HomeMy WebLinkAboutmemo and attach, downtown sidewalk, 3-4-10 policy Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Brian Heaston, Project Engineer
Allyson C. Bristor, Associate Planner
Rick Hixson, City Engineer
Chris Saunders, Interim Planning Director Paul Burns, Parking Manager
Chuck Winn, Assistant City Manager
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Encroachments into Downtown Right-of-Way
MEETING DATE: March 4, 2010
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Policy Discussion Item
RECOMMENDATIONS:
A) Consider the presented draft revisions of Chapter 12.22 of the BMC, “Downtown
Sidewalk Encroachment Permit Program,” AND
B) Direct City Staff to formalize adoption of the revisions by drafting an ordinance.
BACKGROUND: The City Commission directed City Staff to look at the issue of substantial
and long-term encroachment of downtown right-of-ways, and to present recommendations at a
scheduled Commission policy meeting for further consideration.
Staff from the Engineering and Planning Departments has been investigating the issue of
substantial and long-term encroachment of downtown right-of-way for the last month. During
the preliminary investigation, Staff quickly acknowledged the appropriateness of outdoor
sidewalk cafes in a downtown commercial setting. Several examples currently exist along Main Street and the idea to expand to the cross streets supports the idea of inviting pedestrians to
explore downtown areas beyond Main Street. Staff also identified that expanding a sidewalk
into public right-of-way is physically possible in design, as long as stormwater drains
appropriately, minimum traffic lane width is maintained, street lights and trees are
accommodated, bike racks are supplied, etc.
Presented on the following page is a pros and cons list Staff created when considering the
impacts of allowing substantial and long-term encroachment into our downtown right-of-way:
• Revitalization of downtown
Pros
• Adding vitality of Main Street
• Property owners investing in downtown
• Adds functional open spaces that can be
used and enjoyed day and night by pedestrians
• Adds bike racks downtown
• Completes side street enhancements of
the “Downtown Streetscape Project”
• Promotes pedestrian active uses on
ground floor
• Improving the Downtown Permit Program by including all types of encroachment
• Add visual appeal to pedestrian
sidewalks
• Adding pedestrian public space
• Not recommended in a downtown
comprehensive plan
Cons
• Not included in any downtown specific
plan
• Precedent setting in nature
• Use of public right-of-way for private benefit
• Diversity of interests
• Unable to avoid “first come first serve” situation
• Reduction of parking inventory
• Two review authorities for downtown right-of-ways
• Change of traffic lane width
• Change of street drainage system
• Offset intersections
• Potential to impact overall character of
downtown
• Significant engineering, planning and legal consideration
As recommended by the City Commission, Staff met with four City advisory boards/committees
to discuss the encroachment policy issue: 1) Parking Commission, 2) Community Alcohol
Coalition, 3) Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Commission, and 4) Planning Board. Draft minutes
from some of these meetings are attached to this memorandum. Summaries of each meeting are also included further below. In addition to City advisory boards/committees, Staff had conversations with representatives of Montana Department of Revenue (MDR), in specific
regards to state requirements of outdoor seating areas affiliated with a business that is issued a
state alcohol license. Staff also made contact with other communities in the state to determine
how they have addressed comparable long-term right-of-way use scenarios. The City’s of Helena and Billings have successfully implemented projects similar in character to the one
prompting this policy discussion, whereas Kalispell, Missoula and Great Falls have not. Each
contact group provided great insights on the policy issue that helped City Staff to shape the
presented revisions.
Community Alcohol Coalition Committee Review
The CAC was asked to comment on the policy issue as it specifically relates to outdoor cafes that
serve alcohol. They support the idea of sidewalk cafes in the downtown area. They
recommended the following items be considered or included in the long-term encroachment policy plan:
1. Look at the rules of the current Sidewalk Encroachment Permit program and make sure
they are included or cited in the new policy plan;
2. Emphasis on server training should be included or required;
3. Outdoor cafes should be a “seat and serve” area and not a general gathering place for the bar or restaurant;
4. Hours of operation and noise nuisance shall be considered;
5. Department of Revenue shall be contacted so they are aware their alcohol license is
including an outdoor seating area;
6. City of Bozeman will have to be the enforcers of these pedestrian spaces;
7. Make sure business owners/property owners know the rules well in advance; and
8. Very much in favor of supporting responsible business practices downtown.
Parking Commission Review
The Parking Commission (PC) was asked to comment on the policy issue as it specifically
relates to the loss of on-street parking (How many spaces can be lost from the parking
inventory?, Where can parking spaces be removed in the downtown area?, etc.) and the value of an on-street parking space. Their motion is summarized below, and also included in the attached
Parking Commission memorandum:
1. The loss of on-street parking spaces can only occur within the B-3 core district and/or
within a 200-foot perimeter of public parking facilities;
2. Recognizing the Parking Commission will conduct a parking management study in the near future, the loss of on-street parking shall be limited to 10 spaces; and
3. Acknowledging the true cost affiliated with creating a parking space, but considering the
public benefit of encroachment projects, a $5,000 cash-at-lost payment per on-street
parking space, or a $50/per parking space/per month (for a 10 year lease term) shall be
collected for each on-street parking space lost.
Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Review
The Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee (PTSC) was asked to comment on the policy as it
specifically relates to pedestrian and traffic safety. They support the idea of encroachment for outdoor cafes, bicycling parking, pedestrian amenities, etc. They believe such encroachments
increase the walkability of the downtown area, which is a public benefit. They recommended the
following items be considered or included in the long-term encroachment policy plan:
1. If substantial or long term encroachment occurs in the right-of-way, a 10-foot pedestrian
sidewalk must be provided; 2. If any kind of encroachment (temporary or long term) occurs in the right-of-way, a 5-foot
clear width must be provided;
3. Snow removal of the entire right-of-way should be required by the property/business
owners so pedestrians are able to safely travel in their designated area;
4. Adequate drainage shall be provided at all times to avoid a ponding of water at the pedestrian crossings;
5. Ensure pedestrian crossings are still provided at streets and alleys;
6. Potential for more bike parking is a positive aspect;
7. Sidewalk expansions help eliminate the possibility of parked car and bicyclist interaction
(eliminates the “doorzone”); and 8. A maximum encroachment should be established.
Planning Board Review
The Planning Board (PB) was asked to comment on the policy issue as it particular relates to the Bozeman Community Plan and the recently adopted Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan.
The Board’s comments are included below:
1. Long-term and substantial encroachment abides to the goals set out in the Bozeman
Community Plan, in particular Chapter 4, “Community Quality,” and Chapter 8
“Economic Development;” 2. Consider all types of encroachments;
3. Fees should be required of exclusive use encroachments;
4. Public safety should be number one concern;
5. Loss of parking is a concern and should be considered in balance with the specific public
benefits of an encroachment proposal; and
6. Policy should consider all possible users (for example, restaurant vs. hardware store).
Proposed Revisions to Downtown Sidewalk Encroachment Permit Program
After considering the cons and pros, and gaining insight from all contacted parties, Staff chose to
introduce the idea of substantial and long-term encroachment of downtown right-of-way into the
existing “Downtown Sidewalk Encroachment Permit Program,” which is codified as Chapter 12.22 of the BMC. The existing program controls uses, or physical encroachments, in the right-
of-way that occur frequently in the downtown area. The nature of encroachments permitted
under Chapter 12.22 of the BMC is typically temporary and mobile as in the cases of sandwich
board signage, sidewalk retail displays, and food vending carts. However, the program does
include specific provisions permitting sidewalk cafés and there are existing examples successfully implemented on Main Street (Plonk Wine Bar, La Tinga Restaurant, Nova
Restaurant, etc). The existing permit area does not encompass the entirety of the B-3 (Central
Business District) zoning district. Additionally, the City does not currently assess a fee for
encroachments permitted under 12.22, including the specific application of a sidewalk café. (Please note that construction-related encroachments, such as stockpiling materials or placing roll-off dumpsters on the street, are handled separately as codified under Sections 12.12.030
thru 12.12.050 BMC and may apply to any city street).
