provide smaller spaces.
Or new structures could be built with
basic, loft-like spaces for start-ups.
The idea would be to let them grow, get
familiar with being downtown and then help them find other spaces
in buildings above shops. This is not unlike how the Emerson Arts
Center functions: small spaces at reasonable rates.
BUILDING OFFICE SPACES
Although this plan places great emphasis upon providing housing
within the downtown, it is also important to make sure that space for
office users is available. While many office users are small and can
fit into existing buildings, some are not. It is useful for the City to look
at properties that can accommodate new buildings with larger foot-
prints. One possibility is to encourage this type of development in
the East and West Gateway districts, or on a City owned lot Down-
town. If the latter is done, it would be an excellent opportunity to
make full use of the parking garage and could provide an income
stream to help cover the facility’s operating costs.
DECREASE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
FOR OFFICE USE
Just as high parking ratios are an impediment to building housing
downtown, so are they for office users. Again, downtowns attract
workers who live nearby and can walk or bike. Others take transit.
Bozeman is investing in transit precisely to alter the mode split of
travel patterns. So it makes little sense to continue requiring parking
ratios closer to what one sees in outlying areas. But an automatic,
across the board reduction might not be the only method. Some cit-
ies have allowed reductions when a developer or user submits evi-
dence of a “parking management program” which involves escalat-
ing fees for parkers, providing transit passes, or preferential spaces
for carpools, or shared cars for daytime use. The current parking
requirement seems to be standing in the way of attracting some po-
tential office users and should be lowered. The recommended “as of
right” requirement should be reduced to 2 parking stalls / 1000 sf.
ELIMINATE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
FOR SMALL RETAILERS
Within a downtown like Bozeman’s, with a “tight pack” of historic
buildings, it is almost impossible for small businesses to provide for
parking on site. In fact, this would be largely undesirable because
it would carve up potential buildings and leave “missing teeth” in
the streetscape. As it is, the parking standards are producing large
fields of asphalt on the streets paral-
lel and perpendicular to Main, which
is detracting from income and tax
revenue streams by keeping land
in unproductive use. It also creates
a moat around the downtown core.
Parking requirements should be
eliminated for any retail or food/drink
establishment for the first 3000 sf of
floor area. This will require a method
to ensure that on-street parking spaces are available for customers.
Workers should not be allowed to occupy these spaces and fines for
violating the time limits should be steep. Moreover, contemporary
hand-held computer technology allows enforcement personnel to
enter license plates and catch people who move their cars every few
hours. On-street parking must be protected for customers of busi-
nesses. Meters may not be necessary, but vigilant management is.
523
37
STRENGTHEN DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES
POSSIBLE CONFERENCE CENTER
Few investments stimulate a local economy over the long term as
much as conference centers do. In fact, its somewhat curious that
Bozeman does not already have such a center, given its national
reputation. It is also noted that the city does not have a “first class”
hotel. Unfortunately, this class of hotel often only comes to a commu-
nity if there is a high quality meeting facility. Occasionally, conference
centers are tied to a hotel and they are built as a package. But since
this means it is a for-profit business, all users of the center must pay
full-price for use. Often, communities see the value in helping fund
such a center so that local, non-profit and civic groups can make use
of it on a reduced-fee basis. In such centers, there is usually one
large space that is designed for larger events such as banquets, big
celebrations, and important civic events. In a sense, many confer-
ence centers are not unlike community centers in which something
interesting is happening all day and evening – every day. And that is
precisely how the successful ones operate: with a continual mix of
private and public events – sometimes even at the same time in side-
by-side spaces. Furthermore, such centers attract user groups from
a wide region, business and professional organizations book them
on a cyclical basis over years – assuring a continual income. Most
communities also recognize
that visitors to conference
centers spend hundreds of
dollars every day they are in
town, using restaurants, ho-
tels, shops, and other attrac-
tions. The result, in terms of
business income and tax
revenue, typically offsets
any initial public investment
within a few years. The City
should explore the market
demand and economic feasibility of a conference center, as many
other communities have done. It also appears that the City’s room
hotel room/bed tax could be increased to be more consistent with the
other communities; the resulting income stream could help fund not
only this study, but an eventual center.
