Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-2012 Work Plan Item- Policy Discussion; Enhancing Downtown Development Opportunities.pdf1 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Brit Fontenot, Economic Development Liaison Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Enhance Downtown Development Opportunities MEETING DATE: May 9, 2011 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Policy Meeting RECOMMENDATION: Engage in meaningful discussion and provide direction, if necessary. BACKGROUND: The adopted 2011 – 2012 work plan identifies the following as the number one policy initiative priority: 1. Enhance Downtown Development Opportunities a) Conduct a "Full cost & benefit study: social, economic & traffic considerations for one- way conversion to 2-way, shared lanes, streetscape improvements and truck route modifications" as recommended by the Downtown Plan (Attachment 1); *For detailed background information please see Attachment 1. b) Amend the UDO to eliminate or reduce parkland dedication requirements for downtown development and other high intensity mixed uses (Attachment 2); Planning Staff has begun the code drafting process to carry out the Commission directive to modify parkland requirements in the downtown area. Chris Saunders met with the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board subdivision review committee on March 11th to discuss various ideas regarding the matter. Several options were presented for discussion as outlined in the attached memo from Chris Saunders. After discussion, the RPAB subdivision review committee offered a recommendation to use options D and F from the memo. Staff is continuing the code revision process and expects to begin the formal amendment hearing process in the next few weeks. *For more a more detailed discussion please see Attachment 2. c) Facilitate development of a downtown hotel as identified in the downtown development plan (Attachment 3). 70 2 As of the date of this memo, the City Commission is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on May 2nd to acknowledge receipt of a letter of intent to purchase the downtown Carnegie parking lot, located at 106 East Mendenhall, for the purpose of constructing a hotel. The LOI was submitted to the City of Bozeman by the Catellus Group, LLC. *For an update on the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan, please see Attachment 3. Additionally, the following planning documents will aid in any discussion of downtown Bozeman: 1) City of Bozeman Economic Development Plan – 2009; http://www.bozeman.net/Smarty/files/06/064cfc00-949e-4e95-ab82-2c05a4ae0b55.pdf 2) The Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan – December, 2009; http://www.downtownbozeman.org/downloads/DBIP%20Final%2012-14-09%20SM.pdf 3) Economic Development Council’s 2010 – 2011 Priorities and Recommendations – 2010 – 2011; and http://www.bozeman.net/Smarty/files/23/231a6318-5919-46f6-9383-d630abab5be3.pdf 4) Downtown Bozeman Parking Study – February, 2011. http://www.coe.montana.edu/wti/wwwshare/Parking/Bozeman%20Parking%20Report%20-%20FINAL_508.pdf UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Undetermined. ALTERNATIVES: As directed by the City Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS: Undetermined. Attachments: (1) July 19, 2010 memo from the Engineering Department to the Bozeman City Commission regarding the Downtown Urban Route Transformation; (2) March 7, 2011 memo from the Planning Department to Recreation and Parks Advisory Board regarding possible changes to Chapter 18.50, Parks and Open Spaces and Chapter 18.50 of the Bozeman Municipal Code – Park and Recreation Requirements; and (3) Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan, April 25, 2011 Update. Report compiled on: April 28, 2011 71 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Rick Hixson, City Engineer Debbie Arkell, Director of Public Service Chuck Winn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Downtown Urban Route Transformation ORIGINAL MEETING DATE: July 19, 2010 RECOMMENDATION: This document provides background and suggests a possible Scope of Services to be used in the solicitation of Statements of Qualifications from firms to study potential improvements to the downtown transportation network, specifically, Main Street, Babcock Street and Mendenhall Street. BACKGROUND: In December of 2009 the Commission adopted the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan prepared by LMN Architects. That study recommended that the City “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.” The 2010/2011 City Commission Work Plan identified studying the potential conversion of Babcock and Mendenhall back to two-way streets as a priority project. Since Babcock, Mendenhall and Main Street are all urban routes administered by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), we felt it was appropriate to discuss this potential project at a regular meeting of the Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC). The TCC membership includes not only MDT but other stakeholders with an interest in transportation issues, and has served as the guiding body for the preparation of all of the City’s recent Transportation Plans. At their April 2010 meeting we recounted the history of the subject street network and the studies performed on it to date, and solicited input from the TCC members on how best to proceed. The committee indicated that it would be appropriate for TCC to oversee the project, with primary policy direction coming from the Bozeman City Commission. We then held a staff level meeting to further define what the objectives of such a study should be and how we could best accomplish them. This meeting was attended by the Mayor, City staff (both planning and engineering), MDT staff, and the Downtown Business Partnership. This was a very productive meeting. 72 What had become apparent to everyone was that what we have at present are two competing stacks of studies. On the one hand we have a number of engineering studies which all concluded the same thing: the one-ways greatly enhance downtown circulation and level of service and should be left in place. On the other hand we have number of planning studies which similarly drew the same conclusion: the one-ways are a barrier to the potential expansion and enhancement of the downtown and should be converted back to two-way streets. If it was simply a decision of do one or the other, there would be no need to study the issue any further. Just pick the study which supports the decision you want to make and proceed. It was suggested that we not simply look at whether to convert or not convert the one-way streets, but instead look at what it is we want to accomplish, what we want our downtown to be, and study how all aspects of those three streets (Main, Mendenhall and Babcock) affect that desired outcome. How can those three streets be modified to create a more neighborhood-friendly environment and even expand the downtown feeling north and south? What improvements or modifications might promote and support significant redevelopment along Mendenhall and Babcock? Are there other alternatives to explore in addition to or in place of converting the one- ways to two-ways? Perhaps modifying the streetscapes so they are more pedestrian and bicycle friendly and safer would be an option or interim step for example. We all agreed that if we want to move forward, this next study would need to integrate the two disparate recommendations we already have, and make recommendations about how to move forward. It was agreed that we should proceed based on this understanding. The process was to be as follows: 1. Update the City Commission, discuss the proposed project and solicit input and direction from the Commission on a proposed scope of work to be included in a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to perform the study. 2. Based on that direction, draft the Request for Qualifications and submit it to the TCC for their discussion and approval. 3. Return to the Commission for final approval and then publish the RFQ. As of May 9, 2011 the above three steps have been accomplished and we are waiting for funding for this project. Previous Studies: 1973 Traffic Operations to Increase Capacity and Safety (TOPICS): Menasco-McGuinn, Helena The TOPICS program paid for Menasco-McGuinn Consultants of Helena to study Bozeman’s downtown traffic and suggest solutions. Congestion on Main Street had become so bad that left turns were not allowed downtown and the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection of 7th and Main was F. In fact, at peak hours the traffic queue at Main and 7th extended beyond Safeway. Menasco-McGuinn recommended the current one-way configuration. 73 They predicted that once the change was made, the traffic load would be split roughly 50-50 between Main Street and the couplets, which is exactly what we see today. The reason Mendenhall was continued as a one-way all the way to 11th was to reduce the amount of west bound traffic turning from Mendenhall into the intersection of Main and 7th. 1998 Downtown Improvement Plan (MAKERS Plan) The Makers Plan was prepared for the Improvement District Board (IDB) by MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design. This plan recommended converting the one-ways back to two, based primarily on pedestrian considerations. That recommendation was not implemented. 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update, Robert Peccia and Associates, Helena As part of this plan the effects of converting the one-ways back to two-ways was actually modeled. The model showed that if converted, the levels of service at Main/Willson and 7th/Mendenhall would go to F and the LOS at 3 other intersections would go to D. The plan recommended making no change to the network at that time. They suggested further study at a future time as conditions warranted. 