Please find the proposed revisions to Chapter 12.22 attached to this memorandum. All changes
are noted in red. The revisions are summarized and justified below:
• The purpose and intent of the existing program was slightly reworded, but the intent
remains the same.
• The boundary of the program is expanded to include more of the B-3 zoning district. The new boundary is described under the “Downtown Business District” definition. This was recommended by some Commissioners during the last policy discussion and was implied
by the Parking Commission with their recommended areas of where the loss of parking
inventory may be considered.
• The primary two revisions of the existing program is the introduction of “Exclusive Use” and “Substantial Encroachment.” Both are defined in the definitions section of the
Chapter. To provide more clarification, “Non-Substantial Encroachment” is also defined.
This type of encroachment is what Staff expects to see the majority of requests
encompass, as they are temporary in nature.
• “Exclusive Use” is any encroachment use that creates an exclusion of the public, whether direct (for example, a fence) or implied (for example, a table and chair with place
settings).
• “Substantial Encroachment” is any encroachment that creates a physical reduction in existing asphalt width to streets. This my include, but not limited to, a change to
sidewalk width and depth, curb and gutter location, and traffic and parking lane widths
(with exception to intersection curb bulbs for traffic calming purposes).
• A substantial encroachment may be either exclusive or non-exclusive in nature, not both.
• All encroachments require a permit or approval, or both.
• Substantial encroachments must first satisfy the provisions of Title 18 of the BMC and
found to be compliant with required regulations of the same (for example, a Site Plan
application would need to be processed at the Department of Planning). Because the encroachment would involve City right-of-way, the City Commission would ultimately be a part of this Title 18 review process.
• Substantial encroachments would also require a traffic study analyzing cumulative
impacts to traffic patterns downtown. This requirement is justified because there is no
downtown plan existing that has examined the cumulative effects of traffic lane width alterations and sidewalk expansions.
• Substantial encroachments are particularly prohibited on Main Street, Rouse Avenue and
North Willson Avenue because of the high traffic volume on those streets. Two-way
traffic must be provided at all times.
• Substantial encroachments that include the loss of parking inventory must receive approval by the Parking Commission and be compensated. Two options for
compensation are presented for
• Exclusive Use encroachments are authorized by the Public Service Director, who reserves the right to request the City Commission usurp approval authority.
• The requirement of certificate of liability insurance is retained for both exclusive and
non-exclusive encroachment requests.
• When table and chairs are a part of an encroachment request, they must maintain a minimum 6-foot wide clear aisle at all times for pedestrian movement. This change was
justified by comments received by the PTSC.
• The use and operation of any proposed sidewalk cafes that require an encroachment
permit must be in accordance with the State-approved alcohol beverage license. Namely, this will require that all outdoor seating areas to be shown on the floor plan approved by the State, require all outdoor seating areas to be accessed only from the interior of the
building, and require a fence or barrier around the outdoor seating area.
• Permit fees are introduced, one for non-exclusive encroachments and one for exclusive encroachments.
Some questions the Commission may want to consider as they review the presented revisions are
the following:
1. Is the proposed expansion of the “Downtown Sidewalk Encroachment Permit Program” appropriate? 2. Who should be the final approval for substantial and exclusive use encroachment
requests? Public Service Director or City Commission?
3. Are the recommended application/permit fees for non-substantial encroachment requests
appropriate? (no fee is currently required) FISCAL EFFECTS: If the Commission chooses to adopt the presented revisions, new
application fees will be enacted by the City of Bozeman. Staff hours will be required to formally
adopt the revisions through an ordinance procedure.
ALTERNATIVES: A) Suggest additional revisions to Chapter 12.22 of the BMC, “Downtown Sidewalk
Encroachment Permit Program,” prior to adoption.
B) Do not revise Chapter 12.22 of the BMC and to keep current “Downtown Sidewalk Encroachment Permit Program” in place.
Attachments: Proposed revisions to Chapter 12.22 BMC
Draft minutes of PTSC 2/10/10 meeting
Draft minutes of PC 2/10/10 meeting PC policy memorandum Draft minute of PB 2/17/10 meeting
Report compiled on: March 1, 2010
Chapter 12.22
Downtown Sidewalk Encroachment Permit Program
12.22.010 Purpose and Intent.
It is the intent of the City Commission, in enacting this ordinance to:
A. Serve and protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public;
B. Establish a uniform set of rules and regulations for Regulate and control private uses and
encroachments occurring upon public rights of way sidewalk businesses and advertising in the Downtown
Business District of the City of Bozeman; that are fair and equitable; and
C. Develop a fair and equitable program that will enhance the overall appearance, ambiance and
environment of in the Downtown Business District of the City of Bozeman.
(Ord. No. 1567 § 2(12.22.010), 9-9-2002)
12.22.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of enforcement of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
A. “Block Face” means one side of a street between two consecutive intersecting rights of ways,
including alleys. that portion of all city sidewalks fronting the streets along Mendenhall, Main, and
Babcock Streets and lying between avenues running in a north-south direction.
B. “Downtown Business District” means those areas of the B-2 and B-3 zoning district of the City of
Bozeman located on or between the north side of Lamme Street and the south side of Olive Street and on
or between the east side of Broadway Avenue and west side of 3rd Avenue.
C. “Commercial Use” means any activity involving the sale of goods or services carried out for
profit.
DB. “Director” means the Director of Public Service and includes the Director’s authorized
representative.
EC. “Encroachment” means any fixture or device including but not limited to a showcase, table,
bench, rack, handcart, pushcart, sign, or stall, seating area, fence, barrier, or partition which intrudes into
or invades the public right of way.
F. “Exclusive Use” means any act undertaken by a private entity upon the public right of way of the
Downtown Business District that creates exclusion of the public, whether direct or implied, in their
normal use and enjoyment of the public right of way.
G. “Non-Substantial Encroachment” means any encroachment occurring upon the public right of
way of the Downtown Business District that is temporary and mobile in nature and does not modify the
material components of the public right of way.
HD. “Portable Sign” means any sign not permanently attached to the ground or other permanent
structure, or a sign designed to be transported, including but not limited to signs designed to be
transported by means of wheels and signs converted to A- or T-frames as defined by 18.65.020 which is
set in the public right of way.
IE. “Public Right of Way” means any area legally open to public use including but not limited to
public streets, sidewalks, roadways, highways, parkways, alleys, or parks as well as areas surrounding and
immediately adjacent to public buildings.
J. “Public Use” means any normal use of the public right of way as distinguished from ‘exclusive
use’ as defined under this chapter.
KF. “Sidewalk” means all that area legally open to public use as a pedestrian public way between the
curb line and the legal building line of the abutting property.
LG. “Sidewalk Café” means any group of tables, chairs, benches, barriers or partitions, trash
containers and suitable decorative devices maintained upon any part of the public right of way for use by
an establishment with a valid food and drink permit in the sale to the public of food, refreshments, and
beverages of all kinds and is not a sidewalk vending cart. Sidewalk cafes physically barricaded or
partitioned from the sidewalk, or cafes operating in a manner that excludes the public’s use of café
fixtures, create an exclusive use of the public right of way as defined under this chapter.
MH. “Sidewalk Display” means any showcase, table, bench, rack, sign, stall, kiosk, or any other
fixture or device used for the purpose of displaying, exhibiting, carrying, transporting, storing, selling, or
offering for sale any food, beverage, goods, wares, merchandise, event, or service upon a sidewalk.
NI. “Sidewalk Vending Cart” means any handcart, pushcart, stall, or any other mobile device that is
used for the purpose of displaying, exhibiting, carrying, transporting, storing, selling, or offering for sale
any food, beverages, goods, wares, or merchandise upon a sidewalk.
OJ. “Special Event” means any occasion including but not limited to fairs, shows, exhibitions, city-
wide celebrations, and festivals taking place within a specifically defined area of the City of Bozeman.
P. “Substantial Encroachment” means any encroachment that creates a permanent physical reduction
in existing asphalt width to streets in the Downtown Business District except for intersection curb bulbs
installed for traffic calming purposes.
