Document Missoula_doc_70f14ad285

Franklin To The Fort Infrastructure Plan An Amendment to the 2006 MISSOULA COUNTY GROWTH POLICY Prepared by the Missoula Office of Planning and Grants In cooperation with the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee Adopted by Missoula City Council on August 7, 2006 ---PAGE BREAK--- Acknowledgements Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee David V. Gray, Chair Julie Merritt, Secretary Barbara Warren Brittany Brinelly Carmen Maki Chase Jones Cody Harris Pinjuv Dave Glaser David Schmetterling Deidre Heaton Heather McMilin Jenn Clary Jennifer Williams Jerry Tahija (1935-2006) Jim Hausauer Jimmy Pinjuv John Wolverton Jon Salmonson Larry Weeks Lois Riemann Mace Wescott Matilda Pinjuv Molly Haislmaier Patricia Hogan Robert Coffman Shane Stack Shellan Miller Mayor John Engen Missoula City Council Heidi Kendall Don Nicholson Stacey Rye Jerry Ballas Jack Reidy Marilyn Marler Dave Strohmaier John Hendrickson Bob Jaffe Jon Wilkins Dick Haines Ed Childers Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Alan Ault Don MacArthur Jennifer Clary Jerry Petasek Kevin Blackler Mark Fitzgerald Paul Sopko Ron Erickson Tim Ibey Troy Kurth Wayne Chamberlain Department and Agency Staff Bob Rajala, Missoula Fire Marshal Ellen Buchanan, Director, MRA Dave Shaw, City Parks & Rec Jackie Corday City Parks & Rec Jim Nugent, City Attorney Doug Harby, Engineering Projects Mgr. Phil Smith, Bike/Pedestrian Office Steve King, Public Works Director Missoula Office of Planning & Grants Cindy Wulfekuhle, Interim Director Mike Kress, Sr. Transportation Planner Dave Prescott, Transportation Planner David Gray, Associate Planner Amber Blake, Information Specialist Casey Wilson, Principal Cartographer Bobbi Day, Support Services Administrator ---PAGE BREAK--- RESOLUTION NUMBER 7129 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FRANKLIN TO THE FORT INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MISSOULA COUNTY GROWTH POLICY. WHEREAS, 76-1-604 M.C.A. authorizes the City Council to adopt or revise a growth policy, or any of its parts; and WHEREAS, the City Council did adopt a comprehensive plan for the urban area in 1961; and WHEREAS, the City Council has updated this comprehensive plan in 1968, 1975, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2002, and has amended parts of it by adopting facilities and special resource plans, sub-area and neighborhood plans at various other points in time; and WHEREAS, the 1999 State Legislature amended State Law to replace the terms “Comprehensive Plan” and “Master Plan” with “Growth Policy”; and WHEREAS, the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan was drafted through a public planning process conducted jointly by the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee and the Missoula Office of Planning and Grants; and WHEREAS, the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan was reviewed at a public neighborhood meeting on April 20, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Missoula Consolidated Planning Board unanimously recommended adoption of the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan at its meeting of June 6, 2006, after conducting a public hearing on June 6, 2006; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan at its meeting of July 10, 2006 following publication of notice of said hearing in the Missoulian on June 25, 2006 and July 2, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Missoula City Council hereby adopts the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan, in its final form, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. iii ---PAGE BREAK--- PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of August, 2006. ATTEST: APPROVED: Martha L. Rehbein John Engen Martha L. Rehbein John Engen City Clerk Mayor (SEAL) iv ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Page Recommendations R-1 1. Introduction 1-1 Plan Organization 1-1 Origin of the Plan 1-1 Plan 1-3 Plan Goals & 1-3 Background 1-6 Plan Assumptions 1-7 Financing of Infrastructure Improvements 1-8 Previous Plans and Related Documents and 1-9 Neighborhood 1-9 2. Current Conditions & 2-1 The Process 2-1 Inventory of Existing 2-1 Assessment of Infrastructure Needs 2-2 The Needs 2-3 Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters 2-3 2-11 Parks and 2-16 Fire Hydrants and 2-23 3. Financing of Infrastructure Improvements 3-1 Cost of Improvements 3-1 Siedwalks, Curbs and Gutters 3-1 Traffic Control Modifications 3-5 Parks and 3-8 Fire Hydrants and 3-9 Financing Methods 3-11 Impact Fees 3-11 Private (Developer) Financing 3-12 Federal or State transportation funds 3-12 Appendix A: Glossary, Abbreviations & Acronyms A-1 Appendix B: Public Process Summary B-1 Appendix C: Neighborhood Comments Through 8-12-05 C-1 Appendix D: October 2005 Survey Questionnaire Checked Appendix E: October 2005 Survey Questionnaire Written E-1 Appendix F: Public Comment Received on Draft Plan 3/2/06 ̶ F-1 v ---PAGE BREAK--- List of Tables Page Table 1 2000-2004 Housing Units and Density, City and Plan 1-10 Table 2 2000-2004 Housing Units & Density, Plan Area E. of Reserve 1-10 Table 3 Owner and Renter Occupied Housing, City and Plan 1-11 Table 4 Population, 1990 ─ 2000, Plan Area, City, Urban Area, & County 