2003 Downtown Bozeman Traffic Improvement Study, Short, Elliott & Hendrickson, Boulder This study was commissioned by the Downtown Bozeman Partnership (DBP) and the TCC. This study modeled the network in more detail and also modeled several scenarios in addition to converting the one-ways, including reversing the couplets and converting Main Street to a three lane facility. Their recommendation was to make no change to the direction of Babcock and Mendenhall. They concluded that the advantages (easiest configuration for motorists to understand, maximized circulation and access options, desirable for attracting tourists, lower traffic speeds on Mendenhall and Babcock enhancing pedestrian safety) did not outweigh the disadvantages (increased congestion and accidents at downtown intersections, decrease in overall corridor capacity, additional vehicular movements conflicting with pedestrian safety and high cost to implement). 2007 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, Robert Peccia 7 Associates, Helena This most recently completed transportation plan update did not look at downtown circulation given the conclusions of the previous two studies as well as budget considerations. 2009 Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan, LMN Architects This plan was commissioned by the DBP and the City. The recommendation of this plan, as stated above, was to “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.” 74 I think this illustrates what was stated above, that is, there has been a conflict between the engineering studies and planning studies commissioned to date. Repeating either one of these efforts will no doubt lead us to the same conclusions. What is needed is an integrated approach which is more in line with what the staff level discussions concluded - one team is needed which will meld engineering and urban planning efforts. Following is a suggested scope of services for a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a consultant to do such a study. In order to get the broadest perspective I think we should solicit proposals from all qualified, interested design teams. I also think that for the RFP and consultant selection procedure, the scope should be broadly defined to encourage creative thinking. The successful team should be able to demonstrate both technical traffic engineering ability and urban neighborhood planning expertise. They should have experience working on similar projects and demonstrate both creative problem solving ability and success in coordinating projects that require a lot of public participation. Following are some general headings and basic tasks I think should be included in the RFP. The area of the study shall be as defined in the 2009 Downtown Improvement Plan. I wish to note that much of the following was developed based on a very similar study done for Fargo, North Dakota. Proposed Scope of Services for RFQ 1. Project Description The Bozeman Downtown Urban Route Transformation project will initiate a comprehensive study of current downtown transportation routes to develop a transportation plan that is socially, economically, and environmentally feasible. The project targets Bozeman, Montana’s historic downtown and focuses on intertwining issues of transportation, livability, and responsible economic growth. Downtown Bozeman is a unique intersection of business and residential districts, and the center of the city’s social activity. Additionally, the district is a major transportation corridor that provides access to Interstate 90, Montana State University, and to other business and residential districts to the west. While many people might say that the downtown is Main Street, in fact a healthier definition is the collection of districts that comprise 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 the Emerson Center, and the other small districts that collectively comprise the larger downtown and give it its many personalities. A great downtown helps 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. Downtown’s impact on the entire community means that any investment in downtown Bozeman has the potential to increase the livability, attractiveness, and value of the whole City. 75 Downtown Bozeman is currently confronted with several transportation related issues and opportunities. Issues: Transportation Access and Circulation – Vehicular circulation patterns, including the Mendenhall/Babcock one-way couplet, encourage through traffic and high speeds. One way streets make it difficult for cars and pedestrians to move within downtown. Additionally, Main Street’s truck route designation is at odds with the other functions and character of downtown’s signature pedestrian street. Currently, the city has several conflicting studies for downtown transportation design. Engineering-oriented studies conclude that one-way streets that parallel Main Street enhance downtown traffic circulation. Studies from a planning perspective recommend converting the one-way streets to two-ways in order to expand business and residential growth. 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 Mendenhall, 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. Vitality of key streets is also limited as the quality of sidewalks, street trees and street furniture varies throughout the downtown. Some areas are appealing, while many others do not encourage and support foot traffic. The lack of a coordinated level of street design compromises the ability to establish a cohesive district identity. Opportunities: “Complete Streets” – Most streets downtown are in need of improvements to make it safe, easy, and enjoyable to travel by foot and bicycle. Increase Downtown Housing: 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. A recent study of downtown housing concluded that there is potential in the Bozeman downtown market for approximately 500 additional residential units. The city should investigate strategies to increase housing downtown, for all income levels, to take advantage of the proximity of local services and stable residential neighborhoods nearby containing several schools and parks. Holistic Planning: In partnership with the Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC), Montana Department of Transportation, and Downtown Business Partnership, the City of Bozeman plans to complete a comprehensive study of downtown routes. 76 The plan will explore alternatives to the current downtown routes and include analysis of economic impacts, motorized and non-motorized transportation, streetscape analysis, residential and housing issues, and involve extensive public participation. Unlike previous studies, the proposed process will take a holistic approach that merges engineering, planning, and social perspectives to develop a plan for a sustainable downtown. The city anticipates that this process will result in a plan for downtown transportation routes that will be implemented following the study. Expected outcomes include increased economic competitiveness, enhanced livability and sustainability, and safe, navigable routes for motorized and non-motorized vehicles. 2. Purpose and Outcomes The purpose of this project is to analyze and plan downtown transportation routes that are environmentally sustainable, economically sustainable, and socially sustainable. The expected outcomes of this project directly align with the City of Bozeman’s Downtown Improvement Plan and each of the HUD/DOT six livability principles: a.) Provide More Transportation Choices The Bozeman Downtown Urban Routes Transformation project will investigate strategies to encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic, use of public transportation, and easily navigable routes for motorized vehicles. The process will consider strategies to connect the downtown and its neighboring residential and business districts to plan for a “complete downtown” where people live, work, and play. Additionally, the planning process will seek input from the City’s Sustainability Team to incorporate environmentally appropriate infrastructure and practices. b.) Promote equitable, affordable housing Understanding that transportation routes affect the character of neighborhoods and can determine housing choices, the proposed study will consider how route planning will impact existing residential neighborhoods and the City’s ability to increase housing for all income levels in the greater downtown. Previous studies estimate a potential increase of 500 housing units, and an opportunity for “North Village”. c.) Enhance Economic Competitiveness A central component of the project is examining how alternative route planning will affect existing businesses and future business growth – especially on side-streets adjacent to Main Street. Previous studies suggested that through traffic on one-way streets in downtown limited business growth, but enhanced traffic flow. The proposed study aims to study all alternatives to create a plan that is both economically and transportation friendly. 