“BOUTIQUE” HOTEL
In some ways it is surprising that a community of Bozeman’s stat-
ure does not already have a small 50-80 room, “four star” hotel.
The university, the hospital and other corporate entities report that
such a hotel is needed for many types of visitors. One impedi-
ment, as indicated above, is that often such hotels want to see a
conference center they can use or at least plans to build one in
the near future. But other impediments may
exist as well. A highly visible, well-located
property of sufficient size may be hard to find.
Required parking might be a barrier. Or even
height limits could be a factor, as views are
often a consideration. Often communities will
actively solicit proponents of such hotels, of-
fering them assistance with aspects that may
be preventing the development. It is recom-
mended that the City or the TIF District fund
a study of the feasibility and possible sites for
such a hotel and explore financing and prop-
erty assembly options.
The addition of a conference center or hotel to downtown Boze-
man will require a more detailed study to help determine the size,
location and form most appropriate for the current and projected
market demands.
524
38
ADOPT A CODE UNIQUE TO DOWNTOWNStrategies
DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
The City should adopt a set of regulations that are tailored to down-
town and the various districts that are suggested. But first, the very
nomenclature should change. Rather than having merely a “B-3”
designation, which might be anywhere, the word “Downtown” should
be used in all titles. This indicates its importance, that downtown is
different than any other part of the community, and that totally differ-
ent methods and standards will be used.
Basic development standards, such as building heights, minimum
and maximum FAR, and parking requirements, should be consid-
ered “entitlements” that are not subject to modification by the City
Commission. They should be presented clearly as measurable
regulations used in a predictable review process to meet the de-
sired urban form. Design standards and guidelines should supple-
ment these basic standards and are best written in a way that offers
choices and allows for projects that are innovative, creative, and of
superior design as individual buildings while also contributing to a
cohesive Downtown district.
BUILDING HEIGHTS
This plan does not recommend any changes to allowable height for
downtown districts. However, a new code should consider reducing
heights for some small distance where a downtown district abuts a
single family district. This is a common technique used in many cit-
ies to ensure a comfortable transition from greater intensity to lower
intensity. The horizontal dimension for this transition might be in the
range of 50 to 100 feet and the height might be equivalent to what
is allowed in the residential district or perhaps slightly higher. There
also might be additional screening requirements. The City might also
consider allowing additional height to developments in downtown if
it provides an extraordinary item of public benefit that involves extra
cost, such as a live theatre, public meeting rooms, a public park, a
high level of sustainable features, or if it has unique functional re-
quirements. Downtown Bozeman already has a few buildings that
exceed the current height limits and they serve as landmarks. It is
also a common device not to allow new development within a down-
town to compete with long-standing landmark structures.
MIX OF USES
Beyond the naming, the regulations should reflect a very different
approach than is typically used for zoning regulations. First, since
all downtown districts are intended to allow a mixture of uses, there
is little point to having a long list of permitted and conditional uses.
With a handful of exceptions (e.g. storage yards), every use should
be allowed – especially if they are contained within buildings. Down-
towns typically accommodate the widest range of uses and so long
as standards are being met, there should be no special permitting
process other than design review to ensure compliance with such
standards.
FLOOR AREA RATIO
The development community has a terminology that is well-ac-
cepted throughout North America. That is Floor Area Ratio or FAR.