1-11 Table 5 Income, 1990 ─ 2000, Plan Area, City, Urban Area, & 1-12 Table 6 Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Priorities By Street 2-5 Table 7 Traffic Priorities By Street Corridor 2-12 Table 8 Park & Trail 2-18 Table 9 Fire Hydrant 2-23 Table 10 Streetlight 2-24 Table 11 Estimated Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Costs 3-2 vi ---PAGE BREAK--- List of Figures (Located At End of Plan Document) Figure 1 Neighborhood Council and Urban Renewal Districts Figure 2 Housing, Income & Population Analysis Areas Figure 2a Housing and Income Characteristics Figure 3 Sidewalks, Curbs & Gutters, Unpaved Streets & Figure 4 Percent Completion of Sidewalk & Curbs and Gutters By Figure 5 Neighborhood Infrastructure Priorities Figure 6 Functional Road Classification, Traffic Signs and Figure 7 Missoula Traffic Counts Figure 8 Park Service Areas Figure 9 Hydrants & Streetlights Figure 10 Neighborhood Zoning vii ---PAGE BREAK--- [Blank Page] viii ---PAGE BREAK--- Recommendations ---PAGE BREAK--- [This Page Intentionally Left Blank] ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Recommendations The following recommendations reflect the infrastructure needs identified by Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood residents who participated in the development of this Plan. After a series of public meetings and staff research, the Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee (IPSC) and the Office of Planning and Grants (OPG) identified potential infrastructure improvement projects with the highest priorities based on neighborhood input. Implementation of the following recommended projects will most likely occur through cooperation between neighborhood residents, Missoula City Council, the Missoula Fire, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation Departments, the Missoula Redevelopment Agency (MRA) and OPG. Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters When a neighborhood-sponsored survey questionnaire asked residents whether they would like more sidewalks in the neighborhood, 74 percent of those responding answered “Yes.” Over 65 percent of the “Yes” respondents favored installing sidewalks on all streets in the neighborhood, 17 percent favored more sidewalks only on routes used by children walking to school and 15 percent favored sidewalks on arterial streets.1 Recommendation Based on priorities developed by neighborhood residents who participated in the planning process, the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood recommends completion of the missing sidewalks, curbs and gutters in the following street corridors: Rank Corridor Location 1 Johnson Street (between 3rd Street and South Avenue) 2 Kemp Street (between 3rd Street and South Avenue) 3 Catlin Street (between 3rd and 14th Streets) 4 11th Street 5 8th Street between Russell and Grant Streets 6 14th Street between Eaton and Kemp Streets 7a Grant Street 7b 10th Street 7c 7th Street 8 Russell Street 1 The percentages do not total 100 because some respondents did not answer each question. R-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Implementation Strategies 1. The Missoula Public Works Department should incorporate the neighborhood preferences into the Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvement Program as much as possible. 2. The Public Works Department should develop and maintain an inventory of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters including maps that are updated as new installations occur. 3. Drawing on experience in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood, the Public Works Department and Office of Neighborhoods should work together to develop a process for determining sidewalk, curb and gutter priorities in other City neighborhoods. 4. The City should work with the Safe Routes to School program and incorporate that program’s recommendations into the Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvement Program. Traffic When a neighborhood survey questionnaire asked residents “Would you like more traffic control in the neighborhood?” 61 percent of those responding answered “Yes.” Over 33 percent of the “Yes” respondents favored increased traffic control on all streets in the neighborhood and 23 percent favored controls only on streets used by children. About 26 percent supported additional traffic control on arterial and collector streets, while 16 percent thought that only arterials should have additional traffic control.2 Recommendation Based on priorities developed by neighborhood residents who participated in the planning process, the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood recommends a cooperative effort by the City of Missoula and the Neighborhood Council to address the traffic priorities listed in the following corridors: 2 Total percentages do not equal 100 percent because some respondents did not answer all questions. R-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Rank Corridor Type & Location 1 Catlin a. Pedestrian Crossing on 3rd Street & Catlin Street. b. Intersection Improvement: Crosswalks at Catlin/11th. 2 Garfield a. Intersection Improvement: Add Stop & Yield signs. Garfield should not become a through street. b. Intersection improvements, traffic control speed limit, stop/yield signs, traffic calming) needed on Garfield, especially at 9th, 13th & 14th Streets. 