77 d.) Support Existing Communities The City of Bozeman’s Downtown Improvement Plan emphasizes mixed-use development, and higher density construction combined with public open-spaces. The proposed planning process will study how transportation routes affect the entire downtown, including residents, businesses, and long-term impacts on the character of the city. e.) Coordinate Policies and Leverage Investment The Bozeman Downtown Urban Route Transformation project emerged from meetings of the Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) which includes stakeholders from the Montana Department of Transportation, City, and County. The City will continue working through the TCC during this planning process, with the understanding that many agencies and authorities interact with Downtown area. A lack of coordination could stymie efforts to protect and enhance Downtown’s success. Therefore it is important to ensure coordination as the City considers possible changes in the Downtown. TCC is a collaborative effort of many of those interested parties and agencies and therefore provides an access to possible implementation funds and an effective means to move forward efficiently. f.) Value Communities and Neighborhoods A healthy downtown must attractive people to live, work and play. The City’s Downtown Improvement Plan is guided by the following principles: (1) All streets and sidewalks in downtown should be designed to make the experience of pedestrians and bicyclists safe, comfortable and visually appealing; (2) Transit should be expanded to serve downtown more extensively and frequently; (3) Housing, for all income levels, should be encouraged by a variety of methods. The proposed planning process will examine how various transportation routes might contribute to the goals outlined in the Downtown Improvement Plan and ultimately seeks a vibrant downtown that is environmentally sustainable, economically sustainable, and socially sustainable. Primary Areas of Responsibility 1. Document Review and Understanding of Existing Conditions. Consultant shall become familiar with previous planning efforts and relevant documents. Consultant will also meet with designated staff and others to obtain available background information. Consultant will obtain and review the following documents at a minimum: 1) 1973 Traffic Operations to Increase Capacity and Safety (TOPICS) 2) 1998 Downtown Improvement Plan (MAKERS Plan) 3) 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update 4) 2003 Downtown Bozeman Traffic Improvement Study 78 5) 2007 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 6) 2009 Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan 7) Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Avenue Corridor 7) City Growth Policy 8) Historic guidelines 9) MDT Plans for the North Rouse Reconstruction Project (scheduled for 2014) 10) Other studies as recommended by staff Consultant will also obtain baseline information and background data pertinent to the study area, including but not limited to: 1) Parking Commission Study 2) Existing street typical sections for Main Street, Babcock and Mendenhall 3) Traffic and turning movement counts for Main Street, Babcock and Mendenhall, Olive Street and Lamme Street 4) Speed data 5) Crash data 6) Traffic signal locations and timing 2. Corridor Needs/Issues Consultant will develop a summary of corridor issues, opportunities and constraints that affect traffic engineering, safety, urban design, and future roadway improvements for both motorized and non-motorized forms of transportation. Identifying the issues along the corridor will begin with an understanding of how traffic currently operates and how it will operate in the future given the existing lane geometry. This will include a review of current traffic control and roadway geometry. Through this review the team will examine ways to improve operational and safety issues for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic as well as ways to improve aesthetics. Component tasks will include the following: 1. Develop future year (2030) ADT given current configuration and operations 2. Develop 2030 peak hour turning movement volumes and LOS for key study area intersections. 3. Using existing and future year traffic peak hour traffic volumes, one-way operations will be analyzed using appropriate methodology. 4. Perform a reconnaissance level safety analysis. This information will be used as supplemental information in the selection of any alternative lane geometry. A review of the following will be performed to determine if safety can be improved: • Traffic control devices • Roadway geometry • Pedestrian Facilities • Bicycle Facilities • ADA facilities 79 3. Alternatives Development and Analysis Develop and analyze different roadway cross section, intersection, access and traffic control device alternatives to most effectively accommodate traffic and pedestrian needs for the corridor as well as access requirements for adjacent land uses. Access to property is a major consideration when developing different alternatives. In general, the primary purpose of arterials such as Main Street, Babcock Street and Mendenhall Street is the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Equally important in this case is the effect the facility has on surrounding land uses related to commercial and residential redevelopment. Improvements resulting in a significant change in the character of the corridor or intersecting streets must be carefully evaluated. The team must be sensitive to the needs of both the property owner and the public. Potential alternatives must provide a balance of both needs. Up to six alternatives will be developed and analyzed as part of this study: 1. Do nothing 2. A design alternative which includes streetscape features, pedestrian and bicycle enhancements and other design and safety features, but which leaves the one-ways in place. 3. A full conversion of the one-ways to two-ways. 4. Conversion of only Mendenhall from a one-way to a two-way street. 5. Changing the end-points of the one-ways to different locations. 6. A mix of the above. Once the alternatives have been developed, each will be evaluated according to its potential effect on roadway geometrics, traffic operations, parking, safety, redevelopment, land-use, access and cost. In addition, pedestrian and bicycle issues will be studied. Warrant analyses of intersections not currently signalized will be performed for those alternatives which have an impact on those intersections. To better understand the benefit of each alternative, it is important to know the value obtained from the money spent on a particular project. The team will perform a roadway- user benefit-cost analysis to determine which alternatives yield a greater benefit-to-cost ratio. Cost information used for this analysis will be obtained using an order of magnitude cost estimate developed for the project. The cost-benefit analysis shall be made within the context of the “triple bottom line”: socio-cultural cost-benefit (this relates to quality of life issues); economic cost-benefit (this relates to the (re)development potential embodied along these two corridors); and environmental cost-benefit (this relates to the multi-modal transportation components). 4. Economic Impact Analysis 80 The following is a list of objectives for the economic impact analysis: 1. Assess the prevailing economic conditions of the corridor as a basis for determining the economic impacts of altering the traffic patterns. 2. Project the economic impacts of altering the traffic patterns along the corridor. 3. Consult with corridor business owners, property owners and area developers to ascertain their development plans and conduct a commercial market analysis for the corridor to better determine and project future growth. Objective 1: The economic conditions along the corridor and the economic impacts of modifying traffic patterns in comparable corridors will be analyzed. Subtasks will include the following: a) In addition to the traffic, parking and transportation related inventory, the consultant will assess the economic conditions of the Main Street, Babcock, Mendenhall corridor including collecting, analyzing and comparing rental rates, occupancy levels, property values and retail sales activity. This data will serve as a basis for projecting the economic impact of changing traffic patterns on the corridor. These economic conditions will also be evaluated in the context of historic commercial activity in the area and in comparison to other Bozeman commercial corridors. b) The consultant will conduct a benchmark survey of no less than six other comparably sized commercial business districts/corridors in other cities that ascertains the overall economic impacts before and after removal of one-way pairs has occurred in the past decade. This benchmarking survey will consider such measurable economic indicators as commercial occupancy and vacancy rates, changes to property values in comparison to other commercial districts within each community, changes to rental rates and retail activity, where data can be reasonably obtained and measured. This survey will also incorporate the time frame associated with these changes. Objective 2: The results of the benchmark survey and corridor economic assessment will provide the basis for estimating what the economic impact the will be to Downtown Bozeman from the elimination and/or reduction of the one-ways. The results will be presented in a concise written report supplemented with tables and graphs illustrating all of the findings and projections. Objective 3: In addition to ascertaining the prevailing economic conditions along the corridor, it is essential to incorporate the business plans and project the market opportunities that will occur along the corridor in downtown Bozeman. Therefore, the following subtasks will include: 81 a) The consultant will conduct extensive, confidential dialogue with downtown business interests and property stakeholders that include a determination of their potential business development plans (up to twelve individuals or businesses will be contacted). The results of these interviews will enhance the ability to project employment and business investment. This task will include ascertaining what has been achieved and absorbed since completion of the most recent commercial market studies for Downtown Bozeman. b) A commercial and residential market supply/demand analysis will be prepared that provides an understanding of the existing and projected market conditions in the study area and the emerging opportunities to attract new residential development along the corridor. The market analysis will help guide land use and transportation decision making and guide plans for new infrastructure. c) The analysis will determine the future land uses most likely to be developed along the corridor in the context of the prevailing and projected Bozeman market based on real world market conditions and regional conditions and trends influencing the corridor. 