HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-02-13 North Seventh Urban Renewal Board Minutes
APPROVED minutes from May 2, 2013 board meeting
Voted on and approved during August 1, 2013 board meeting held at the Stiff Building, upper conference room
TO DO List: Everyone Attend June 3 City Commission mtg;
Attend June 6 board meeting
Michelle Present at June 3 commission mtg
Allyson Present at June 3 commission mtg,
Ask Wendy to join June 6 meeting
Attendance: Allyson Brekke, Bill Fogarty, Carl Solvie, Jeff Krauss, Andrew Cetraro, Scott
Hedglin, Kevin cook, Dustin Johnson, Susan Fraser
Call to Order – Carl called to order at 4:37pm.
Public Comment – none.
Meeting Minutes
Scott made the motion to approve April 4 meeting minutes. Kevin seconded the motion. All in favor.
Lighting Project update
Dustin reported poles started going up today. New problem is getting power to them,
requiring easement along east side at Applebee’s. Another month and remaining poles
should be in place.
N7Rehab applications and presentations
Allyson said Cellular Plus wants to present at June meeting. She also has received an
email from Susan Riggs noting Intrinsik is considering doing an application for a client.
Zoning district, status of draft code
(see Attachments A and B) Cameron via speaker phone recapped what was heard from
property owners during his November site visit. Comments between city planning staff and
Clarion concerning draft are detailed in Attachment B.
Discussion. Option 2 bolded items are the ‘carrots’ needed to do projects. Board comments
can be emailed directly to Cameron. Allyson said staff suggested speaking to façade
design, etc, by rewriting already-existing description, not including in this project but
doing separately.
FY14 budget
(see Attachment C) Allyson went over her draft. Discussion included Phase II lighting project. Dustin said Morrison-Maierle already has plans for entire corridor so we can
continue with M-M but cannot go to bid without easements in place. Dustin went on to
say we can do a small professional agreement with M-M to request they gather the needed
easements. Discussion continued.
Susan made the motion to accept the budget as presented with the discussed addition of
‘median trees’ in the ‘district maintenance’ section. Scott seconded the motion. All in favor.
Budget will be on the June 3 City Commission agenda.
Page 1 of 18
NSURB Goals
Andrew said we hit on all of them during this meeting. He went on to note the momentum
is back with the added ability to help with code adjustments via Clarion project. He also
noted that maybe the board can step back to quarterly meetings. Staff discussion
Carl made the motion approving 60-day notice to Director of Community Development
Wendy Thomas if NSURB should decide against continuing use of city staff. Kevin
seconded the motion. Andrew opposed with Solvie, Hedglin and Fraser in favor.
Kevin noted he met with new Wendy Thomas during the prior week and thought she was a
breath of fresh air. Allyson reported Wendy is already looking at SID code change, UDO
change, etc, and she has already asked Chris Kukulski for money to hire a signage
consultant.
Scott asked Allyson if she would invite Wendy to our June 6 board meeting. FYI
none Adjournment
Carl adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Page 2 of 18
Attachment A
North 7th Avenue Redevelopment Overlay
DRAFT March 12, 2013
PURPOSE
• This overlay is intended to reduce existing regulatory barriers to redevelopment on the North 7th
Avenue corridor by providing more flexible redevelopment standards that reflect the special
conditions of the North 7th Avenue corridor, including that the area is a high priority for
redevelopment, contains many properties with nonconformities, is already mostly developed, and
has not redeveloped with the speed and quality desired by the city. Existing development regulations
do not provide adequate incentives or options for landowners to make investments in and
improvements to their property. This overlay shall be reviewed by the city every five years to
evaluate its effectiveness in meeting the overlay’s purpose and to make amendments, as necessary,
and to update the overlay’s standards or procedures to better meet the city’s long-term goals for this
corridor.
More specifically, this overlay is intended to:
o Create a single set of clear standards for redevelopment that will supercede all other code
requirements that address similar standards;
o Take an incremental and phased approach to making improvements in the corridor,
recognizing that achieving modest improvements in the near-term is often necessary to
encourage more comprehensive and intensive redevelopment and investment in the future;
o Provide reasonable relief from the strict application of existing
nonconforming standards while still maintaining and promoting redevelopment that is safe,
functional, and attractive.
o Encourage safe pedestrian access throughout the corridor.
o Encourage redevelopment that is coordinated with and enhances planned public
improvements within the North 7th Avenue ROW, especially sidewalks, landscape strips, and
lighting.