(Ord. No. 1567 § 2(12.22.020), 9-9-2002; Ord. No. 1692 § 1, 2-12-2007)
12.22.030 Encroachment on Public Right of Way – Prohibited.
Except as otherwise provided by this Code, it is unlawful to obstruct the public rights of way of the
Downtown Business District with debris, encumbrances or encroachments of any kind which hamper or
interfere with the free and safe use or passage by the public
(Ord. No. 1567 § 2(12.22.030), 9-9-2002)
12.22.040 Exception – Downtown Business District.
Vendors doing business in the Downtown Business District on or between the north side of Mendenhall
Street and south side of Babcock Street and on or between the east side of Third Avenue and the west side
of Broadway Avenue shall be allowed to use City sidewalk as provided in this chapter.
(Ord. No. 1567 § 2(12.22.040), 9-9-2002)
12.22.050 Non-Substantial Encroachments -- Permit Required.
Upon application, the Director may authorize non-substantial encroachments to occur upon the use of the
City’s sidewalks in the Downtown Business District. Each permit must be renewed on an annual basis
and the Director shall have the right to refuse to renew any permits issued. area described in 12.22.040.
All applications for non-substantial encroachments must include:
A. A completed City of Bozeman Downtown Sidewalk Encroachment Revocable Permit Public
Right-of-Way Encroachment Revocable Permit application form including any necessary supporting
materials. the name of the applicant, name of the business, address upon which the encroachment will be
located, a current mailing address and telephone number. Each permit must be renewed on an annual
basis and the Director of Public Service shall have the right to refuse to renew any permits issued under
this chapter;
B. A letter from the owner(s), operator(s), or manager(s) of the business(es) immediately adjacent to
fronting the sidewalk where the use is requested, granting permission for to place the encroachment to
occur at the requested location;
C. A sketch depicting, as accurately as possible, the size and location of all requested encroachment
items as well as other existing obstructions or improvements which would limit the free use of the
sidewalk by pedestrians;
D. A certificate of liability insurance which names the City of Bozeman and the State of Montana as
additional insureds. The insurance must provide a minimum coverage of $750,000 for each claim and $1
million for each occurrence for all permits solely for a portable sign in an “A” frame design, also known
as a sandwich board sign, used strictly for the purpose of advertising for the permit holder. A minimum
coverage of $750,000 for each claim and $1.5 million for each occurrence must be provided for all other
permits; and
E. The permit holder shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its employees and
agents against all claims, liability, loss, damage, or expense incurred by the City due to any injury to or
death of any person or any damage of property caused by or resulting from the activities for which the
permit is granted.
FE. A valid City of Bozeman business license corresponding to the use requested.
(Ord. No. 1567 § 2(12.22.060), 9-9-2002)
12.22.060 Substantial Encroachments – Approval Required.
Substantial encroachments in public right of way of the Downtown Business District may occur only after
a project proposal satisfies provisions of Title 18 BMC (see 18.020.080.B) and found to be compliant
with required regulations of same. Projects proposing substantial encroachments shall prepare a Traffic
Study analyzing cumulative impacts to traffic patterns in the Downtown Business District. The study
shall, at a minimum, provide analysis of truck turning movements, vehicular site vision, pedestrian
conflict, roadway capacity, and intersection level of service and shall be approved by the City.
Encroachments affecting State designated primary and urban routes shall also be approved by the
Montana Department of Transportation. Substantial encroachment projects shall satisfy all applicable
emergency service requirements.
12.22.070 Substantial Encroachments – Standards, Exceptions and Limitations
To protect public health, safety and welfare, and provide for the orderly development of the Downtown
Business District, the following standards, exceptions and limitations are hereby placed upon substantial
encroachments:
A. Substantial encroachments shall not occur within the public right of way of Main Street, Rouse
Avenue, and North Willson Avenue.
B. Two-way traffic (or two-lane traffic for one-way streets) shall be provided at all times and in all
locations. Traffic lane widths of the current City of Bozeman Transportation Plan shall be adhered to as
minimum standards.
C. Sidewalk alterations shall provide a minimum six (6) inch thick, ten (10) foot wide sidewalk for
public use and be ADA compliant.
D. Curb alterations shall provide positive drainage and shall not cause ponding to occur in the gutter
line. City of Bozeman curb construction standards shall be adhered to.
E. Substantial encroachments involving the elimination of any on-street parking within that area of
the B-3 zoning district regulated under this chapter shall provide the following:
1. Parking Commission approval;
2. Compensation shall be provided for each on-street parking space eliminated from the Downtown
Business District parking inventory in accordance with the following schedule:
a. A one-time payment of five-thousand dollars ($5,000) per eliminated space. Payment shall be
provided prior to final approval of the proposal under Title 18 BMC; OR
b. A monthly fee of fifty dollars ($50) per eliminated space assessed over a period of 10 years
beginning the month following substantial completion of the construction project causing the elimination
of on-street parking. The fee will be assessed in the name of the adjacent property owner where the
parking elimination occurs until a total payment of six-thousand dollars ($6,000) has been received per
eliminated space.
F. The adjacent property owner shall keep all sidewalk areas, including those areas of exclusive use,
free and clear of snow and ice at all times.
12.22.080 Exclusive Use of Public Right of Way – Permit Required
Upon application, the Director may authorize exclusive use of public right of way to occur in the
Downtown Business District. The Director reserves the right to request the City Commission usurp
approval authority over any application received. Each approved permit shall be valid for a period of ten
years and shall be renewed on an annual basis during the entitlement period. The permit shall be issued to
the private property owner adjacent to the public right of way in which the exclusive use occurs. The
permit shall not automatically convey with the adjacent private property and shall not construe a
constitution of ownership in the public right of way to the permit holder regardless of the privileges and
exclusive benefits the permit provides. The permit may be transferred to a new adjacent private property
owner upon request and application to the Director. If the new property owner fails to make this request
to the Director within 30 days following final sale or transfer of interest in the property, then the permit
shall become null and void and a new permit shall be applied for. All applications for exclusive use of
public right of way must include:
A. A completed City of Bozeman Downtown Right of Way Use Permit form including any
necessary supporting materials;
B. A site plan depicting, as accurately as possible, the size and location of all requested
encroachment items necessary to support the exclusive use of the public right of way as well as other
existing obstructions or improvements which would limit the free use of the sidewalk by pedestrians;
C. A certificate of liability insurance which names the City of Bozeman and the State of Montana (if
exclusive use occurring upon a State designated primary or urban route) as additional insureds. The
insurance must provide a minimum coverage of $750,000 for each claim and $1.5 million for each
occurrence. The insurance policy shall automatically renew during the permit period and a copy of the
current proof of insurance coverage shall be kept on file with the Director at all times. Coverage limits
may adjust with permit renewals.
D. The permit holder shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its employees and
agents against all claims, liability, loss, damage, or expense incurred by the City due to any injury to or
death of any person or any damage of property caused by or resulting from the activities for which the
permit is granted.
E. A valid City of Bozeman business license corresponding to the use requested.
12.22.090060 License or Approval Letter Required.
Any applicant intending to sell food or beverages must provide a copy of a Food Purveyor’s License or an
approval statement issued by the Gallatin City-County Health Department with the application for a
permit under this chapter.
(Ord. No. 1567 § 2(12.22.060), 9-9-2002)
12.22.100070 Uses Permitted Under This Chapter.
A. It is the Permittee’s responsibility to place any encroachments allowed under this chapter in a
manner which ensures safe pedestrian and vehicular travel and to immediately correct any deficiencies
noted by the Director. All items permitted pursuant to this chapter shall be placed not less than two (2)
feet from the curb, leave a minimum of six (6) five (5) feet of sidewalk aisle clear and shall not interfere
with vehicular sight triangles as set forth in Title 18 of this code, and as necessary for safe vehicular
traffic. Additionally, all encroachments permitted under this chapter will be built, installed, and
maintained in such as a manner as to ensure the safety of the public.