5. Corridor Streetscape Impact Analysis Assess the existing streetscape conditions of the corridor and project impacts to the streetscape if the roadway section along the corridor is altered. Also, identify opportunities to mitigate and/or improve the streetscape if traffic patterns along the corridors are altered. As roadway alternatives are developed, streetscape aspects along the corridor will be examined. This will include the evaluation and identification of an alternative that is cohesive with the established landscape palette in downtown Bozeman. This may include improvements for the No Build alternative. The review, evaluation and recommendation of streetscape improvements will be based on the following: · Streetscape Review and Alternatives · Selection and location of street furniture and other streetscape elements · Bicycle and Pedestrian safety routes and alternatives · Historic Character, especially in formal districts/individual listed structures 82 6. Preferred Alternative Selection Objective : To examine the results of analyses carried out for each alternative and to select a preferred alternative which minimizes impacts and cost while increasing safety and mobility for both motorized and non-motorized forms of transportation. Using the results of the analyses, the study team will develop a recommendation that is aimed at improving the overall results relative to traffic operations, transit operations, development potential, property values, and streetscape improvements along the corridor. The recommendation will also consider the short term and long term needs of the study area. Lastly, roadway sections most appropriate to the context of the study area will be recommended. Developing a recommendation will be facilitated by an impact analysis matrix along with input from the study review committee and the public. Develop technical memorandum that identifies a preferred alternative and summarizes the justification for the selection of the preferred alternative. 7. Preferred Alternative Impacts Evaluate and document the various impacts that may result from the lane geometry proposed for the preferred alternative. The conversion of the existing one-ways would have impacts on things other than traffic operations or roadway geometry. Other impacts to be studied for the preferred alternative will include: · Right-of-Way: The preferred corridor alternative project concept plan along with available GIS parcel information. This information will be used to estimate the amount of right-of-way (ROW). The quantity of ROW will be used to develop order of magnitude cost estimates. · Utilities: Similar to ROW, utility conflicts will be identified and quantified using preferred corridor alternative project concept plan along with available GIS parcel information. This information will be used to develop order of magnitude cost estimates. · Roadway Network: A microscopic simulation analysis will be performed using Sim Traffic Simulation software at key intersections using proposed geometry. Year 2030 AM and PM peak period traffic volumes will be used for the simulation analysis along with the proposed lane configurations and optimized timings. The effects of potential changes to Lamme Street and Olive Street will also be modeled, including warrant analysis and LOS analysis of intersections in the downtown area. This analysis will also take into account the impacts of left turns and change in 83 capacity. Lastly, the simulation analysis will include the effects of buses, and delivery vehicles. A technical memorandum summarizing the impacts associated with proposed lane geometry for the preferred alternative will be prepared. 8. Public Participation Plan Provide the public and various interest groups with an opportunity to participate in the development and review of alternatives at project milestones. The input received from these groups will also be used in the selection of a preferred alternative. The proposed improvements within the study area represent important events for Bozeman businesses, residents and motorists. Each alternative is significant because it may entail use of public funds and loss of parking. It could also affect growth and development patterns well into the future. Therefore, anyone affected by these improvements needs to be given ample opportunity to participate and be heard. A public participation program will be established so that citizens can contribute to the project and decision process. The program will be designed with the help of the City of Bozeman's staff and the Downtown Bozeman Partnership. The public participation program will accomplish these objectives: · Maintain active involvement of downtown business owners in the development and analysis of each alternative. · Enable meaningful public involvement at key milestones. · Address the needs and desires of the study participants and their respective issues. · Strive to identify important concerns. · Develop roadway and adjacent infrastructure concepts that are acceptable and supported by most (but not necessarily all) property owners in the general area. The public consists of individuals and interest groups, each with different concerns and participation preferences. As a result, no single method of seeking public input is sufficient. Therefore, a multi-method approach will be used that is flexible to react to continuing changes in participants and situations. Our recommended public participation program would consist of the following elements: · Study Review Committee · Public Meetings · Small Group Workshops · Newsletters and Website 84 Suggested Study Review Committee -The study review committee will be comprised of the following representatives: · City Commissioner · Senior City Planner · City Engineer · Representative from MDT · Representative from the DBP · Representative from Prospera and/or · Representative from the Chamber of Commerce · Representative from the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board · Representative from the Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Using this committee will provide continuity throughout the process and will allow the detailed study and analysis phase to move forward efficiently. In this role, the study review committee will: · Be apprised of the project progress and react to interim conclusions. · Share insights into how the community residents, businesses and other interest groups might respond to these interim conclusions. · Assist in clarifying public feedback received from public meetings or correspondence. · Look for ways to solve problems and mitigate specific concerns. · Provide advice about project enhancements. · Offer suggestions to improve the overall public participation efforts. The study review committee is not expected to develop a consensus recommendation regarding the project or present any type of formal committee conclusions to governing or other decision making bodies. The committee will meet over the course of the study at intervals corresponding to key project milestones. These meetings will be coordinated with public input meetings so as to make the most efficient use of any travel expenditures. Public Meetings: Three public meetings will be held at key milestones and decision points. Each meeting will provide an opportunity for the public to contribute to methodologies, issues, alternatives and decision making. These meetings will be informal in nature offering the public a chance to meet face-to-face with the project team. We will use various public involvement techniques to draw out genuine concerns. 85 To facilitate the communication process, color illustrations that can be easily understood will be developed. These illustrations will display project concepts, design options and impacts. This process enhances the ability to identify physical challenges, potential solutions, evaluate solutions from a visual perspective and communicate the unique features of an alternative in an understandable manner for all audiences. Small Group Meetings: Throughout the Corridor Development Plan, many individuals, organizations, and business associations may emerge that have unique perspectives or interests in the study areas. A special effort will be made to learn their concerns, determine how they would like to participate, and help define problems and possible solutions. The team will organize these workshops to be issue specific and will provide a forum for in-depth dialogue and problem solving. These will be conducted on an as-needed basis, but up to three (3) times for each group prior to each public meeting. A maximum of 12 individual and/or groups will be identified for these meetings. Up to three newsletters will be prepared at key project milestones. The newsletter will be provided to the client to be posted on a client hosted project website. A newsletter provides a mechanism for periodically communicating with relatively large numbers of people. It will be a useful educational tool especially for those who do not choose to actively participate in the study activities. Up to three newsletters are anticipated. Each phase of the study will have a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section to facilitate the public’s desire to learn about the project. Project content will be developed for a client hosted website to provide constant accessibility to project information. This usually increases the public's interest and participation in the project. The website should include pages such as: project overview, contacts, vicinity maps, schedule and meeting information. This information transfer between the public and project team will help increase awareness of the issues and promote public feedback. The task deliverables are listed as follows according to public meeting: 1. Public Meeting 1: Prior to the first public meeting, a project description and public meeting notice will be developed that explains the project, outlines the study area, and gives project contact information. The client will be responsible for providing a meeting room in the general vicinity of the study area and to publish a box ad in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle 10 to 15 86 days prior to the meeting. The content of the ad will be provided by the consultant. The meeting will be conducted to collect input from the public prior to the development of project alternatives. Prior to the first public meeting, the study team will meet with the study review committee to review preliminary issues, establish goals and objectives, review preliminary evaluation criteria, and discuss the first public meeting, 2. Public Meeting 2: Prior to the second public meeting, an update to the project description and public meeting notice will be developed that explains the current status of the project. The client will be responsible for providing a meeting room in the general vicinity of the study area and to publish a box ad in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle 10 to 15 days prior to the meeting. The consultant will be responsible for the content of the ad. The public meeting itself will be conducted to present project alternatives and collect public input prior to development of the Draft Corridor Study Report. Prior to the second public meeting, the study team will meet with the study review committee to review preliminary alternatives, subsequent analysis and to discuss the second public meeting. 