APPLICABILITY
1. Redevelopment
A. The overlay applies to all properties within the overlay as shown on the city’s official zoning map
(NOTE: options for geographical extent of overlay:-
1. Limited to properties fronting North 7th Avenue between I-90 and Main Street
2. All properties within the Class 1 and 2 Entryway Corridors between the railroad bridge and
Main Street
3. All properties within the N. 7th Avenue Urban Renewal District boundary)
B. Applies to all redevelopment activities (as defined for this overlay – see discussion about
thresholds below)
C. All new development or full redevelopment (full building removal, i.e.-“scrape-off”) are not
subject to this overlay and shall comply with all of the city’s applicable development standards.
Page 3 of 18
2. New Development
All new development or full redevelopment (scrape-off) are not subject to this overlay and shall
comply with the city’s applicable development standards.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
All redevelopment shall comply with the standards below. [NOTE: This section is divided into two main areas,
1) nonconformities and 2) other development standards].
1. Existing Nonconforming Situations [NOTE: 4 options provided for consideration]
Option 1: Full Nonconformity Exemption
Exempt all nonconformity compliance from redevelopment. This is simplest approach and most lenient
to landowners.
Example language: “The approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be denied based on
the presence of an existing nonconformity on the site or need to bring such nonconformity into
compliance with Article 32, Nonconforming Situations, in the Unified Development Code or any other
nonconformity requirements.”
Option 2: Partial Nonconformity Exemption
Limit non-conformity exemption to certain non-conformities that are high priority and can be done
relatively easily at a reasonable cost. Goal is to encourage redevelopment while still making some
progress on reducing nonconformities. Another consideration is to balance the cost of proposed
redevelopment versus the cost of required nonconformity compliance (if latter is more than the former,
the landowner is not likely to proceed with the redevelopment).
1. Nonconformity Standards Exempt from Compliance
The first step is to identify which nonconformities should be exempt from compliance when a
redevelopment project is proposed. The list below includes the spectrum of major existing
nonconformities on North 7th Ave as we understand them. For discussion purposes, Clarion has
bolded those that we suggest should be exempt from compliance for redevelopment projects. Thus,
any new redevelopment (see below for discussion on actual compliance triggers) would have to
comply with the three unbolded nonconformity requirements, plus a modified standard for *façade
improvements, provided they exist on the site.
• Signs
• Internal pedestrian circulation
• Internal parking area landscaping
• Parking setback (25’)
• Parking lot perimeter screening adjacent to streets
• Light shielding (90% cut-off)
• Light pole height
• Street frontage landscaping
• 25 foot arterial setback
• 7 foot non-arterial setback
Page 4 of 18
• Multiple access driveways/ driveway width—not applicable for overlay
• Lot area
• Building height
• Land Use
• Loading area design and screening
• Four-sided architectural design as required per Design Objectives Plan *(instead, the applicant
would be required to improve only street-oriented facades)
2. Redevelopment Trigger for Compliance with Nonconformity Standards
The second step in Option 2 is to identify what level of redevelopment should trigger compliance
with the non-exempt development standards identified above in Section 1. There are multiple
options for setting the trigger:
Option 2A: Apply to ALL redevelopment
Any type of redevelopment that requires approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness would
have to comply with all non-exempt development standards identified above in Section 1.
Option 2B: Apply only to redevelopment above certain threshold.
Only redevelopment projects that reach a certain size would be required to comply with non-
exempt development standards identified above in Section 1, even if COA is otherwise
required. The intent here is to let certain small-scale redevelopment projects proceed
without a nonconformity compliance requirement. At minimum, this flexibility should not
result in the increase of any nonconformity on the site.
For example, below is a range of possible trigger points for some common redevelopment
types:
• Building Addition: Apply only when there is 20% increase in floor area or there is
an absolute increase in floor area (e.g., 5,000 sq. ft. or more). [Note: Clarion
prefers the % approach because it treats all properties in a more equitable
manner]
• Façade Improvement: Apply only if more than one façade is being improved (so,
fixing primary façade does not trigger compliance).
• New Building Pad: Do not apply if proposed building pad is located 1) in an
existing parking area; 2) in front of an existing primary structure; and 3) on the
front street setback – otherwise a new proposed pad would trigger
nonconformity compliance on rest of site. This will incentivize new building pads
where they are most wanted.