Although sounding complicated, it is not. It is simply a factor that,
when multiplied by the lot size, gives an immediate indication of
yield in square feet. Many cities, particularly in their downtowns, use
FAR because developers want to know the basic yield on a site so
they can do necessary financing pro-formas. Floor Area Ratios are
not discretionary; they are contained in the basic code and provide
a certainty to investors and even the public as to what can be built in
a given district. It is also possible to vary FAR’s by different districts
525
39
ADOPT A CODE UNIQUE TO DOWNTOWN
and to set up an “incentive system” so that added FAR is granted if
public amenities are provided. FAR and associated bonus systems
are increasingly used to guide development in downtown areas. For
a downtown of the size, nature, and development pattern of Boze-
man’s, floor area ratios in the range of 3.5 to 5.0 (not including park-
ing) are recommended depending on the district. The transition areas
in the outer edges of downtown may have lower FARs. Development
standards should include a minimum FAR to ensure that new devel-
opment achieves a building form and level of intensity appropriate to
a downtown setting.
PARKING STANDARDS
One of the aspects of the current code is that relatively high parking
ratios are required. This factor adds significant costs to new develop-
ment – both as a result of expensive structured parking and because
a “cash in lieu” is frequently triggered. Many downtowns across the
country have no parking requirements, others have reduced them
dramatically, and still others have low requirements for commercial
and none for residential. Even some have maximum parking stan-
dards that are quite low. Currently, the parking requirements in the
code present a real limitation on development intensity, which is not
the purpose of parking standards. Moreover, it is widely recognized
that accommodating automobile storage for every use does not make
economic or fiscal sense for downtowns, since many customers walk
in, bike, take transit, or park once in shared lots or garages and then
walk to multiple destinations. The City should also seriously consider
eliminating the “cash in lieu” provision altogether, as it – by itself – is
presenting a barrier to downtown development. At the very least the
parking requirement for downtown should be reduced to one parking
stall per unit for residential, two stalls per 1000 sq ft of office, with no
parking requirement for the first 3000 sq ft of commercial space.
PARK FEE
It is very unusual for development within any downtown to be charged
a fee for parks. This is for several reasons. First, parkland is most
usually needed on the outer edge of a community where families with
children are settling. Downtowns do not typically attract that demo-
graphic and thus if development is charged such a fee, in a sense it
is subsidizing edge development. This is contrary to planning prin-
ciples involving infill. Second, downtowns usually already have, or
are close to, existing parks with sufficient capacity for more use;
rarely are entirely new parks needed. Finally , the people who live
in, work in, and visit downtowns use public space differently. They
tend to use the sidewalks, cafes and coffeehouses for relaxing,
passive recreation and socializing. In some ways parks are su-
perfluous. We recommend this fee be dropped from development
downtown.
However, if the City feels it needs to maintain such a fee, at least
it should be dedicated to improving sidewalks, alleys and other
public spaces and facilities within the downtown.
DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
It is vitally important that downtown development be guided by a
sound set of design standards and guidelines. Downtown is cur-
rently governed by a set of guidelines, but these are principally
applicable to the core and not other areas. A set of standards and
guidelines should be created to help inform new development
outside of historic Main Street. Some
should be numerical and fixed (such as
set-to lines, heights, upper level step-
backs, and requirements for storefront
windows.). But most can be descrip-
tive and inspirational and use graph-
ics to explain (such as encouraging
overhead canopies, artful signs, rich
details, etc.) These need not be oner-
ous or lengthy but should be displayed
in a concise, highly-illustrated, user-
friendly document. Finally, by their very
nature, design guidelines (in contrast to
standards) are intended to allow flexibility and choices, producing
many different solutions, so long as their intent is fulfilled.
526
40
CULTIVATE EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP
AND PARTNERINGStrategies
A STRATEGIC PLAN AND COMMITTED LEADERSHIP
Bozeman has already made progress on at least one of the most
important requirements for great downtowns—it has a plan, now in your hands.
Now, the City needs to be sure that its leaders—including elected
leaders, business executives, nonprofit managers, and active citi-
zens of all stripes—get behind it and work to see that its strategic
goals are implemented in the days and years to come.