B. Permits may be issued under this chapter for the following uses:
1. Benches:
Any benches must be placed flush to the corresponding building and must not project more than three (3)
feet into the sidewalk;
2. Portable Signs:
These signs must not exceed a height of five (5) feet or a width of three (3) feet, placed adjacent and
perpendicular to the corresponding building and within four (4) feet of the business entrance;
3. Sidewalk Displays:
With the exception of kiosks, displays must be placed flush against the building, must not exceed six (6)
feet in height, and must be within four (4) feet of the business entrance;
4. Kiosks:
Kiosks must not exceed seven (7) eight (8) feet in height and must be placed in a manner so as not to
interfere with free flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic;
5. Bike Racks:
Bike racks must not exceed a ten (10) bike capacity with five (5) bikes per side and be placed so the
parked bikes run parallel with the street;
6. Sidewalk Vending Carts:
The cart must be no more than three (3) feet wide, must be placed within 4.5 feet of the store face and
may operate between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. or until sunset whichever occurs first. All signage must be
attached to the cart and shall not exceed six (6) feet in length. The City, at its discretion and upon request,
may allow the use of a portable sign. Vending carts will be allowed on Mendenhall, Main, and Babcock
Streets only and not more than one cart will be allowed per city block face;
7. Tables and Chairs:
Tables used for the primary purpose of consuming food or beverages must be no more than four (4) feet
wide and set in a manner so that the chairs shall not extend more than five (5) feet in to the Right of Way
and maintain a minimum six foot (6’) wide clear aisle at all times for pedestrian movement;
8. Hanging Pots:
Pots for flowers or other miscellaneous items may be hung from the rods extending from the light poles
only. The bottoms of all pots must not be lower than seven (7) feet and shall not block street signs in any
manner;
9. Sidewalk Café Serving Alcohol:
a. All sidewalk cafes having an alcohol beverage license shall be required to have staff of the
establishments owning such sidewalk cafes serve all food, alcohol and non-alcoholic beverages in the
sidewalk café area only. Service of alcohol beverages in all sidewalk cafes shall be limited to persons
seated at tables in the sidewalk café site. The serving of alcohol shall be served in glasses and not in
paper or plastic products. Any person serving alcohol must have received alcohol server training through
a City approved training program;
b. The sidewalk café alcohol beverage license issued by the State of Montana must include as part
of the licensed premise floor plan the sidewalk café area. The use and operation of the sidewalk café area
shall occur in accordance with the State-approved alcohol beverage license and a copy of the license shall
be kept on file with the Director of Public Service and the Director of Planning and Community
Development.
c. Liability insurance required in 12.22.080.CBMC 12.11.0500B will cover the sidewalk café area;
dc. Each sidewalk café serving alcohol beverages shall be responsible for policing the area of the
sidewalk café to be sure that customers are of legal drinking age and that alcohol beverages are not
removed from the premises.
ed. There shall be no sale of alcohol for consumption at a sidewalk café after 12:00 a.m. (midnight)
until normal opening of business each day. In addition, all containers of intoxicating beverages shall be
removed from the tables of the sidewalk café and the sidewalk café area by 12:00 a.m.;
fe. The sidewalk café area must be adjacent to the licensed building and shall be enclosed, except for
ingress and egress entry point, by a movable fence approved by the Director of Public Service. The fence
shall be:
(i). black or of a color that matches the adjacent building;
(ii). at least 4 feet in height; and
(iii). Shall be of a design and quality that does not permit children or other persons to crawl under the
fence;
10. Miscellaneous Items:
The Director of Public Service may permit other items as deemed appropriate. The Director shall place
what restrictions the Director deems necessary to ensure the safe passage for pedestrian and vehicular
traffic.
(Ord. No. 1567 § 2(12.22.070), 9-9-2002; Ord. No. 1692§ 2, 2-12-2007)
12.22.110080 Notification of Name or Address Change.
All permittees will ensure that a current and correct name, residential address and mailing address are or
on file with the Director. Should either the permittee’s name, business name or permittee’s address
provided on the application change, the permittee must notify the Director within five (5) working days of
such change and provide the same with the accurate information.
(Ord. No. 1567 § 212.22.080), 9-9-2002)
12.22.120090 Littering and Trash Removal.
A. Permittees will keep the sidewalks, roadways and other spaces adjacent to their sites or locations
clean and free of paper, peelings and refuse of any kind generated from the operation of their business;
B. Permittees engaged in food vending will make available a receptacle for litter. The permittee will
regularly empty and maintain the receptacle and mark it appropriately to provide proper notice to the
public of its purpose. Upon ceasing operations for the day, permittees will ensure the area immediately
adjacent to the site is thoroughly clean and free of debris. Finally, permittees must remove all debris and
trash from the area and will not use trash receptacles without permission from the owner.
(Ord. No. 1567 § 2(12.22.090), 9-9-2002)
12.22.130100 Special Event or Temporary Permits.
The Director may issue a temporary permit for special or temporary events which may take place in the
downtown area including but not limited to “Crazy Days”, “Taste of Bozeman”, and “Music on Main”.
Should the Director determine a temporary permit is applicable for any reason, the Director may waive
any of the requirements set forth in this Chapter the Director feels are inapplicable and allow alternative
provisions consistent with or contrary to the purposes of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 1567 § 2(12.22.100), 9-9-2002)
12.22.140 Permit Fees.
A. Non-Exclusive Encroachments
1. A ten dollar ($10) fee shall be charged for non-exclusive encroachments which shall be provided
with each new application/renewel of a City of Bozeman Downtown Sidewalk Encroachment Revocable
Permit.
B. Exclusive Encroachments
2. A fee calculated by multiplying the square-foot area of the right of way encumbered by the
exclusive use of same, by the fair market square-foot value of the adjacent property (as determined in the
most recent appraisal by the Montana Department of Revenue for ad valorem property taxation purposes),
multiplied by the whole-month percentage of the calendar year the exclusive use is occurring, shall be
assessed and provided with each City of Bozeman Downtown Right of Way Use Permit application and
annual renewal.
12.22.150110 Suspension and Revocation of Permits for Non-Substantial Encroachments
Permit License.
A. The Director may suspend or revoke any permit issued under this Section 12.22.050 chapter for
any of the following reasons:
1. Fraud, misrepresentation or knowingly false statement contained in the application for the permit;
2. Conducting any activity in any manner contrary to the conditions of the permit;
3. Conducting any permit activity in such a manner as to create a public nuisance, cause a breach of
the peace, constitute a danger to the public health, safety, welfare or morals, or interfere with the rights of
abutting property owners;
4. Failure to regularly empty and maintain a litter receptacle;
5. Cancellation of the Gallatin City-County Health Department’s authorization for a food or
beverage vending unit; or
6. Failure to comply with any provision in this chapter.
B. Should the Director decide to exercise the rights given under this chapter, notice may be delivered
in person or mailed to the address provided on the application. The Director shall state all reasons for the
decision to revoke or suspend the permit and the length of the suspension, if any;
C. The permittee will have three (3) days from the date of receipt of the letter to file a written
response to the Director’s letter or to remove all items from the City’s sidewalk. Failure to respond to the
Director’s letter or to remove the items from the City’s sidewalk will be cause for the Director to order
the property removed by local law enforcement or the Code Compliance Officer. The property shall be
considered evidence and will not be returned until the resolution of any citation issued under BMC;
D. Should the permittee fail to pick up the letter for a period of five (5) working days after it has
been mailed, the Director may then direct the Code Compliance Officer or law enforcement to remove the
permittee’s property from the City’s sidewalks;
E. Should the Director determine the permittee’s property presents a safety hazard or requires
immediate remedy including but limited to sidewalk maintenance, then in that event, the Director may
order the property removed immediately by local law enforcement or the Code Compliance Officer.