• Parking: Apply only if new parking spaces are being added (reconfiguring or
reducing parking is exempt).
• Change of Use: Apply only when a change of use increases the intensity of use
(parking, ADT, etc.) compared to existing use.
Option 3: Nonconformity Standards Exemption Based on Quality of Improvement
Page 5 of 18
Under this option, no nonconformities would be automatically exempted (as in Options 1 and 2), instead
exemptions would be awarded by the city based the level or quality of proposed improvement. Thus, for
example, compliance with a sign and/or parking lot landscaping nonconformity standards would be
exempted if the landowner provided a four-sided façade improvement, while only the sign
nonconformity standard would be exempted for a primary façade improvement, and so on.
This is a highly variable and complex system that would be hard to calibrate ahead of time without
knowing the specifics of the proposed redevelopment and the type of nonconformities on the site. More
can be done to flesh this option out if the city desires but Clarion does not recommend this approach due
to its complexity in creation and administration.
Option 4: Point System
This option would essentially be a variation of Option 3, however, instead of awarding nonconformity
exemptions based on the quality of the proposed redevelopment improvement, they would be awarded
based on a predetermined point system. This could operate in a number of different ways. One way
would be to require each redevelopment activity to achieve a minimum number of points in order to be
approved and then award points for each nonconformity they remedy or improve.
In this scenario, each nonconformity would have an assigned number of points, with the most desired or
expensive nonconformity having the highest number of points. Thus, for example, a facade improvement
might require 7 points, which could be won by resolving an existing parking setback nonconformity (2
points), lighting nonconformity (3 points), and pedestrian connection nonconformity (2 points), or some
other combinations of points. Like Option 3, this is a complex system that is hard to accurately calibrate,
especially if the property has only one type of nonconformity and thus only one option for scoring points.
Point systems are typically created for new development and we are unaware of any such system applied
to redevelopment. More can be done to flesh this option out if the city desires but Clarion does not
recommend this approach due to its complexity in creation and administration.
2. Development Standards
This section is intended to clarify certain development standards for the overlay district that are independent from
any nonconformity requirements. In particular, it would clarify redevelopment requirements currently located in the
Design Objectives Plan (2005) and elsewhere that will help landowners know more precisely what is required of
them. It would be made clear that these standards supercede all similar development standards in other parts of the
code. Further direction from the city is needed on this topic, especially regarding what development standards
should be included in this section or if this section is not needed at all.
For purposes of discussion, we have provided two examples of development standards that this section might
address:
• Façade Enhancement [Note: Because most of the city’s current building articulation and four-sided façade
requirements are designed to apply to new buildings and can be onerous or inappropriate for redevelopment,
it may make sense to provide a separate set of such standards for North 7th Avenue properties]
Page 6 of 18
o Primary façade: Provide more definite standards regarding required materials, vertical and horizontal
articulation to provide minimum standard for primary facades.
o Secondary façade: Provide similar – but less stringent – standards for secondary facades to reflect
high standards but to allow for less detailed and expensive treatments on the sides of buildings.
o Rear façade: No requirements for rear façade.
• Parking Lot Screening
Provide greater flexibility for the dimensions of parking lot screening areas fronting the public street when
the lot dimensions, site grading, and/or existence of improvements make the minimum four foot planting
area width impractical.
Page 7 of 18
Attachment B
Clarion Associates response to staff comments regarding North 7th Avenue Redevelopment
Overlay Code March 12, 2013 Outline.
• This draft document doesn’t appear to be a N. 7th Avenue specific zoning code. Are you proposing
the establishment of a new overlay district to function as a specific zone?
As discussed and agreed upon at the March 7th Urban Renewal Board meeting, the Redevelopment
Overlay outline provides an overview of the purpose, intent, and potential options for applying a set
of unified standards to the N. 7th Avenue Corridor. It was only meant to be a starting point of
discussion with the Board and staff prior to preparing specific code language.
We propose that the N. 7th Avenue area would largely be controlled through one overlay district
(non-conforming review remaining under Articles 19 and 32). Under the “Applicability” discussion we
have noted three different options for the geographical extent of the overlay boundary. The most
simple and straightforward is a boundary matching the legal description of the N. 7th Urban Renewal
District (see metes and bounds description below). The underlying zoning districts, e.g. - B-2
Community Business District, remain in place, just as you have with the City’s other overlays. The
new N. 7th overlay district would be the only overlay encumbering the N. 7th Avenue Corridor, as the
Class 1 and 2 Entryway Corridor and Neighborhood Conservation standards would be superseded.