2 Mount c. Traffic Mitigation: Mount between Eaton & Reserve Streets. 2 Multiple Streets Traffic Mitigation: Streets between 3rd, 14th, Russell & Eaton Streets. 3 Russell a. Pedestrian crosswalks on Russell between RR tracks & 3rd Street. b. Safety: Reinstall chirper at 3rd & Russell Street intersection. 4 14th Intersection Improvements: Consider at Eaton/14th, Russell/14th. Traffic Control: Don't expect 14th to handle most Reserve-to- Russell traffic. Add turn lanes & specific no parking areas to encourage traffic to cross streets (Catlin, etc.) c. Traffic Control: Make North (Local), South (Principal Art.) & 14th (Arterial) planned and controlled traffic Collectors. 4 Reserve d. Reserve Street Corridor Study should consider impacts on the neighborhood. Intersection improvements: Reserve, Brooks, & 7th Streets, Spurgin Road & South Avenue. f. Safety: Bike Lane at CS Porter light being used as right turn lane. Prefer ped overpass. Speed Control: Reduce Reserve Street speed limits to 35 MPH in residential areas. 4 5th & 6th h. Don't connect 5th & 6th from Russell to Reserve. Provide Traffic Calming on 5th Street. 5 Kemp - Intersection: Roundabouts, traffic calming & sidewalks along Kemp & around School. - Intersection: Stop/Yield signs. Kemp shouldn't be a thru street. 6 Washburn a. Intersection improvements: 7th & 8th Streets. b. Traffic Calming: Washburn Street between 4th & 14th Streets. 7 Johnson Speed Control: Post speed limits on Johnson & Kemp Streets. 8 Grant a. Intersection improvements, traffic control speed limit, stop/yield signs, traffic calming) needed on Grant, especially at 10th and 11th and between 14th and North 8 Kent b. Intersection: Need 2 stop signs on Clark at Kent. *Not mapped R-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Traffic Priority Implementation Strategies 1. The neighborhood, through the Neighborhood Council Planning and Traffic Committee, and the City, through the Public Works Department, should work together to determine the best strategies for achieving the end results reflected in the neighborhood’s traffic priorities. 2. The Planning and Traffic Committee should work with interested property owners and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Office to assess support for and feasibility of possible traffic calming installations. Parks and Trails When asked “Would you like more parks and trails in the neighborhood?” 68 percent of 243 respondents answered “yes” and 32 percent said “no.” Roughly 60 percent of the “yes” respondents favored more parks and trails throughout the entire neighborhood, while 40 percent favored improvements in existing locations. Recommendation Based on the preferences expressed by neighborhood residents who participated in the planning process, the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood recommends that the City of Missoula and the Neighborhood Council engage in a cooperative effort to address the following park and trail priorities: Rank Location 1 Complete Bitterroot Branch Trail along Railroad. 2a Make US Forest Service land into a neighborhood park. 2b Construct a grade-separated crossing on the Bitterroot Branch Trail at Russell Street. 3 Designate Grant as an "Urban Trail Street" from 3rd to North & Bitterroot Trail 4 Provide a trail crossing at Reserve Street between North and Mount Avenues. 5a Provide a trail crossing on Reserve at Spurgin Road. 5b Convert Mount Avenue to a "Home Street" from Russell to Margaret, including a pedestrian crossing to the Bitterroot Branch Trail and US Forest Service site. 5c Develop a park at Jefferson School. 5d Acquire land north of Franklin Park for expansion. *6 Incorporate trails with ditch corridors. *Not mapped R-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Park and Trail Implementation Strategies 1. The neighborhood, through the Neighborhood Council Parks and Trails Committee, and the City, through the Parks and Recreation Department, should work together to coordinate neighborhood park and trail preferences and current City project priorities and thus improve prospects for project implementation. 2. The neighborhood and the Missoula Redevelopment Agency should work together to explore opportunities to accomplish neighborhood park and trail objectives through implementation of the URD III Plan wherever possible. Fire Hydrants & Streetlights In the comment forms and survey questionnaire responses received throughout the planning process, a number of residents expressed support for additional fire hydrants and streetlights in the neighborhood. Fire Hydrant Recommendation Based on the preferences expressed by neighborhood residents who participated in the planning process, the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood recommends that the City of Missoula and the Neighborhood Council engage in a cooperative effort to address the following fire hydrant priorities: Rank Location H1 Hydrants are needed at the intersections of Kemp & Kensington, Schilling & 14th, Strand & Reserve, South & Reserve H2 More hydrants are needed between Grant, Eaton, 10th & 14th H3 Hydrants are needed on Kensington & Schilling Fire Hydrant Implementation Strategies 1. The neighborhood, through