3. Public Meeting 3: Prior to the final public meeting, an update to the project description and public meeting notice will be developed that explains the current status of the project, and outlines the alternatives being considered with a listing of associated advantages and disadvantages. The city will be responsible for providing a meeting room in the general vicinity of the study area and to publish two box ads in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle 15 and 7 days prior to the meeting. The consultant will be responsible for the content of the ads. The public meeting itself will be conducted to present Corridor Study recommendations and to collect detailed public comments. Prior to the last public meeting, the study team will meet with the study review committee to review final recommendations, findings and to discuss the final public meeting. Prior to each public meeting, alternative descriptions and updates along with meeting invitations will be provided to the client to be posted on the project website. All comments received at the meetings shall be logged and recorded to be included in the appendix of the final report. All necessary handouts, comment cards, presentation boards, etc, will be provided by the consultant. 87 At the conclusion of the final public meeting, the consultant will prepare a summary of public participation and will include all public input as an appendix to the final study. In addition to the study review committee meetings described previously, two other study review committee meetings will be conducted during the course of the project to review progress and to further refine alternatives. END OF RFQ I suggest a consultant selection committee comprised of a City Commissioner, Senior City Planner, City Engineer or Director of public Service, MDT representative, President of the DBP and a representative from Prospera or similar business group. FISCAL EFFECTS: A funding source for this study has not been identified. It is anticipated that the DBP through the TIF District, City of Bozeman and MDT will ultimately be the parties who will fund the study. No firm estimate of the cost of the study has been made, although informal discussions with professionals in the field lead me to believe the cost will be in the range of $200,000.00. 88 community planning zoning subdivision review annexation historic preservation neighborhood planning urban design GIS CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net MEMORANDUM TO: SANDY DODGE FROM: CHRIS SAUNDERS RE: POSSIBLE CHANGES TO CHAPTER 18.50, PARKS AND OPEN SPACES DATE: MARCH 7, 2011 The City Commission has requested the Planning Department to consider some possible changes to park dedication requirements. This is being generated by the commentary on park fees on page 39 of the Downtown Plan, see copy of text below. “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 demographic and thus if development is charged such a fee, in a sense it is subsidizing edge development. This is contrary to planning 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 differently. 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 alleys, creating small parks along Bozeman Creek, and creating or improving other public spaces and facilities within the downtown.” There are also other elements of the Downtown plan that discuss development of green spaces which may include parks. The Commission has also adopted the following goals to be pursued in 2010-2011. Items 3 and 5 are also seen as being affected by park dedication requirements. “1) Enhance Downtown Development Opportunities 1. Utilize the federal HUD grant for the blast site (Finance, CM) 2. Conduct a "Full cost & benefit study: social, economic & traffic considerations for one-way conversion to 2-way, shared lanes, streetscape improvements and truck route modifications" as recommended by the Downtown Plan. (Engineers) 3. Increase density in the B-3 district. Bozeman Community Plan (BCP) Implementation Policy 8, 9, 16, 21a, 22, 27, 81. (Planning - Krueger) 4. Implement the remaining parking recommendations identified in the downtown plan and review and update for the Downtown Parking SID/Cash-in-lieu program. BCP Implementation policies 2, 3, 9, 10, 11. (Planning - Bristor, Parking) 89 Page 2 5. Amend UDO to incentivize downtown redevelopment and the construction of multi-story buildings (Planning - Riley)” In considering options to address this direction Staff has identified several possibilities. These are summarized below and the attached text has an initial cut at the actual language. Please note that the draft text reflects ALL of the options and therefore, some will be removed before adoption. Options: A. Leave as is. B. No requirement for park dedication within the B-3 zoning district no matter how many units are proposed. C. Exempt the first five new dwellings in a project from dedication requirements (somewhat mirrors the exemption for minor subdivisions. D. Make specific that there is no land required, only cash-in-lieu. Delegate approval authority for review and acceptance of cash-in-lieu to the Planning Director. This shortens the review process and eliminates unnecessary effort. E. Follow the normal cash-in-lieu procedures but adopt a fixed percentage reduction across the board. F. The City Commission could pre-designate all cash-in-lieu received to certain projects like improving Bozeman Creek. This would likely not be code but a separate resolution or other action and is not shown in the attached text. 90 Draft page 50-1 CHAPTER 18.50 PARK AND RECREATION REQUIREMENTS 18.50.010 GENERAL Except as provided in §18.50.020.B of this chapter, all subdivisions and residential developments subject to Chapter 18.34, BMC, shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. 18.50.020 PARK AREA AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS A. The area required by §18.50.020.A shall be provided. The required area or its equivalent may be provided by any combination of land dedication, cash donation in-lieu of land dedication, or an alternative authorized by §18.50.100, BMC, subject to the standards of this title. 1. When the net residential density of development is known, three-one-hundredths (0.03) acres per dwelling unit of land shall be provided. a. When the net residential density of development is known at the time of preliminary plat and net residential density is in excess of eight dwellings per acre, the requirement for dedication for that density above eight dwellings per acre shall be met with a cash donation in-lieu of the additional land unless specifically determined otherwise by the City Commission. b. These requirements are based on the community need for parks and the development densities identified in the growth policy and this title. c. Net residential density of development is known when a plat or site plan depicts a set number of lots and the final number of residential units at full buildout can be reasonably determined. d. The required area dedication or its equivalent shall not be required for any residential density in excess of the following: (1) For development within the R-1, R-2, and R-MH zoning districts, the maximum net residential density shall be 10 dwellings per acre. (2) For development within the R-3, R-4, and R-O zoning districts, the maximum net residential density shall be 12 dwellings per acre. (3) For development within other zoning districts not previously specified and developed for residential uses, the maximum net residential density shall be 12 dwellings per acre. OR 2. If net residential density of development is unknown, .03 acres per dwelling of land dedication or its equivalent shall be provided as follows: a. For initial subdivision or other development: (1) For development within the R-1, R-2, and R-MH zoning districts an area equal to that required for six dwellings per net acre. (2) For development within the R-3, R-4, and unless legally restricted from residential uses R-O zoning districts, an area equal to that required for eight dwellings per net acre. (3) For development within other zoning districts not previously specified and which are intended for residential development, the equivalent to an 91 Draft page 50-2 area dedication for six dwellings per net acre shall be provided as cash-in- lieu. b. For subsequent development when net residential density becomes known, the net residential density per acre shall be rounded to the nearest whole number and applied as follows: (1) For development within the R-1, R-2, and R-MH zoning districts the land area equivalent for the additional net residential density not to exceed a total, including prior dedications, of 10 dwellings per acre shall be provided as cash-in-lieu. (2) For development within the R-3, R-4, and R-O zoning districts the land area equivalent for the additional net residential density not to exceed a total, including prior dedications, of 12 dwellings per acre shall be provided as cash-in-lieu. (3) For development within other zoning districts not previously specified and developed for residential uses for the additional net residential density not to exceed a total, including prior dedications, of 12 dwellings per acre shall be provided as cash-in-lieu. 3. Applicability to Site Plans. Section 18.50.020.A.2, BMC, shall not apply to subsequent site plan development located within major subdivisions which received preliminary plat approval after July 1, 1973 and which received final plat approval prior to October 1, 2005. 