Legal Description of the North 7th Urban Renewal District Boundary
Beginning at the point of the southeast comer of Lot 7Block I of the Springbrook Addition
thence westerly approximately 270 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 17 Block I of the
Springbrook Addition thence westerly approximately 30 feet to the centerline of North 8th
Avenue thence northerly approximately 1 292 feet to the centerline of West Villard Street
thence easterly approximately 30feet to the southwest comer of Lot 8 of the Durston
Subdivision thence northerly approximately 665 feet thence westerly approximately 4 feet
thence northerly approximately 214 feet to the centerline of West Peach Street thence westerly
approximately 65 feet to the southwest comer of Lot 18 Block 1 of Durstons Second
Subdivision thence northerly approximately 1980 feet to the southwest comer of Lot 3 Block2
of the Vista Addition thence easterly approximately 150 feet to the southwest comer of Lot 2
Block 2 Vista Subdivision thence northerly approximately 645 feet to the northwest comer of
Lot 14 Block I Vista Addition thence westerly approximately 1246 feet along the southern
boundary of the Oak Street right of way to the northwest comer of Tract 1 of C O S 2082
thence northerly approximately 1706 feet down the centerline of North 11th Avenue to the south
boundary of the Baxter Lane right of way thence northerly approximately 70 feet across the
Baxter Lane right of way thence northerly approximately 170 feet across the MDOT right of
way for Interstate 90 to the southwest comer of Lot 2 of the Wheat Commercial Subdivision
thence northwesterly approximately 1000 feet along the southern boundary of Tract A of C O S
391A to the westernmost point thence easterly approximately 800 feet to the northwest comer of
Lot 1 of the Wheat Commercial Subdivision thence easterly approximately 789 feet to a point
approximately 25 feet from the northeast comer of Lot 12 of the Wheat Commercial
Subdivision thence northerly approximately 965 feet to the northwest comer of Lot 3 of the
Gordon Mandeville School Section Subdivision thence easterly approximately 440 feet to the
west boundary of the North 7th Avenue right of way boundary thence northerly approximately
1760 feet to a point where the west boundary of the North 7th Avenue right of way intersects the
Burlington Northern right of way thence southeasterly approximately 1 408 feet along the
Burlington Northern right of way to the southeast comer of Lot 18A of the Amended Plat of the
Page 8 of 18
Gordon Mandeville State School Section Subdivision thence westerly approximately 200 feet to
the northeast comer of Lot 17 of the Gordon Mandeville School Section Subdivision thence
southerly approximately 481 feet to the southwest comer of Lot 20 of the Gordon Mandeville
School Section Subdivision thence southwesterly approximately 107 feet to the southeast comer
of Lot 16 of the Gordon Mandeville School Section Subdivision thence westerly approximately
260 feet to the northeast comer of Lot 15B of Minor Subdivision 49 thence southerly
approximately 686 feet to a point along the north boundary of Lot 20 of the Industrial Park
Subdivision approximately 20 feet west of the northeast comer of said lot thence westerly
approximately 340 feet to the northeast comer of Lot 22 of the Industrial Park Subdivision
thence southerly approximately 698 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 14 of the Industrial Park
• There doesn’t seem to be any analysis on how these proposed changes fit within the existing
Unified Development Code, specifically the Reuse, Change in Use or Further Development section
(http://library.municode.com/HTML/14755/level3/PTIICOOR_CH38UNDECO_ART19PLRE.html#PTIICOOR_CH38
UNDECO_ART19PLRE_S38.19.140RECHUSFUDESIDEPRADDAORWHCHISDE) and the Nonconforming
Situations article
(http://library.municode.com/HTML/14755/level3/PTIICOOR_CH38UNDECO_ART32NOSI.html#TOPTITLE)
Can you explain to us how you envision this new overlay district to fit within the existing code?
We anticipate that Purpose, Applicability, and Code Standards for the N. 7th area would be
incorporated within the overlay itself through a new, separate code Article . At present, the
UDO has three Overlay Districts: Neighborhood Conservation Overlay, Entryway Corridor
Overlay, and the Casino Overlay (Articles 16-18). The N. 7th Avenue Corridor would represent the
City’s fourth overlay.