A strategic plan recognizes that some things will change. Not every
recommendation or prediction made here will take place exactly as
envisioned—and that’s okay. There is both great value and danger
in the details that inform a strategic plan. One danger is that the de-
tails drag all stakeholders down into debates about the minutia—for
example, details in the zoning code or the precise number of hous-
ing units that will be built by 2030. A strategic plan, on the other
hand, is about the big picture, and staying true to the vision is of the
utmost importance. For this plan, the big picture is about Making a
Great Place. This big goal is reinforced by 12 Guiding Principles on
pp. 12 and 13 that will steer more specific actions.
Committed leadership is essential in order for this plan to succeed
and maintain and grow Bozeman’s healthy, vibrant downtown.
Downtown must be a priority for the City Commission and other
key public bodies that support the commission. Downtown’s status
as a priority should be reflected in attention to the redevelopment
of key sites, funding allocation, marketing and public outreach,
streetscape and infrastructure improvements, attention to more
specific planning efforts that will deal with parking, transportation,
individual sites, and more. The best downtowns are a source of
pride for citizens, mayors, and city commissioners, who are their
most visible advocates.
SIMPLIFYING THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
One of the barriers to downtown development may be the process
of reviewing and making decisions on development proposals. Fre-
quently, projects being reviewed are seeking multiple “deviations”
from the code and that triggers review by advisory boards, public
hearings, and even City Commission involvement.
Any City that desires to see its downtown develop must offer a clear
and smooth decision-making process for projects. And such a pro-
cess cannot trigger uncertainties caused by political considerations.
Confusing or unpredictable review processes can deter new devel-
opment from occurring.
The City should restructure its review and decision-making proce-
dures. All development proposals should be reviewed administra-
tively with advice, if needed or required, by appointed bodies having
specified expertise such as the Design Review Board. Minor devia-
tions should be able to be reviewed and approved (or not) adminis-
tratively. Only major deviations should require scrutiny by boards. If
more than one board is involved, there should be a consolidated re-
view including representatives form both groups. This avoids a pro-
ponent receiving conflicting directions. The City Commission should
rely upon its fine professional staff and skilled boards to make de-
velopment decisions.
The test of any review should be: “Does it comply with adopted City
standards?” Project design should not be subject to widely varying
personal opinions. The standards should be adopted by the City
Commission, upon recommendation by an appointed body such as
the Planning Board or DRB. The standards must be carefully craft-
ed to reflect community concerns such as quality and compatibility
with adjacent, existing development. The review of a specific project
is not the time to debate these; the issue during review should be
whether the project comports with current standards.
It is possible that one reason that many projects seek deviations is
that the current standards do not reflect building forms and dimen-
sions commonly associated with contemporary development. As
527
41
indicated elsewhere in this plan, standards for downtown buildings
outside of the historic commercial core should be developed to al-
low modern forms of residential and mixed-use development and not
attempt to recreate older patterns as is more appropriate within the
core.
The review process must be objective, open, and offer ample no-
tice to affected and interested parties. The standards must be clear
and available for anyone to read and see how the project complies.
There could be improvements to public notice, such as erecting a
very prominent sign that announces the application and gives perti-
nent information and contacts. It should be noted that the recently
completed economic development plan contains similar recommen-
dations
KEYS TO EFFECTIVE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
Public-private partnerships (PPP) are an important tool that have
been used to advance downtown revitalization efforts in cities across
the country, by combining the individual strengths of the public and
private sectors. Partnerships have produced breakthrough, cata-
lyst real estate developments in a wide range of locales—from small
town downtowns up to the nation’s biggest urban centers. Typically,
public sector strengths—such as leadership, advocacy, convening,
planning, infrastructure investment, and more—are combined with
private sector strengths—such as site-specific design, real estate de-
velopment, market analysis, and financing—to produce a deal that
delivers both public benefits and a reasonable return on investment.
Although this section applies mostly to Partnerships in an urban real
estate development context, there are many other types of partner-
ships, such as ones that build infrastructure or build organizations.