4. Special Case. The City has established Chapter 17.02, BMC to encourage the provision and development of affordable housing. a. The minimum number of workforce housing units required to comply with Chapter 17.02, BMC are exempt from the parkland dedication requirements of this chapter. Dwellings resulting from the density bonus provisions of Section 17.02.060.A are exempt from the parkland dedication requirement. Workforce housing units in excess of the minimum number shall provide parkland on the same basis as other development. b. The parkland requirement for development not otherwise exempted from dedication requirements shall be reduced by a 1:1 ratio based on the minimum required square footage of the lot area necessary to provide minimum compliance with Chapter 17.02, BMC. For example, if 50,000 square feet of lots for workforce housing units are required then there shall be a reduction in the required parkland area of 50,000 square feet. (1) If the developer chooses to develop more than the required number or area of workforce housing unit lots, the additional lot area square footage above the minimum required shall not further reduce the parkland area. (2) The reduction of parkland shall be allowed for WHUs and/or lots provided offsite of the responsible development but only to the extent of the required WHU lot area for the development applying for this parkland offset and only applied on the site of the development applying for the parkland offset. c. The reductions in parkland dedication to conform with Chapter 17.02, BMC may not reduce the development’s parkland requirements below the minimum established by Section 76-3-621, MCA. 92 Draft page 50-3 B. Exceptions. Land dedication or cash donation in-lieu of land dedication shall not be required for: 1. A minor subdivision. 2. Land proposed for subdivision into parcels larger than 5 acres. 3. Subdivision into parcels which are all nonresidential. 4. A subdivision in which parcels are not created, except when that subdivision provides permanent multiple spaces for recreational camping vehicles or manufactured homes. 5. A subdivision in which only one additional parcel is being created. 6. An application reviewed under §18.34.050, BMC. 7. Residential development within the B-3 zoning district. 7. The first five dwellings developed on a site in the B-3 zoning district. C. Development on land initially exempted from park dedication is required to provide park dedication if further development of the site does not continue to meet the criteria for exemption. D. Residential site plans: For residential site plans unless otherwise provided through the subdivision or planned unit development review process, is an amount of park land or its equivalent equal to that required by §18.50.020, BMC for the proposed number of dwelling units set aside within the project boundaries, and configured for active recreational use by the residents of the project; or has the developer proposed to provide its equivalent as may otherwise be allowed by this title. E. Residential site plans open space requirement: Site plans containing five or more dwelling units shall provide on-site open space for the use of the residents. The area to be provided is calculated only for those dwellings which do not have ground floor access to a landscaped rear yard. Open space shall be provided at a rate of 150 square feet per dwelling unit for dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms, and 100 square feet per dwelling unit for studio and one bedroom dwellings. All landscaped areas, public plazas or common green roof decks shall be considered a “commons” and be accessible to all residents of the site. The requirement may be met through the use of any of the following options. Options may be combined to satisfy the area requirement. 1. Landscaped. The required area shall: a. Be configured in areas of not less than 600 square feet in area, and b. Have at least one minimum dimension of 25 feet. Upon a showing that a superior design will result, the City may allow up to a 20% reduction in the minimum dimension so long as the space does not exceed a length to width ration of 1 to 3, and c. Have a slope of 10 percent or less, and d. Not have non-recreational structures or detention/retention ponds; and e. Provide the equivalent seating area of two benches, each four feet in length, which do not obstruct its use, and f. Area(s) shall be centralized within the project with a clear pedestrian connection from all served dwelling unit, or. g. Properties adjacent to a park, trail or other open space amenity shall be configured in such a manner as to complement and relate to the adjacent open space facilities, and 93 Draft page 50-4 2. Common plaza or common green roof deck. Area provided through this means may be used to meet the performance requirements of Chapter 18.48, Landscaping, BMC. The required area shall: a. Meet a minimum size of 225 square feet, and b. Have a minimum dimension of 15 feet. Upon a showing that a superior design will result, the City may allow up to a 20% reduction in the minimum dimension so long as the space does not exceed a length to width ration of 1 to 3, and c. Be fully surfaced with scored concrete, architectural pavers, or other alternative high quality surfacing, and d. Area must have a slope of 2% or less. e. Provide one of the following: (1) Option 1, a minimum of two benches and two permanent irrigated planters with a cumulative area of not less than 40 square feet. (2) Option 2, two benches and a shade structure that would cover 50% of the plaza area. (3) Option 3, a fountain of at least 10 square feet with integrated seating around fountain perimeter; or f. For green roof deck credit the area shall include 25% of the surface planted with rooftop landscaping (trays or full depth soil). 3. Private patio or private green roof deck. The required area shall: a. Have a minimum dimension of 8 feet. Upon a showing that a superior design will result, the City may allow up to a 20% reduction in the minimum dimension so long as the space does not exceed a length to width ration of 1 to 3, and b. Be surrounded by minimum 18” masonry screen wall. c. Green roof deck shall include 25% of the surface planted with rooftop landscaping (trays or full depth soil). 4. Private individual balconies shall have minimum dimensions of 6 feet by 6 feet. 18.50.030 CASH DONATION IN-LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION A. The City Commission may determine whether the park dedication must be a land dedication, cash donation in-lieu of land dedication or a combination of both. When making this determination, the City Commission shall consider the following: 1. The desirability and suitability of land for parks and playgrounds based on size, topography, shape, location or other circumstances; and 2. The expressed preference of the developer. 3. Location of the site within the B-3 zoning district. The City Commission has determined that cash-in-lieu of land dedication is the preferred method to satisfy the requirements of 18.50.020.A within the B-3 zoning district. The approval authority of a development within the B-3 zoning district is as governed by Section 18.64.010 and use of the in-lieu provisions of this chapter do not require review of the project by the City Commission. B. When a combination of land dedication and cash donation in-lieu of land dedication is required, the cash donation may not exceed the proportional amount not covered by the land dedication. 94 Draft page 50-5 C. Cash donation in-lieu of land dedication shall be equal to the fair market value of the amount of land that would have been dedicated. For the purpose of these regulations, the fair market value is the value of the unsubdivided, unimproved land after it has been annexed and given an urban zoning designation. The City intends to obtain the highest value for cash-in-lieu of parkland that is allowable under Montana law. 1. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to provide an appraisal of the fair market value by a certified real estate appraiser of their choosing. The appraisal fee shall be the responsibility of the developer. 2. When a land value must be established for cash-in-lieu of land dedication to satisfy the requirements of §18.50.020, BMC, and the value of the land in an unsubdivided, unimproved, but annexed and zoned condition can not reasonably be determined, the developer may provide an appraisal of residentially zoned property with a zoning designation that allows the density of dwellings proposed for development. 3. The appraisal provided for the purpose of §18.50.030, BMC shall be conducted not sooner than 90 days prior to the submittal of an application for final plat or final site plan approval. 4. Within the B-3 zoning district only, the amount to be paid for cash-in-lieu shall be 50 percent of the amount otherwise calculated under this paragraph. D. Where a cash donation has been accepted in-lieu of land dedication, the amount of cash donation shall be stated on the final plat or plan as appropriate. E. Where a cash donation has been accepted in-lieu of land dedication, the City shall record in the meeting minutes or other written decision why the dedication of land for parks and playgrounds was undesirable. F. Use of Cash Donations. 1. The City shall use a cash donation for development or acquisition of parks to serve the development. 