As far as addressing non-conformities, we see the value in providing the substantive non-conformity
provisions within the N. 7th Avenue Corridor Overlay Zone article, and also incorporating threshold
criteria into Section 38.19.140 and to Article 32- Non-Conforming situations. For clarity, a cross-
reference could be added to Article 32 to alert readers that there are special rules for
nonconformities in the N. 7th Avenue Corridor Overlay Zone.
• “Redevelopment” and “new development” are not defined – can you provide definitions for us?
For purposes of the N. 7th Avenue Overlay zone, the following definitions are proposed:
Redevelopment means the reuse, change in use, or intensification of use of existing
underutilized buildings and/or development sites, or building rehabilitation.
New Development means construction of new buildings on vacant or partially developed
property, or removal or demolition of existing buildings, followed by construction of
replacement buildings.
• We don’t see how Options 1 or 2 would work within the existing Reuse section and Nonconformity
Situations article of the UDC (above) – how can an overlay district allow parts of the zoning code to
be ignored?
Overlay districts typically require stricter development standards than the underlying base zoning;
however, an overlay district could potentially be designed to lessen certain standards if the purpose
and intent of the overlay can be met (see Purpose language). Standards wouldn’t be ignored; they
Page 9 of 18
would be acknowledged through the review process along with the specific exemption from
compliance that would be afforded through the Overlay Zone.
• Option 2 proposes several nonconformities that should be exempt from compliance. We feel like
our Reuse section of the code would be the place to talk about these exemptions that are particular
to the N. 7th Overlay. Some of the exemptions might not be necessary. For example, instead of
complete exemption of signage (recognizing that there is a greater percentage of property owners
that have brought their signs into conformance along N. 7th than those who refuse), maybe we just
eliminate the requirement of sign compliance when a COA for other than sign work is triggered.
We agree that the home for Option 2 could fall within the Reuse Section rather than the Overlay
Zone. With all of the Code changes, the goal should be to make the Code simple. We prefer to
incorporate new language into existing Code sections, rather than new sections, just as long as
it can be easily followed by the staff, URB and the development community.
• We had expected Clarion to provide more suggestions on what development standards should be
included in a N. 7th specific code.
Since new development would be subject to the Code in its entirety, the focus of the design
standards within the overlay are those that would be relaxed when a property is redeveloped.
We do not anticipate a large number of unique development standards applicable to
redevelopment and have provided just two N. 7th-specific standards for purposes of discussion.
The hope is that the examples shown would allow the staff or board to identify any other
significant design issues that have arisen on past development review applications and/or in
conversations with area property owners. A good example of the two development standards
cited is the Van’s IGA property, which was examined during our code testing exercise. In this
situation, redevelopment is subject to four-sided façade improvements and a full complement
of parking area screening, unless a deviation has been granted.
• How does the COA review fit with all of this?
The Certificate of Appropriateness review would still be required for new development or
redevelopment, as defined above, just as it is today. Therefore, the COA review would apply to
all situations except those limited to painting and repair. Just as in the existing Entryway
Corridor and Overlay Districts, the application procedures for Certificates of Appropriateness
will need to be included within the new N. 7th Avenue Overlay Zone Article. If a full Non
Conformity Exemption (see Option 1, under Development Standards) is chosen, we would
suggest that the following language be included within the COA section:
“The approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be denied based on the presence of an
existing nonconformity on the site or need to bring such nonconformity into compliance with Article
32, Nonconforming Situations, in the Unified Development Code or any other nonconformity
requirements.”
Page 10 of 18
Attachment C
Annual Work Plan and Budget
Fiscal Year 2014
N. 7th Avenue Urban Renewal Board
City Commission Meeting -June 3, 2013
In November 2006, the City of Bozeman designated the N. 7th Ave Tax Increment
Finance District (TIFD), under which incremental increases in taxes due to
redevelopment are accumulated in a TIFD fund. The stated goals and objectives of the District Plan
were as follows:
MISSION and VISION: The N. 7th Urban Renewal District Plan is the City’s response to
remedy the conditions of blight found in the August 2005 report through thoughtful redevelopment of
the Corridor. The following Corridor Goals are taken from the Design and Connectivity Plan (DCP).
An expanded description of the intent of each goal is found in the DCP Chapter 2.