(Ord. No. 1567 § 2(12.22.110), 9-9-2002)
12.22.160 Suspension or Revocation of Exclusive Uses of Public Right of Way.
All provisions of Section 12.22.150 shall apply to suspension or revocation of exclusive uses of public
right of way except that the City Commission shall determine whether to revoke a permit for exclusive
use. Revocation determination shall be made during the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City
Commission upon which an agenda item can be placed after the permit holder has received a permit
suspension notification from the Director. The City Commission has power to order any improvements
and/or alterations made to the public right of way installed to support an exclusive use be removed at the
permit holder’s sole expense upon their finding of said improvements posing a serious threat to the
public’s health, safety, and welfare.
12.22.170130 Appeal Procedure.
Any permittee will have the right to appeal the denial, suspension or revocation of any permit to the City
Manager. The permittee will make the appeal within ten (10) days after receiving notice of the denial,
suspension or revocation by filing a written notice with the City Manager.
(Ord. No. 1567 § 2(12.22.130), 9-9-2002)
12.22.180 Enforcement – Penalities – Designated a Municipal Infraction.
Violation of this chapter is a municipal infraction punishable by the following civil penalities:
A. For a first violation, a civil penalty of not less than one-hundreed ($100) or more than three-
hundred dollars ($300) shall be imposed;
B. For each repeat violation, a civil penalty of not less than one-hundred ($100) or more than five-
hundred dollars ($500) shall be imposed;
The court may order the permit revoked for the remainder of the year in addition to any other penalty
imposed by the court.
(Ord. 1567 § 2(12.22.140), 9-9-2002; Ord. No. 1700 § 1, 5-21-2007)
Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee
Minutes of the February 10, 2010 Meeting
Room 208C Alfred Stiff Office Bldg.
Those Present:
Voting Committee Members:
Ralph Zimmer (Gallatin County)
Frank Manseau (Gallatin County
Gary Vodehnal (City of Bozeman)
Danielle Scharf (City of Bozeman)
Non – Voting Committee Members:
John Van Delinder (City)
Guests –
Allyson Bristor (City of Bozeman Planning)
Brian Heaston (City of Bozeman Engineering)
Elizabeth Bird (representing Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board)
Taylor Lonsdale (MT Safe Routes to School Cooridnator)
Several students from the MSU Landscape Design course were also in attendance to observe the
citizen advisory role in process.
Quorum: present
NEW BUSINESS:
Ralph called the meeting to order at 12:05.
1. Long-term Encroachment in Public Right-of-way. At the request of the City Commission,
we discussed the "long-term encroachment of public right-of-way for private use in our
downtown area." This relates to a proposal for the sidewalks on the east side of Black
Avenue immediately north of Main Street, as discussed at the Febuary 1 City Commission
meeting. Allyson Bristor from City Planning and Brian Heaston from City Engineering were
in attendance to help facilitate the discussion.
Allyson explained that the proposed project on Black would consist of bumping out the
existing 10-foot wide sidewalk an additional 10 feet to provide room for a patio seating area
adjacent to the building. It would result in the elimination of 5 on-street parking spaces. The
City Commission has directed staff to develop a policy regarding long-term encroachment
and request input from the advisory boards. The policy will apply to the B-3 core boundary
area for a half block north and south of Main Street from Rouse to Willson and within a
buffer around the City’s existing parking areas. Staff is currently discussing whether the new
policy should apply to local streets only or if it should include collectors and arterials. This
will be much more substantial than the existing temporary encroachment policy that allows a
few tables/chairs on the sidewalk.
Frank asked if increasing the business owner’s footprint by adding this patio would increase
their required parking. Allyson explained that the business that is currently proposing the
patio seating already has adequate parking, especially due to the recently released reduced
parking requirement for downtown businesses, so available parking should not be an issue.
Gary asked if this would present a challenge for sight impaired individuals. Ralph noted that
it would present some additional challenges, but probably not enough to veto the idea. Ralph
would be more concerned about the possibility of a vision impaired pedestrian walking into
an area where snow isn’t cleared. The existing right-of-way runs from building to building
so the existing sidewalks are within the right-of-way. Ordinances regarding clearing snow
would apply to the added sidewalk area. The requirement to remove snow would apply
specifically to the new sidewalk area because the old sidewalk would be displaced by tables
and chairs, but the property owner would be required to remove snow throughout the entire
area.
Ralph noted that drainage at the curb line would also be a concern for disabled pedestrians.
Brian said that all proposed projects would require design review of plans prepared by a
professional engineer, of which drainage will be a big component. Taylor asked if this would
present a maintenance concern, because snow will likely be pushed into street and plows will
push it back onto sidewalks.
For the project currently being proposed, staff will request that the S-curve immediately
adjacent to Main Street be eliminated, so the new curb line will run all the way to Main
Street. Shortening the crossing distance at Main is a benefit for pedestrians and narrowing
the street will slow traffic. The additional sidewalk area added by eliminating the S-curve at
Main Street could potentially be used for bicycle parking.
Taylor suggested that they also consider extending the curb line all the way to the alley
because of increased foot traffic to the parking garage. Brian said they will consider it, but it
will depend on the turning radius at the alley and sight distance. It could also remain as
proposed and be used for snow storage. These are all site specific design considerations.
The policy currently being developed will make these types of projects possible, but all will
need to be designed and reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
The existing parking area that is being displaced is 10 feet wide. The request for input from
this committee was triggered by a question of whether the 10-foot sidewalk is wide enough
or too wide. Consensus was that they should remain at least 10 feet wide to allow for street
trees and other temporary or permanent items within the sidewalk.
The group also agreed that the elimination of parking would benefit bicyclists more than the
curb extension would impact them. The elimination of parking means they won’t have to
worry about the door zone. Elizabeth also likes the idea of the potential for more bicycle
parking, as this has been a big push from the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board.
This committee will provide general input on this policy, but will not be reviewing actual
policy language. For our information, Allyson will give us a draft of the policy that’s
scheduled for the Commission’s March 4th policy meeting. We will also give her a copy of
our minutes from this meeting as a summary of our comments.
The policy statement should be written in such a way that the sidewalk widening would not
necessarily always result in a full 10-foot wide area for use by the property owner. The area
dedicated for sidewalk use should always be consistent with the 10-foot minimum, but this
may result in a reduction in the usable space for the property owner in order to avoid any
possible traffic safety implications.
The area of existing sidewalks along Main Street that’s currently being allowed for use by
private businesses was also briefly discussed. The existing sidewalks on Main are 15-16 feet
wide and businesses are currently required to maintain a minimum 5-foot usable width for
pedestrians under the existing temporary encroachment permit. Tables are supposed to be
against the buildings, not along the curb. This has become an enforcement issue because
several have been in violation. Taylor asked if it would make more sense to have tables on
curb line adjacent to the street trees. John and Brian noted that would require servers to cross
pedestrian traffic and would also result in tables being located directly adjacent to parked
vehicles.
Taylor noted that these types of projects will improve the livability of our downtown streets.
There is public benefit and downtown vitality that will be associated with these types of
improvements, which should be factored into the value of the parking spaces being displaced.
One attendee asked if it really make sense to charge the property owner the estimated value
of $1300-$2500 per parking space when the project would also provide benefit to the
community? Elizabeth agreed that the owner should pay something for the displacement of
parking, but not the full value of a parking space in the garage. Allyson noted that the
Parking Board would like to complete a parking management plan before too many of these
types of projects are allowed.
Taylor asked if the Fire Department had any comments on how these curb extensions or
bicycle parking may function when located adjacent to a hydrant. Brian said they have not
received comments from the Fire Department yet, but would like to get their input.
Gary mentioned that there are currently no street trees on the side streets and adding them
with this project would be a great benefit. He agrees that it would be a nice addition and we
shouldn’t discourage the developer from doing it. He also thought the curb line should be
extended at the alley in addition to Main Street.
Frank has concerns about permanently using public space for private benefit. Brian noted
that this is definitely a concern and they are working with the legal department to evaluate
this issue. They are evaluating similar projects in Billings and Helena. Helena charges 5%
of the value of adjacent property for the encroachment assessment.