For example, the Downtown Bozeman Partnership can be consid-
ered a PPP, since it brings together contributions of time, effort,
and funding from both public and private sources.
Public-private partnerships are important to this plan and the long-
term success of downtown Bozeman for the following reasons.
Public-private partnerships:
Implement the vision. The additional development envisioned •
as part of this plan—including new housing, office, hotel, retail,
and other uses—will only take place if private investment is at-
tracted to supplement public efforts.
Provide community amenities beyond a single project. While •
individual projects serve their residents and users, they also
build a better downtown by including community amenities
such as plazas, fountains, improved streetscapes, and active
retail facades.
Allow the City and other public sector partners to strategically •
target and leverage their funds. No city has enough funds to
implement all its visions. Thus, cities seek to strategically direct
public funds to the sites and uses that will leverage the most
private investment. Over the course of a multi-phase down-
town redevelopment, the ratio of public to private dollars will
ideally be in the range of 1 public for 4 or 5 private dollars. The
investment leverage realized on individual projects, however,
varies widely depending on levels of risk, scale, and more.
Help to manage public and private risk and enhance project •
feasibility. For the public sector, partnerships increase the like-
lihood that projects will be attractive, and built and managed
at a high quality. For the private sector, they mitigate risk as-
sociated with project approvals, funding, and political barriers.
Public-private partnerships can enable projects that would not
otherwise be built, accelerate investment timelines, and over-
come the five types of development barriers: physical, market,
financial, regulatory, and political.
528
42
MOVE TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE CITY CENTERStrategies
Low Impact Development (LID). Bozeman is currently •
in the process of adopting LID regulations. Green Infra-
structure and Green Streets can serve as the foundation
for future development downtown, and a key contributor
to community development. Innovative approaches, such
as porous pavement, rain gardens, reduced hardscape
and preserved native vegetation can protect water re-
sources, restore the urban forest, and promote sustain-
able design in the public realm.
Integrate into Development Regulations. •
Removing barriers to sustainable development, •
such as excessive parking requirements for
mixed-use development, is a first step to enabling
sustainable development to occur.
Consider allowing demonstration projects that •
provide model development techniques and
showcase new green building technologies
Provide incentives, such as FAR bonuses for •
LEED silver or gold certification
Consider new approaches to requirements, such •
as landscaping and incentives for adapative
reuse, in ways to better meet sustainability goals
and policies.
Encourage higher residential densities downtown.•
Livable and Complete Streets to safely accommodate all •
users of all ages – pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and
transit riders. In some cases, street standards and poli-
cies would likely need to be revised.
STRATEGIES FOR INCORPORATING SUSTAINABILITY
529
43
MOVE TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE CITY CENTER
CREATING A SUSTAINABLE DOWNTOWN
Above all, this plan for downtown Bozeman is intended to ensure
that it is sustainable over the long term. A truly sustainable place
requires attention to three spheres of activity equally and at the
same time: environmental sustainability, economic sustainability,
and social sustainability – an approach that is sometimes referred
to as the “triple bottom line.” The plan addresses all three subjects
and establishes clear and explicit directions -- some dramatic,
some less so. They require a wide range of stakeholders, includ-
ing the City, the Downtown Bozeman Partnership, property own-
ers, merchants, and even residents to accomplish; no one person
or group can do it all.
These elements – environmental, economic and social – are also
intertwined. For example, recommended changes to traffic patterns
and street design affect the microclimate, livability and pedestrian
appeal, the marketability of properties, and ultimately tax revenues
resulting from new development occurring in a more accommoda-
tive setting. No one recommendation stands on its own, but ac-
complishes multiple objectives. Choosing to not pursue such a di-
rection would affect many other aspects of downtown and threaten
its sustainability.
Downtown Bozeman is an amazing place. It is cared for, revered
and valued by many individuals and organizations. This plan will
strengthen its unique place in the community and the region and
will carry it well into the Twenty First Century. The Plan will allow
downtown to flourish and attain an even deeper diversity and vital-
ity over the next several decades.