2. The City may use the cash donation to acquire or develop parks or recreational areas within its jurisdiction or for the purchase of public open space or conservation easements, only if: a. The park, recreational area, open space or conservation easement is within a reasonably close proximity to the proposed development; and b. The City Commission has formally adopted a Citywide park plan that establishes the needs and procedures for use of the cash donation. 18.50.040 PARK USE As part of an individual Park Master Plan, the developer shall indicate the proposed use of the park as active, passive, playground, ballfield, etc. However, the final use of the park shall be determined by the City Commission. 18.50.050 LOCATION A. General. The City Commission or Planning Director, in consultation with the developer, Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, and the Planning Board if applicable, may determine suitable locations for parks and playgrounds. Park land must be located on land suitable to and supportive of the activities and functions depicted in the relevant park plan, and unless the park plan indicates a requirement for another configuration, should be kept in a large block. 95 Draft page 50-6 B. Subarea or Neighborhood Plans. If a subarea or neighborhood plan has been adopted for the area, the subdivision shall comply with the subarea or neighborhood plan for the location of parks. 18.50.060 FRONTAGE Park land, excluding linear trail corridors, shall have frontage along 100 percent of its perimeter on public or private streets or roads. The City may consider and approve the installation of streets along less than 100 percent, but not less than 50 percent, of the perimeter when: A. Necessary due to topography, the presence of critical lands, or similar site constraints; and B. 1. When direct pedestrian access is provided to the perimeters without street frontage; and 2. When additional land area is provided in the park to accommodate the off-street parking which would have otherwise been provided by the additional length of perimeter streets and the additional land is developed as a parking area; or 3. When additional land area is provided in the park to accommodate the off-street parking which would have been provided by the additional length of perimeter streets and, in lieu of the constructed parking area, an equivalent dollar value of non-parking improvements within the park are provided according to the individual park plan. 18.50.070 LINEAR PARKS A. General. If consistent with a growth policy or Citywide park plan, and if reviewed and approved by the City Commission, linear parks shall be dedicated to the City to provide corridors for recreation pathways as defined in §18.50.110, BMC. 1. Pathway corridors within required watercourse setbacks shall not be dedicated to the City as linear parks and such land may not be used to satisfy park land dedication requirements. Instead, cash donation in-lieu of land dedication credit shall be granted only for the cost of constructing Class II or III recreational trails if public access is provided. The developer shall provide a detailed cost estimate for installation of the trail, for review and acceptance by the City, to determine the cash donation credit. a. Within required watercourse setbacks, a public access easement that is at least 25 feet in width shall be provided to ensure adequate room for the construction, maintenance and use of the trail. B. Width. To ensure adequate room for pathway construction, maintenance and use, linear parks shall be at least 25 feet in width. C. Maintenance. These areas shall be maintained in accordance with §18.50.110.E, BMC until an alternative method (e.g., a Citywide parks maintenance district) of funding and maintaining the linear park is established. 18.50.080 PARK DEVELOPMENT A. General. Developers shall consult any adopted Citywide park plan, and with the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board which implements the plan, to determine the types of parks needed for the proposed development and surrounding area. Parks shall be developed in accordance with the Citywide park plan and any approved Park Master Plan. At a minimum, all parks shall be improved to the following standards by the developer, prior to final plat or final occupancy approval as appropriate: 1. Minimum Required Improvements Land Dedications. The subdivider shall be responsible for leveling any park area(s), amending the soil, seeding disturbed areas to 96 Draft page 50-7 allow mowing with turf type mowers, and installing an underground irrigation system in compliance with City standards and specifications. a. Parks shall be seeded with drought tolerant grass seed unless approved otherwise in writing by the Park Superintendent. 2. Irrigation. The developer shall be responsible for irrigating the park area(s) until 50 percent of the subdivision lots or condominium units are sold. Thereafter, the property owners association shall be responsible for park irrigation. The property owners’ association could establish an improvement district to collect assessments to pay for irrigation. a. Wells shall be used to irrigate park land. B. Boundaries. The park boundary bordering all private lots shall be delineated at the common private/public corner pins, with flat, flexible fiberglass posts, a minimum of 6 feet in length with no less than 2 feet driven into the ground. Each post must be labeled with a permanent glue on sign stating “Park Boundary” or “Property Boundary”. Other forms of boundary marking may be approved by the Planning or other appropriate department. C. Sidewalks. Sidewalks, when required within the development, shall be installed by the developer at points where the park borders or crosses public or private streets. D. Storm Water Detention/Retention Ponds. Stormwater retention or detention ponds may be located within public park land, but such areas shall not count towards the park land dedication requirement. Any stormwater ponds located on park land shall be designed, constructed and/or added to so as to be conducive to the normal use and maintenance of the park. Storm water ponds shall not be located on private lots. Stormwater retention or detention ponds shall be maintained by the property owners association. E. Clean Up Required. The park area must have all fencing material, construction debris and other trash removed. 18.50.090 WAIVER OF PARK MAINTENANCE DISTRICT When required, the developer shall sign, and file at the County Clerk and Recorders Office, a waiver of right to protest the creation of park maintenance district(s). The waiver shall be filed with the final subdivision plat, or recorded at the time of other final approval. 18.50.100 WAIVER OF REQUIRED PARK DEDICATION The City Commission shall waive the park dedication or cash donation in-lieu of land dedication requirement if land equal to or exceeding the area of the dedication otherwise required by this chapter is set aside by one of the following means: A. The proposed development provides long-term protection of critical wildlife habitat; cultural, historical, archeological or natural resources; agricultural interests; or aesthetic values; B. The proposed development provides for a planned unit development or other development with land permanently set aside for park and recreational uses sufficient to meet the needs of the persons who will ultimately reside in the development; C. The development is a land subdivision created by rent or lease (i.e., manufactured housing communities and recreational vehicle parks) with land permanently set aside for parks or playgrounds within the subdivision for rent or lease for the common use of the residents of the development; 1. These park or playground areas shall be maintained by the property owners association. 97 Draft page 50-8 D. The developer provides for land outside of the subdivision to be set aside for park and recreational uses sufficient to meet the needs of the persons who will ultimately reside in the subdivision. 1. The land being developed shall be within the service area, as designated by an adopted Citywide park plan, of the dedicated park land; and 2. The developer must dedicate the off-site park land to the City of Bozeman; OR The developer must execute the appropriate public access easements on privately-owned land. The easements shall be held by the City of Bozeman. The City of Bozeman’s responsibilities for park land dedicated by easement shall be the same as for fee simple park land dedication. E. The developer provides land outside the development that affords long-term protection of critical wildlife habitat; cultural, historical, archeological or natural resources; agricultural interests; or aesthetic values; and the area of the land to be subject to long-term protection equals or exceeds the area of the dedication otherwise required by this chapter. F. A subdivider may dedicate land to School District 7 to provide some or all of the land area required by § 18.50.020 BMC. The area dedicated to the school district may be used for school facilities or buildings, including but not limited to play grounds or other recreational facility. Any dedication to the school district shall be subject to the approval of the City Commission and acceptance by the Board of Trustees of School District 7. 1. In approving a dedication of land to the school district the City Commission shall make affirmative findings that: a. Adequate public park land already exists within the vicinity of the dedicating subdivision to meet service standards established by the City’s parks master plan; b. The land is located within the city limits or within one mile of city limits; c. The school district has established a facility plan to demonstrate how the dedicated property will be utilized; d. The school district’s facility plan shall describe any coordination intended for joint use of the property by the School District and the City; and e. The option for cash-in-lieu of land described in §18.50.030, BMC shall not be used in place of a land dedication to the School District. 