Corridor Goals A basic goal is to have an active and exciting corridor that is attractive with a distinct character. A strategy for achieving this goal is to improve the experience for the user by creating safe
attractive walkways and streets and by providing buildings and landscaping that are of interest to
users and passersby. Several key strategies should be followed:
1. Provide a distinct identity for the corridor 2. Develop the corridor as a focus for commercial and entertainment activities that serve residents and visitors alike
3. Strengthen the corridor as a neighborhood service center
4. Provide mixed use development
5. Clearly define gateways at key locations along the corridor 6. Improve vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation along the corridor 7. Provide pedestrian connections to adjacent neighborhoods
8. Establish a way-finding system
9. Guide new development along the corridor such that it improves the aesthetic experience
10. Coordinate public and private improvements 11. Strengthen connections between complementary uses 12. Provide flexible public space along the corridor
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
In addition to the specifically stated goals for the District the following Guiding Principles have been
adopted to provide a basis for decision making over the life of the District. These principles should be applied to any development program or other activity that will affect the District:
1. Ensure the health safety and security of the District
2. Balance commerce and livability in the District within the mixed use framework
3. Public open space is essential to a healthy and appealing urban environment
4. The costs of projects and programs shall be weighed against their benefits to the District 5. Private property shall not be acquired for other private use through the eminent domain
process in the implementation of any aspect of this plan
Page 11 of 18
6. The City shall not limit its vision for the District improvements to monies available solely
through the TIF funding
7. Projects shall consider impacts on adjacent neighborhoods
8. The city shall consider the impact on the District of all projects undertaken outside of the
District FISCAL YEAR 2013 – ANNUAL REPORT LIGHTING, GATEWAY AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS – STATUS
REPORT Engineering Services for Phase 1 Lighting Design and Construction Administration During FY2013, Morrison-Maierle, Inc. was paid a total of $140,862 for engineering services
associated with Phase 1 of the N. 7th Lighting project.
FY13 ENGINEERING SERVICES TOTAL: $140,862 Construction Services for Phase 1 of Lighting Installation
NSURB’s FY13 AT-A-GLANCE
The NSURB moved forward with the Lighting Design and Construction Administration for N. 7th Avenue between Interstate 90 to Tamarack Street. The installation of new light fixtures for the corridor was identified as one of their top three priorities for District Plan
Implementation in 2008. The NSURB recognizes that new light fixtures will help establish
a distinct identity for the corridor, define key intersections, improve vehicular and
pedestrian safety and improve the aesthetic experience of the corridor. NSURB also moved forward on the N. 7th Avenue specific code analysis to identify areas
of the current City zoning code and regulatory documents that might be negatively
affecting the ability of property/business owners to redevelop along the corridor. The code
is expected be presented to the City Commission for consideration of adoption in FY2014. The NSURB awarded $20,000 toward one N. 7th Rehab grant application.
See Table 1 further below for FY2013 balance, revenue and expenditure summary.
Page 12 of 18
Yellowstone Electric was paid a total of $574,485 for the construction services associated
with Phase 1 of the N. 7th Lighting project.
FY13 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES TOTAL: $574,485 Light Pole Purchase for N. 7th Bridge Light poles were purchased for the new fixtures on the N.7th interstate bridge being
constructed. Montana Department of Transportation was reimbursed an amount of $63,510
for the pole cost.
FY13 LIGHT POLE PURCHASE TOTAL: $63,510
Northwestern Energy Application Fees
Application fees and service line fees required to establish power to the light poles. Northwestern was paid a total of $25,000.
FY13 NEW APPLCATION/SERVICE FEE TOTAL: $25,000
FY13 N. 7TH LIGHTING PROJECT TOTAL: $803,857
N. 7th CODE ANALYSIS – STATUS REPORT
During FY2013, the NSURB paid $20,000 to Clarion Associates for their work on the N. 7th Avenue
Specific Zoning Code project. The code is expected to be presented to the City Commission for
consideration of adoption in FY2014.