530
44
NEXT STEPSStrategies
531
45
PRELIMINARY NEXT STEPS AND TOP PRIORITIES
Adopt the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan•
Perform a Downtown Success Audit•
Analyze Traffic Calming Methods•
Full Cost and Benefit study: social, economic, and traffic considerations for one-way street conversion,
shared lanes, and truck route modifications.
Initiate Exploration of Possible Development Sites•
Identify specific properties and evaluate the uses that could likely be marketed on them. Begin to
seek out development companies and financial institutions that could take on projects of varying
types and sizes. Begin discussions with the City on the potential disposition of parcels they currently own.
Establish Technical Assistance Program•
Finalize TIF program providing financial/technical assistance for complete project analysis and façade
improvements.
Initiate Grant Research and Application •
Identify possible grant assistance from Prospera or non-profit community.
Prepare Code Revisions•
Initiate UDO modifications regarding: parking regulations; design guidelines; and development regulations
and entitlements.
Create “Greening Downtown” Plan•
Better identify opportunities to green the alleys, establish pocket parks, and enhance Bozeman Creek.
NEXT STEPS
532
533
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Paul Burns, Parking Manager
Bozeman Parking Commission
SUBJECT: Recommended edits of the Downtown Improvement Plan
MEETING DATE: December 14, 2009
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: The Bozeman Parking Commission recommends acceptance of the following
language to the Downtown Improvement Plan in place of the suggestion by the Planning Board that there
be “no net loss of public parking spaces.”
“The Bozeman Parking Commission, in coordination with the Downtown Bozeman Partnership,
should conduct regular parking studies to determine and track the inventory of on-street, surface,
and structured parking spaces as well as usage patterns and trends. Periodically, the Parking
Commission and Downtown Partnership should consult with the business and property owners to
discuss anticipated future parking demand and parking asset management strategies.”
BACKGROUND: On October 6, 2009, the Planning Board recommended several revisions to the
Downtown Improvement Plan. In particular, the board recommended incorporating the following
language: “no net loss of public parking spaces.”
In the spirit of the Planning Board’s language and to better effectively managing public parking,
the Parking Commission recommends that the above text replace that suggested by the Planning Board as
it relates to the concept of “no net loss of public parking.”
Chris Naumann, the Executive Director of the Downtown Bozeman Partnership, has
worked closely with the Bozeman Parking Commission on proposed changes to the Downtown
Improvement Plan. The Parking Commission has discussed the proposal in several meetings and
helped create the wording regarding parking that’s in the final draft of the document.
FISCAL EFFECTS: None.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________
Paul Burns, Parking Manager
534
BOZEMAN PARKING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION PC2009-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE PARKING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
BOZEMAN THAT THE DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN BE ADOPTED AS
PRESENTED.
WHEREAS, pursuant to city Resolution 3803, the Bozeman Parking Commission has
jurisdiction over three parking districts: the downtown B-3 Zoning District, the Montana State
University Residential Parking District, and the Bozeman High School Residential Parking
District; and
WHEREAS, Sect. 7-14-4622(3), MCA, authorizes the Bozeman Parking Commission,
having been vested the authority by the Bozeman City Commission, to “sell, lease, exchange,
transfer, assign, or otherwise dispose of any real or personal property or any interest in real or
personal property;” and
WHEREAS, Sect. 7-14-4622(7), MCA, authorizes the Bozeman Parking Commission,
having been vested the authority by the Bozeman City Commission, to “regulate onstreet parking
when it remains in use, in coordination with offstreet parking, subject to traffic regulations
imposed by the state.”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Parking Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, recommend to the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, that
the Downtown Improvement Plan be adopted as presented, including the revisions proposed by
the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee.
PASSED and adopted by the Parking Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, on
first reading at a session held on the 8th day of October, 2009.
____________________________________
Chris Pope, Chair
Enclosure: Downtown Improvement Plan.
535