Gary asked what will happen if the adjacent business were to change hands. Brian said the
City will protect itself and make sure it’s able to take the area back if the use changes, but
they will also not just pull it out without reason.
Brian asked if there are any specific metrics we would like to see as part of this policy.
Danielle suggested that an absolute minimum of 5 feet be maintained for the usable width to
be consistent with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and
American Disabilities Act minimum requirements. She also suggested that it include some
language that states that the design of each individual project will be reviewed on a case-by-
case basis, including an evaluation of drainage, turning templates, sight distance, etc.
Allyson reiterated that this will be on the agenda for the policy meeting on March 4th. It will
then go to a public hearing for approval later in March.
2. Minutes. Minutes of the January 20, 2010 meeting were approved with the minor edits
made by Ralph prior to distribution.
3. At-large Committee Members & “Liaison Officers”. Ralph noted that the Pedestrian &
Traffic Safety Committee is allowed to have two at-large members that have voting rights
and we can elect 0, 1 or 2 at our discretion. These positions have in recent years been
occupied by representatives from the Sheriff’s Office and the Bozeman Police Department,
but their terms have recently expired and the Committee is free to move in other directions.
The original intent was for all voting members of the Committee to be citizens, not
employees of the City, County, or School District. Each of those three governmental bodies
are expected to designate one appropriate employee to serve on the Committee but without
vote. Many of those designated employees have served on the Committee with distinction.
Attendance has also been an issue for law enforcement officers serving as At-Large voting
members often making it difficult for the Committee to attain a quorum. Of nine meetings
held in 2009, the Police Department representative attended two and the Sheriff’s Office
representative attended four. A third problem of having City, County, or School District
employees occupying At-Large positions is that eliminates the possibility of getting more
citizens on the Committee’s voting membership.
In order to improve this process for the Committee, Ralph temporarily turned the gavel over
to the Committee’s Vice Chair, Gary Vodehnal, and made the following motion:
“I move that the Bozeman Police Department be invited to appoint an officer of its choice to
serve as a ‘Liaison Officer’ with the committee and that the Gallatin County Sheriff's Office
be extended the same invitation. These Liaison Officers shall have all the rights, privileges,
and obligations of committee membership except the right to vote. Each department may
change the appointment at any time it chooses and it may send a different officer to any
given meeting. Whenever such an appointment is made, the committee chairperson shall be
so notified and shall be given appropriate contact information. While it is intended that
these Liaison Officer positions be ‘permanent’ additions to the committee, the committee
may modify or terminate the positions at any time.”
Frank seconded the motion and agreed that it’s a good idea. Prior to the meeting, Ralph
emailed Jim Oberhofer and Rich McLane to notify them of this proposal and request their
input. Ralph received a response back from both and neither objected. Taylor noted that law
enforcement participation has been a tremendous benefit in the past, but acknowledged that it
has dropped off. Their participation will likely be further reduced by this change, because
they may have less of an incentive to attend. Taylor agrees with the motion, but just wanted
to mention this. Elizabeth noted that this change may make it easier for them to have rotating
representatives, instead of a specific voting member. After this discussion, Ralph’s motion
passed unanimously. Gary returned the gavel to Ralph.
Bozeman Parking Commission Meeting
February 10, 2010, 7:30 a.m.
City Hall Commission Room
Parking Commissioners in Attendance:
Pam Bryan
Chris Pope
Chris Naumann
Steve Schnee
Tammy Hauer
Ben Bennett
Lisa Danzl-Scott
City Staff in Attendance:
Laurae Clark, Treasurer
Paul Burns, Parking Manager
Brian Heaston, Project Engineer
Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
June Lowell, Parking Enforcement Officer
Guests in Attendance:
Mike Delaney
Rob Pertzborn
Brian Leland
Action Items:
• Add Brian Leland’s closure request for the parking garage on July 4th to the minutes at
the March 10, 2010 meeting.
• Paul and Pam will summarize and specifically outline the criteria discussed as it regards
to on street parking spaces in a concise statement as a recommendation to the City
Commission. This will be passed around for everyone’s approval and input.
________________________________________________________________________
Call to Order:
Pam called the meeting to order and introduced Cyndi Andrus as our new Parking Commission
Liaison.
Approval of January 14 and January 20 minutes
Tammy made a motion to accept both sets of minutes. Chris P. seconded the motion and it
was approved unanimously.
Public Comment – State name & address. Limit comments to 3 minutes.
Brian Leland who lives @ 529 N Bozeman has submitted a 4th of July street closure application
for Main St for a Parade. As part of the day’s festivities, he would also like to close the top two
floors of the Parking Garage for a BBQ and viewing of the Fireworks display. It will be open to
the public would try to get an open container waiver. He would consider making a contribution
to the Lions club.
We will add this to the agenda for March.
Chris P. expressed his concern about load limits and safety issues of the building.
Manager report
Paul assisted Allyson and Brian at the Feb 1, 2010 commission meeting regarding the General
Willson project.
He attended the DBA Meeting on Feb 4, 2010 and had a good discussion about parking and
everyone seemed to recognize the benefit of the Saturday enforcement.
Office Space--Chuck Winn has recommended Paul and his enforcement officers move to the
Professional Building. Paul has been told it could take $70-75 thousand to build out the space
upstairs in the garage.
Paul was approached by the Bozone Newspaper about placing an ad in his newspaper. Due to
the fact we do not have funds budgeted for advertising, Ben suggested going with a cooperative
campaign where you share an ad with another business--greatly reducing the cost. Steve also
suggested trying to use some PSA outlets. Ben & Tammy agreed to be on a marketing
committee with Paul to begin a marketing plan outline.
The International Parking Institute is May 10-13 in Las Vegas. Paul estimates that it would cost
approximately $1600 to attend. The commission was in support of his attendance as they feel it a
great learning opportunity for a position that is currently evolving.
Plaque for the garage was put on hold last year. The cost would be approximately $1,000. Due
to budget shortfalls this was put on hold indefinitely.
FY11 Budget
Paul presented the budget status for the current fiscal year, as well as a fiscal year 2011 proposed
budget. Budget numbers must be submitted to Finance by Feb 19. A few line items were
discussed that may need a little more massaging.
Gallatin Building (Western Drug) sidewalk proposal
Rob Pertzborn with Intrinsik Architecture presented a proposal for the former Western Drug
building. They need to replace the sidewalk on the east side of the building and would like us to
consider a bump out on the east side of S Black Ave. It would be a conversion of parking to
public space. Traffic patterns don't change. Encroachment is an opportunity not an automatic.
It would improve the streetscape and facade.
He had concerns about our policy issues. Distance issues are a big one as this building is about
450 feet from the parking garage. The bump out would first and foremost be a public space. It
could possibly have bike racks, benches, a street directory. The opportunity to do this project is
now since they have to replace the sidewalk anyway. This proposal would convert 5 spaces of
parking to the public space.
Street Beat, June Lowell
June Lowell gave the street report. She provided reports on the boot effort to date and on the
Saturday enforcement. Both were very positive.
Policy discussion on ceding on-street parking
Discussion on cost per space lost for recommendation to the City Commission.
$35 per space per month was initially discussed, which equals $420 per year per space. Steve
preferred an upfront cost. Ben would to like to see a payment plan option as many businesses
cannot afford the upfront costs and gave an example of how the cash in lieu of parking
discouraged him from purchasing a house to move his business into.
$5,000 up front or $50 per month over a 10 year lease was proposed by Chris N.
Discussion ensued on distance from garage/surface lots.
Pam initially proposed using boundaries that would be from Grand to Rouse and Mendenhall to
Babcock. This is the B-3 Core with a 1/2 block buffer. (The B-3 Core is from Grand to Rouse
and to the alleys going north and south.) Projects would be considered within this boundary
and/or 200 ft of a public parking facility.
Threshold limit for the number of lost parking spaces discussion ensued.
It was suggested to conservatively allow the loss of 10 spaces and then see how that works out.
Once a parking study is done, we will have a better idea of what is appropriate.