FY13 N. 7TH CODE SERVICES TOTAL: $20,000 N. 7th REHAB GRANTS – STATUS REPORT
N 7TH Rehab – Technical Assistance Grants (TAG)
FY13 TAG TOTAL: $0
N 7TH Rehab – Grants for Demolition and/or Façade/Site Improvement and/or Public Right-of-Way Improvements Construction Activities
1) Cellular Plus - 606 N. 7th
Grant amount: $20,000
FY13 DEMO AND FAÇADE/SITE TOTAL: $20,000
FY13 N 7TH REHAB TOTAL: $20,000
(awarded but payment will not occur until FY14)
Page 13 of 18
FY13 SUMMARY – Table 1
BALANCES FY13
TIF Balance (beginning cash balance) 860,141
Big Box Funds - BBF (beginning cash balance) 58,998
Total $919,139
REVENUES Tax Interest Revenue 5,000
Tax Allocation Revenue 500,000
Legislature Reimbursement (FY13 only) 9,534
Total $514,534
EXPENDITURES
Lighting Project Phase 1 (TIF) 803,857
N 7th Zoning Code Analysis (TIF) 20,000
N 7th Rehab Grants (TIF) 20,000
Total $843,857
Beginning FY14 TIF Balance: $530,818
Beginning FY14 BBF Balance: $58,998
Page 14 of 18
FY2014 BUDGET PLAN AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL
In 2008, the Board began implementing the North Seventh Urban Renewal District Plan by
establishing their top three priorities for the District: improving sidewalks, lighting and landscaping
along the N. 7th Avenue corridor. During the next fiscal year, the NSURB proposes continuation of the redevelopment incentive program (N7Rehab) and focusing funds towards the installation of new street lights and related improvements in a portion of the corridor. The NSURB recommends
allocating their available funds as follows:
Engineering Services $ 100,000 Engineering services are needed to assist the Board with three of the District goals:
• Provide a distinct identity for the corridor
• Clearly define gateways at key locations along the corridor, and
• Improve vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation along the corridor.
Engineering services will be hired to provide Lighting Design and Construction Administration
for N. 7th Avenue between Juniper Street and Peach/Villard Streets. A part of the engineering analysis will be to identify areas along this section of N. 7th corridor that are requiring
easements and other potential right-of-way improvements that effect the implementation of
lighting construction. The goal would be to get to 100% design of phase 2 of lighting
installation.
The installation of new light fixtures for the corridor was identified as one of their top three
priorities for District Plan Implementation in 2008. The NSURB recognizes that new light
fixtures will help establish a distinct identity for the corridor, define key intersections, improve
vehicular and pedestrian safety and improve the aesthetic experience of the corridor.
It is an allowable expense under Section 7-15-4288, MCA which states, “Costs that may be paid
by tax increment financing” allows the municipality to use tax increments to pay the following
costs of or incurred in connection with an urban renewal project: (1) land acquisition; (2)
demolition and removal of structures; (3) relocation of occupants; (4) the acquisition,
construction, and improvement of infrastructure…; and 5) costs incurred in connection with the redevelopment activities allowed under 7-15-4233…
Grants $100,000
Façade and Site Rehab $25,000 Technical Assistance $25,000
Demolition $25,000
Public Right of Way Improvements $25,0001
This funding proposal is for the N7Rehab redevelopment incentive program to encourage
developers to build on parcels along the N. 7th Avenue corridor. It recognizes the complexities of
1 The Board will have the flexibility of changing the budgeted amounts for each grant category throughout the fiscal
year.
Page 15 of 18
redeveloping parcels which have existing substandard buildings and infrastructure and was
created to offset the costs of those complexities with grants for those proposing work which
eliminates blight and advances the implementation of the District Plan. The program was
approved by Resolution 4307 and is administered by the NSURB. N7Rehab meets the mission and goals of the District Plan by
• guiding new development along the corridor such that it improves the aesthetic experience
and by assisting in; and
• coordinating public and private improvements.
These proposed expenditures are allowable under Section 7-15-4233, subsection (1)(a), MCA,
which grants the City the power to formulate and coordinate a workable program as specified in
Section 7-15-4209, MCA, which states : (1) A municipality may formulate a workable program for utilizing appropriate private and public resources: (a) to eliminate and prevent the development or spread of blighted areas;
(b) to encourage needed urban rehabilitation;
(c) to provide for the redevelopment of such areas; or
(d) to undertake such of the aforesaid activities or other feasible municipal activities as may be suitably employed to achieve the objectives of such workable program. (2) Such workable program may include, without limitation, provision for:
(b) the rehabilitation of blighted areas or portions thereof by re-planning, removing
congestion, providing parks, playgrounds, and other public improvements; by encouraging
voluntary rehabilitation; and by compelling the repair and rehabilitation of deteriorated or deteriorating structures; and (c) the clearance and redevelopment of blighted areas or portions thereof.