2. It shall be noted in a certificate on the plat and in any deed to the land that if School District 7 later chooses to dispose of the property, it shall revert to the City of Bozeman to be used for park purposes. The land shall be transferred to the City from School District 7 with clear title and in a condition meeting the minimum development standards for parks established in §18.50.080, BMC. G. If a tract of land is being developed under single ownership as a part of an overall plan, and part of the tract has previously been subdivided or developed, and sufficient park land dedication or cash donation in-lieu of land dedication has been provided from the area that has been previously subdivided or developed to meet the requirements of this section for the entire tract being developed, the City Commission shall issue an order waiving the land dedication and cash donation requirements for the subsequently developed area. 18.50.110 RECREATION PATHWAYS A. General. Developers shall install pathways in accordance with this title, the growth policy, the most recently adopted long range transportation plan, any adopted Citywide park plan, and any 98 Draft page 50-9 adopted individual Park Master Plan, and shall comply with City of Bozeman design specifications. B. Pathway Categories. The DRC shall be responsible for determining whether a pathway is a transportation pathway or a recreation pathway. For subdivision proposals, this determination shall be made during the pre-application process. 1. Recreation Pathways. The City Commission may require developers to install recreation pathways, to provide recreational and physical fitness opportunities within the development, as part of the required development improvements. Recreation pathways include the following facilities: a. Pathways that do not connect major residential, employment, educational or service nodes; b. Pathways that connect parks, but do not connect major residential, employment, educational or service nodes; c. Pathways that are not ADA accessible due to topography; d. Pathways located within parks; and e. Class II and III trails. 2. Transportation Pathways. For the definition of transportation pathways, please see §18.44.110, BMC. C. Related Facilities. If pathways are proposed or required, stream crossings and other similar improvements, where necessary, shall be installed. Bridge design and construction shall comply with City specifications and standards, and shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. Any necessary permits for bridges shall be obtained by the developer from the appropriate agency prior to installation of the stream crossings. D. Trail Requirements. The class of the trail shall be determined by the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, and the trail shall be designed and constructed according to any adopted park or recreation plan or other City specifications and standards. Trails and bridges must meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) specifications for recreational facilities and maintain a natural appearance. Trail plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to installation. E. Pathway Maintenance. Recreation pathways within the proposed development shall be maintained, in conformance with an approved maintenance plan, by the developer until 50 percent of the lots or condominium units are sold. Thereafter the property owners association shall be responsible for maintenance. The property owners association could establish an improvement district to collect assessments to pay for the maintenance. F. Pathway Easements. Where pathways cross private land or common open space, the proper public access easements shall be provided. Public access easements for pathways shall be at least 25 feet wide. G. Linear Parks. Corridors for recreation pathways may be dedicated to the City in accordance with §18.50.070, BMC. 99 100 DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN NEXT STEPS AND TOP PRIORITIES • Adopt the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan Completed December 2009 • Establish Technical Assistance Program Completed April 2010 Finalize TIF program providing financial/technical assistance for complete project analysis and façade improvements. To date the TIF Downtown Technical Assistance Grant Program has funded a total of 20 Technical Assistance projects and 6 Façade Assistance projects. • Prepare Code Revisions Initiate UDO modifications regarding: Parking Regulations Completed January 2010 w/ COB Ord No 1796 In essence the UDO modification regarding downtown parking requirements cut the number of spaces in half from the previous calculations. In addition to the reductions for office, retail and restaurant uses, the revised UDO exempts any parking for the first 3000 sqft of retail or restaurant. The UDO also awards parking reductions for proximity to public parking assets and public transportation. We now have ‘urban’ parking standards versus the old ‘suburban’ model. Planning Review and Approval Processes Ongoing This is also a primary objective of the Economic Development Plan. I know that the ED Board and the Planning Department are currently working on re-tooling the application/review/approval process. The Downtown Plan specifically recommends: "The City should restructure its review and decision-making procedures. All development proposals should be reviewed administratively 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 consolidated review including representatives form both groups. This avoids a proponent receiving conflicting directions. The City Commission should rely upon its fine professional staff and skilled boards to make development decisions." Building Design Guidelines Future The original "Next Steps" matrix suggested that this process begin in latter half of 2011. The Downtown Plan specifically recommends: "Downtown is currently 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 descriptive and inspirational and use graphics to explain. These need not be onerous 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." 101 • Conduct a Downtown Success Audit Ongoing A Downtown Audit examines the economic health of downtown, both from an income/cost perspective and a tax revenue perspective. It looks at vacancies, mix of tenancies, “missing” businesses, and ways to specifically support various market sectors through organizational, financial, and governmental programs. The Downtown Partnership is currently drafting “Downtown Progress Report: 2000-2009 A Decade of Success”. This document will chronicle the public and private efforts to improve downtown during the implementation life- cycle of the 1998 Downtown Improvement Plan. Moving forward a similar report will be prepared documenting the implementation of the 2009 Downtown Improvement Plan. • Conduct Parking Inventory and Use Study Completed January 2011 w/ “Downtown Parking Study” Commission the study of downtown’s public and private parking inventory. Study should incorporate empirical analysis of how parking is utilized including occupancy rate, dwell time and turnover rates. The Downtown Parking Study was completed on behalf of the Bozeman Parking Commission by the Western Transportation Institute with Downtown Tax Increment funding. This study provides in-depth empirical analysis that will inform parking policy and management decisions. • Create “Greening Downtown” Plan Ongoing Better identify opportunities to green the alleys, establish pocket parks, and enhance Bozeman Creek. The Downtown Partnership is currently developing a “Downtown Alley Sketchbook” which recommends a variety of ways to improve and enhance our alleys with pedestrian amenities, lighting, landscaping and hardscaping. The Partnership is also finalizing an RFP for the “Downtown Bozeman Creek PARK Project” which will analyze ways to improve the function of the public parking lot at Rouse and Babcock, add enhanced greenspace along the adjacent Bozeman Creek and mitigate storm water from the lot and alley. • Implement the Downtown Streetscape Project Ongoing 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. The Downtown TIF District has a set of preliminary engineering plans to upgrade the side street streetscapes as well as the remaining unimproved sections of Main Street streetscapes. While there are no plans for comprehensive implementation, the Downtown Partnership works on a ongoing basis to assist property owners with streetscape improvements. Last year the Partnership collaborated to improve the streetscapes adjacent to Tire-Rama, Heebs Grocery, and the Gallatin Building. 102 • Explore Public-Private Partnerships Ongoing Identify opportunities for public-private development projects. Consider best ways for City of Bozeman to encourage and incentivize infill development. The Downtown Partnership is encouraged by the City Commission’s initiative to discuss this very issue. Regarding incentivizing infill development downtown, the Commission may want to consider reducing impact fees accessed downtown. This would be within the context that 1) the public infrastructure is already in place and for the most part recently upgraded; and 2) the enormous return on past public infrastructure investments in terms of tax revenues generated by dense downtown development. • Analyze Traffic Calming Methods Ongoing Full Cost and Benefit study: social, economic, and traffic considerations for one-way street conversion, shared lanes, streetscape improvements, and truck route modifications. The Downtown Partnership and City began this process by drafting the “Downtown Urban Route Transformation” proposal. While this document is far from complete and in need of further input from the Partnership and other COB departments, it represents a good start. There may be significant federal funding available from the DOT- HUD-EPA “Sustainable Communities Program”. All parties should continue to assemble a comprehensive plan and proposal in preparation to apply for funding. • Initiate Exploration of Possible Development Sites Future 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. This recommendation warrants further public discussion to determine its merits and how to address future development opportunities, particularly regarding municipal properties. 103