Pam summarized the discussion to this point:
BPC would recommend either a one-time payment of $5000 cash for loss of parking or $50 per
space per month for 10 years. This would be allowed in the B-3 core (to the alleys only) or 200
ft of a parking facility or surface lot. A loss of 10 parking spaces would be the limit allowed
until a parking management study is completed.
Chris P suggested a price @ $100 per month which is a 6% return on investment of $20,000,
which is closer to the actual cost to replace a parking space. Then leave the City Commission
room to negotiate a discount for the public benefit such projects create.
Chris N made a motion:
The Parking Commission directs Paul in conjunction with our chair, Pam to summarize
and specifically outline the criteria discussed as it regards to on street parking spaces. That
policy statement will be very clear. It will encompass the B-3 core district and/or 200 ft of a
public parking facility or surface lot. The Parking Commission will conduct a parking
management study in the near future. Until that is completed we recommend limiting the #
of parking spaces lost to conversion to 10. We acknowledge that the true cost of
constructing surface and structured parking is in excess of $20,000 per space. The Parking
Commission recommends the City Commission incentivize such developments for the
public benefit at a rate or $50 per space per month over 10 years or a $5,000 up front cost
per space for the loss of parking.
Steve seconded the motion.
Chris P reiterated that he wants it clearly stated that we acknowledge that the $5,000
amount is for the public benefit and not the true cost of the parking space.
The motion was unanimously approved.
New business/Public comment
None received.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Laurae Clark, Treasurer
25 February 2010
POLICY MEMORANDUM
TO: Bozeman City Commission and Planning Department
FR: Bozeman Parking Commission
RE: Conversion or Loss of Public Parking Spaces
The Bozeman Parking Commission supports downtown development projects that bring
vitality and energy to its parking districts. The Parking Commission supports projects
that are consistent with the guidelines of the Downtown Improvement Plan and
constitute a significant economic benefit for the downtown area. Such projects must not
significantly diminish the parking capacity, negatively impact the Parking Commission
budget, or compromise public safety.
The Bozeman Parking Commission operates Bridger Park Downtown and four surface
lots, all of which offer available sources of parking within the downtown core. The
availability of public parking enables the Parking Commission to consider innovative and
exciting new projects, including ones that require a conversion of public parking spaces
to some other use, specifically if the project is within close proximity to a parking facility.
It is widely accepted that people are willing to park at least 200 feet from their
destination.
As a result, if a downtown project within a certain distance of the garage or public lot
calls for the elimination of public parking spaces, the Parking Commission may not view
it as detrimental to its total inventory.
The Parking Commission would consider supporting a private project that calls for the
elimination of public parking spaces in the downtown district under the following
conditions:
• The lost spaces are in the B3 Core which extends from Rouse Avenue to Grand
Avenue between the alleys a half block north and south of Main Street.
• The lost spaces are within 200 feet of an entrance to a public parking facility
(Bridger Park downtown or one of the four surface lots). The availability of a
public parking facility nearby will reduce the impact on surrounding businesses in
the area of the lost spaces. This criterion will allow for losses of parking outside
the B3 Core but still in close proximity to a public parking facility.
• The Parking Commission recommends minimum compensation to the Parking
Commission for the lost spaces either in an upfront, one-time payment of $5,000
per space or by a lease of $50 per space per month for 10 years, which equates
to $6,000 per space. In seeking this compensation, the Parking Commission
acknowledges: 1) the cost to construct structured parking is in excess of $20,000
per space; 2) the cost to construct surface parking can cost as much as $10,000
per space; and 3) the value of a downtown parking space in terms of retail sales
is estimated to be between $40,000 and $70,000 annually. At the same time the
Parking Commission acknowledges that the conversion or loss of public parking
for economic development yields inherent value to the downtown district. The
Parking Commission acknowledges that a project that eliminates on-street
parking may yield greater public good and that charging market replacement
costs would be a financial disincentive to property owners and the development
community.
• The Parking Commission will limit the number of lost parking spaces in the
defined area to ten. The Parking Commission recommends that a cap be set of
ten lost spaces within the defined area. The Parking Commission further
recommends that this limit of ten lost spaces be maintained until a parking study
can be conducted to determine downtown’s inventory and usage patterns. Due to
a finite amount of on-street parking in the B3 Core, the Parking Commission must
ensure its inventory is not negatively compromised.
These are the recommendations of the Bozeman Parking Commission as the advisory
board charged with managing the downtown parking district. The Parking Commission
recognizes that the City Commission will make the final determination regarding the loss
of public parking spaces and the criteria allowing any such loss and the financial
requirements of any such loss.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2010
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Caldwell called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:31 p.m. in the
Community Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and
directed the secretary to take attendance.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Trever McSpadden Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Brian Caldwell, President Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Chris Budeski
Ed Sypinski
Eugene Graf IV
Jeff Krauss
Members Absent: Guests Present:
Erik Henyon
Bill Quinn
President Caldwell welcomed new Board members and invited the Mayor to introduce himself.
Mayor Krauss stated he had begun with the City on the Planning Board. He listed helping
Bozeman’s economy as one of his interests and added that the Economic Development chapter
of the Growth Policy and the current Economic Development Plan were good starts.
Mr. Sypinski introduced himself and stated which Boards/Committees he was currently a
member of and noted that he had served two terms on the Planning Board, beginning in 2005.
He stated his background was employment placement and he was working with the workforce
through practical aspects for fitting them into occupations that would matter to the community.
President Caldwell stated he was looking forward to promoting implementation of various
planning documents that he had been working on; specifically the Growth Policy and Downtown
Improvement Plan.
Mr. McSpadden stated this was his first appointment to a Board or Commission and he was
currently employed by Morrison-Maierle. He stated he looked forward to the opportunity to
look at long range planning aspects since the decline of development in the last couple years.
Mr. Budeski stated he was a civil engineer and he believed he could bring an engineering
perspective and viewpoint to the Board. He stated he was looking forward to being a Board
member.
Mr. Graf stated he agreed with previous member’s statements and added that he hoped the
methodology of the Planning Board was sustainable regardless of the economic outlook.
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
1
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 17, 2010.
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and
not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Seeing no public comment forthcoming, President Caldwell closed the public comment portion
of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 1, 2009
President Caldwell stated he had one question with regard to the minutes and asked when the
Complete Streets Ordinance would be reviewed by the Commission. Interim Director Saunders
responded it would be discussed on Monday, February 22, 2010.
MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, President Caldwell seconded, to approve the minutes of
December 1, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 3-0 with Mr. Budeski, Mr. Graf, and
Mr. McSpadden abstaining. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Mayor Krauss, and
Mr. Sypinski, Those voting nay being none.
President Caldwell explained the Planning Board review method for the new members.
ITEM 4. DISCUSSION ITEM
1. A policy discussion regarding long term encroachment into public right of
way for private use. (Bristor)
Associate Planner Allyson Bristor introduced the policy discussion item for substantial long term
encroachment into the right of way. She stated an application had been received that included
the expansion of the pedestrian sidewalk and a covered outdoor seating area on North Black
Avenue. She stated this type of application is the first of its kind for the downtown area and
Staff had been directed by the City Commission to draft language to address future applications
of a similar nature. She stated the City Commission had directed that all relevant City
boards/commissions be contacted with regard to the draft language, including the Planning
Board. She directed the Board to the Downtown Encroachment Permit Boundary map and noted
those boundaries. She stated the nature of encroachments permitted with the program were
typically temporary and mobile and did not require a permit fee due to their temporary nature.
She stated much of the B-3 district had not been included in the current program. She directed
the Board to the Downtown Improvement Plan boundary and noted Staff had been reviewing
each boundary to find which would be best to use for the long term encroachment boundary.
She stated Staff identified that expansion of the sidewalk is possible as long as infrastructure,
drainage, bike racks, etc. were maintained. She stated there were examples of sidewalk
expansion in Billings and Helena. Engineer Heaston added there had been a project
implemented, but he was uncertain of the specific location. Planner Bristor stated that Staff was
seeking advice and comment on the programs relative to the Community Plan and the recently
adopted Downtown Improvement Plan and whether the program would be appropriate to the
downtown area.