Additionally, Section 7-15-4288, MCA states, “Costs that may be paid by tax increment
financing” allows the municipality to use tax increments to pay the following costs of or incurred in connection with an urban renewal project: (1) land acquisition; (2) demolition and removal of structures; (3) relocation of occupants; (4) the acquisition, construction, and improvement of
infrastructure;… and 5) costs incurred in connection with the redevelopment activities allowed
under 7-15-4233…
Part-time staff and other Professional Services $11,000 The Board needs City staff assistance with District Plan implementation. A small increase is
planned due to the change from a Planner I to Planner II City staff member.
This money is a permissible use under state statute 7-15-4288, (5), “costs incurred in connection with the redevelopment activities allowed under 7-15-4233 and 7-15-4288 (7) “administrative costs associated with the managements of the urban renewal area…”
Outreach $3,500
The Board has requested money for public noticing and outreach events in the District. The purpose of these outreach events is to inform property owners and the public of the District Plan and the N7Rehab program.
Page 16 of 18
This money is a permissible use under state statute 7-15-4233, “Powers which may be exercised
by urban renewal agency or authorized department…(f) to disseminate blight clearance and
urban renewal information;”
Lighting, Gateway and related Sidewalk Improvements $0 (Staff is advising you to spend the next year focusing on zoning code modifications and lighitng
design work and then plan on FY15 to begin construction of lighting phase 2 between Juniper and
Peach/Villard Streets)
See “Engineering Services” above for District Plan goals and applicable sections of the MCA.
Interstate 90 Bridge Enhancement $25,000 The NSURB plans to work with the Montana Department of Transportation to improve the
visual aesthetics of the I-90 bridge. A number of opportunities have been discussed including
installing landscaping enhancements and/or stonework on the end caps of the bridge to extend and define the District’s character. The NSURB has also discussed installing a custom made
metal sign on the bridge face, visible to I-90 motorists.
See “Engineering Services” above for District Plan goals and applicable sections of the MCA.
Oak Street Shared Use Path (CTEP Match) $15,000 The Oak Street Shared Use Path project was recommended by the Bozeman CTEP committee
and is a joint project between the City and County. Completion of the project will fill in missing
sections of pedestrian facilities on the south side of Oak Street between N. 7th and N. Rouse
Avenues. A 10 foot wide asphalt path is planned. The NSURB has pledged this money in partial fulfillment of the CTEP cost share requirement for the City’s portion within the District.
Planning/Attorney Consultant – N. 7th Specific Zone Code/Overlay Adoption
$25,000
The proposed code changes by Clarion will need to be adopted through an official amendment process. Depending on the City Commission’s priorities, City Staff may or may not be available
to implement the code amendment process. This would then create a need for an outside
planning/attorney consultant to perform the amendment process.
SUMMARY See FY14 SUMMARY below and Table 2 detailing the proposed FY2014 fund expenditure.
Actual Tax Increment Financing Funding fluctuates with on-going building and re-assessing of
property values. The FY2014 anticipated TIF amount may be different than estimated in the
attached report. Appeals to property valuations are currently under review may result in a reduction in available funds. The NSURB will update their budget on an as-needed basis and with approval from the City Commission.
Page 17 of 18
FY14 SUMMARY – Table 2
BALANCES FY14
TIF Balance: 530,818
Big Box Funds: 58,998
Total: $589,816
PROPOSED FY14
BUDGET
Estimated Revenues Estimated Interest 5,000
Estimated Tax Allocation 500,000
Total: $505,000
Budgeted Expenditures Lighting Phase 2 Engineering Services (TIF) 100,000
N. 7th Grants (TIF) 100,000
Part-time staff and other professional services (TIF) 11,000
Outreach (TIF) 3,500
Lighting and Gateway (TIF) 0
I-90 Bridge Enhancement (TIF) 25,000
Oak Street Shared Use Pathway - CTEP match (TIF) 15,000
Planning/Attorney Consultant N. 7th Code Adoption (TIF) 25,000
District Maintenance (BBF) 30,000
Total: $309,500
Remaining TIF Available: $756,318
Remaining BBF Available: $28,998
Report prepared May 2, 2013 by Allyson Brekke, Neighborhood Planner
Page 18 of 18