President Caldwell opened the public comment portion of the meeting. Seeing no public
comment forthcoming, he closed the public comment period.
2
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 17, 2010.
President Caldwell stated he felt that discussion was about a different type of public use as
opposed to an encroachment. He suggested another issue would be the types of encroachments
and how they would relate to the downtown area.
Mr. McSpadden asked for clarification of whether or not a specific application was being
discussed. Planner Bristor responded a specific application was not the topic of discussion
though there had been a specific application triggering the discussion.
Mr. Sypinski stated he thought Economic Development and Community Quality of Life were the
two chapters of the Community Plan that would be affected by the policy. He suggested
encouragement of this policy from the Board and Staff would highlight downtown and create a
unique, local place. He stated he thought it would help the core of locally owned and operated
businesses downtown; he suggested looking at giving the local businesses being allowed the
encroachment before others. He stated the program would also address the taming of traffic
downtown and would help encourage more foot traffic. He stated he had found there was no
place downtown to sit down and relax. He stated he thought it would also encourage the
expansion of downtown to the north and south.
President Caldwell stated Mr. Sypinski had hit on a few things that the City Attorney would need
to clarify with regard to franchising and its definition and asked Interim Director Saunders to
make a statement. Interim Director Saunders stated that the reason all review agencies had been
included had been to determine the scope of what the policy would need to address. He stated
the scope and nature of the encroachment would make a difference in how it would play out on
the ground.
Mr. Sypinski stated he would like there to be an amendment or portion of the policy addressing
allowances from the private business to make the encroachment a more public place. He stated
first and foremost it should be to serve the particular establishment and suggested a balanced
approach when approving the encroachments.
Mr. Budeski stated the encroachment would be a long term exclusive use of public right of way;
currently encroaching tables and chairs were taken in at night and it was not an exclusive use.
He clarified that the public property would be given away to a private entity for their use; he
suggested fees would need to be discussed for those uses. He further explained that the
reconstruction of the sidewalk at the North Black Avenue block would create a diminished curb
(less than an inch would be available). He stated there should be enough room between the
fence and street for the public to get through; people need to be allowed safely through with their
pets/bikes, etc. He asked if the area would be used for parking or if the applicant for the
encroachment would be required to purchase spaces elsewhere; he suggested the loss of five,
two-hour, free parking spaces would not be a good idea.
Mayor Krauss responded he had been to the one in Billings and he agreed that safety was the
first thing that should be discussed; he added parking along the street had the affect of traffic
calming. He stated a five or six foot wide section seemed highly undesirable to him and added
3
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 17, 2010.
he did not think there would be a way of avoiding “first come, first serve” policy. He stated
parking would be a concern and the long term exclusive use of public property could be an issue;
he suggested the Eagles could propose to knock out the mural wall and use that area. He stated
he would not be inclined to give away public property and the parking spaces removed would
have to be provided elsewhere. He stated there were some sideboards on alcohol consumption
with the encroachments as well. He stated the City would not be able to control who obtained
the permit and it would be on a first come, first serve basis. He stated he did not see viability in
the downtown walking mall in Helena, for example, as there just weren’t enough people living
around it. He stated the idea of needing parking downtown had recently been addressed with the
construction of the parking garage and he was not supportive of losing five spaces on every
block face. He stated he had declined to vote on the proposal when it came to the City
Commission for review as he thought it first needed to be reviewed by affected agencies; he
added he did not think it was a good idea to force the public out into the street by expanding a
sidewalk. He added lots of businesses took deliveries in those areas and he was leery of the
whole issue. He stated there were major concerns with the number of parking spaces that would
be lost and suggested those events could occur in the private spaces downtown.
President Caldwell stated he thought there were two issues. He stated there was already
language in place to allow for the encroachment of five feet into the right of way and suggested
the loss of parking should be handled in the same way; the encroachment should be temporary.
He stated if the right of way were to be reshaped on a site to site basis, the existing language
allowing only five feet of an encroachment should remain. He stated he could see all the
considerations for park and recreation requirements. He suggested there should be no fee as it
should be compensation for providing pedestrian amenities.
Mr. McSpadden asked for clarification of whether or not a particular use was driving a broader
policy. He suggested the policy would have specific end users in mind as it would work well for
a restaurant, but not a hardware store. He stated the broad policy seemed use specific. Planner
Bristor responded it was accurate that a particular application spurred the discussion, but Staff
had been looking at the policy in a more broad view as well as the pros and cons for the
community. She stated the physical change to the area with new curbing, sidewalk expansion,
etc. would require a lot of money from the owner/developer. Mr. McSpadden stated it just
seemed as the language was geared for particular uses. Planner Bristor stated there had been
discussion of compensation for the allowance of the encroachment.
Mr. Graf stated he appreciated the applicant spurring this conversation as it represented the
entrepreneurial spirit in Bozeman and that he hoped the Board could help fill the vacant spaces
in Bozeman. He stated the policy would need to be flexible enough for those individuals to be
creative in its use. He stated an active participating business would employ a lot of citizens. He
stated he thought there would be a lot of issues with regard to parking and curbing; he suggested
the applicant be tasked with providing parking spaces as well as improvements to the right of
way.
President Caldwell reiterated how he perceived the Board members’ comments.
Mayor Krauss stated the current ordinance had limited applicability when discussing a new
ordinance. President Caldwell stated he was supportive of the ordinance as it existed with regard
4
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 17, 2010.
to allowable encroachment and he felt that the issues should be discussed separately.
Mr. Sypinski clarified that his position was that he thought the policy would fit in well with the
recently adopted Growth Policy and Downtown Improvement Plan. He suggested the Board
discuss the issues on a site to site basis.
Mr. Budeski stated he did not want to be pegged for making a decision as he was just providing
the Board with concerns and issues that would need to be addressed prior to the formation of a
policy. He stated the height of the fence allowable was a contradiction in approvals and asked
what the policy would be regarding alcohol consumption. Planner Bristor responded those patio
areas serving alcohol must be entered through the business and fenced according to State
requirements. Mr. Budeski stated he was in favor of the concept, but thought there would be a
lot of work to get to that point. Mayor Krauss stated there was nothing preventing the
applicants’ from establishing a number of outdoor smoking areas on the sidewalks; he stated a
private outdoor area was different as it didn’t expose everyone using the sidewalk to the smoking
area.
President Caldwell stated the City had maintained the attitude that public right of way was
difficult to acquire and hard to maintain; he suggested selling the public right of way would be a
bad idea. He stated exploration for the purposes of right of way being more pedestrian oriented
should be discussed, but the manner in which the right of way was being used would be
paramount.
Interim Director Saunders stated another element within the Downtown Plan was greening the
alleys where outside the facility might be a great use of space; there were other options.
ITEM 5. DISCUSSION ITEM
1. GROWTH POLICY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
A public meeting to provide opportunity for Planning Board members to discuss
implementation of the Growth Policy and Economic Development Plans.
President Caldwell stated he had been trying to get traction for the conversion of Babcock and
Mendenhall Streets to two lane roads. He stated the discussion had been to take Mendenhall
Street as one project and apply the knowledge to Babcock Street in an orderly and metered way.
He stated he was still working on getting proposals to forward to the Planning Board for review.
Mayor Krauss added that the Transportation Plan included some options and suggested the
Board read the information. Mr. Budeski asked what was triggering the request for two-way
traffic when one-way traffic was more efficient. Mayor Krauss responded it was the streetscape
and was difficult on side street development. Mr. Budeski responded a lot of cities were one
way streets downtown. Mayor Krauss responded those cities downtown’s sucked; he added that
access downtown without driving through residential neighborhoods should be encouraged.
President Caldwell stated the traffic counts would not be the sole reason for asking for two-way
streets downtown and it was more about encouraging people to come to the City and remain
there instead of being funneled out. Mr. Budeski stated the one-ways were meant to move traffic
through and he concurred that two-ways would encourage development downtown.
5
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 17, 2010.