the Neighborhood Council Planning and Traffic Committee, and the City, through the Public Works Department, should work together to determine the best strategies for achieving the end results reflected in the neighborhood’s fire hydrant priorities. R-5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Streetlight Recommendation Based on the preferences expressed by neighborhood residents who participated in the planning process, the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood recommends that the City of Missoula and the Neighborhood Council engage in a cooperative effort to address the following streetlight priorities: Rank Comment / Location *L1 Minimize light pollution from streetlights. L2 Provide lighting in Franklin Park. *L3 Provide streetlights along major routes (schools, services, corners). L4 Provide more streetlights on 14th Street (there are only 5 streetlights lights at present). L5 Provide streetlights on east side of Reserve Street. *L6 Opposed to more streetlights. *Not mapped Streetlight Implementation Strategies 1. The neighborhood, through the Neighborhood Council Planning and Traffics Committee, and the City, through the Public Works Department, should work together to determine the best strategies for achieving the end results reflected in the neighborhood’s streetlight priorities. R-6 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Introduction ---PAGE BREAK--- [This Page Intentionally Left Blank] ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan 1. Introduction Plan Organization and Format This chapter discusses the origin of the Plan and neighborhood characteristics such as population, housing, development density and income levels. Additionally, the Plan’s goals and objectives are identified, as are the Plan assumptions. The chapter also identifies possible infrastructure financing options and lists previous plans and documents referenced by this Plan in the context of the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood as it relates to the greater Missoula area as a whole. Chapter 2, Current Conditions and Needs, describes the location, extent, and the types of infrastructure addressed by this Plan. The chapter summarizes data collected through neighborhood surveys and comment forms regarding what citizens want in terms of infrastructure. The chapter includes prioritized lists that indicate where citizens most want to see improved sidewalks, curbs and gutters, traffic control, parks and trails, fire hydrants and streetlights. Chapter 3, Financing of Infrastructure Improvements, discusses various methods available to pay for sidewalks and other infrastructure improvements. Also described are options available to citizens with limited incomes for deferring payment for improvements. Various elements of infrastructure are closely interrelated, even though the Plan sometimes discusses them separately. For example, placement of sidewalks and streetlights depends on location and type of streets. Location of parks and other community facilities determines the location of trails. Origin of the Plan Increased residential development in Missoula’s Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood (the neighborhood, hereafter) has strained an already inadequate infrastructure system. Continued development is changing the neighborhood’s character. Much of the neighborhood consists of residences built in the '30’s and '40’s. Other areas saw greater development in the '50’s and '60’s. There are businesses in the neighborhood as well as some relatively rural areas. The neighborhood has a mix of newer and long-time residents. Area residents value and wish to preserve the diversity of income levels in the neighborhood by retaining affordable housing that has characterized the neighborhood for decades. The presence of affordable housing has attracted many first-time 1-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan homeowners, increasing the number of young professionals in the neighborhood. Residents also value the area’s racial and ethnic diversity and its mix of single- and multi-family housing. The neighborhood historically contained a greater mixture of businesses and residences than it does today, particularly in the area bounded by Reserve, Russell, Third and Fourteenth Streets. Many residents would like to preserve and encourage that mixed use development. Changes in the neighborhood’s appearance due to new development have caused concern among many residents over the neighborhood’s future character and vitality. These concerns led to the enactment by the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council of the process to develop this Infrastructure Plan. The Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan is a cooperative project between the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee and the Missoula Office of Planning and Grants (OPG). The Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council Leadership Team began discussing the need for an infrastructure plan in spring of 2004. The Leadership Team created the Steering Committee in January of 2005 to coordinate and facilitate neighborhood involvement and participation in preparation of the Plan. Interest in an infrastructure plan grew out of concern by residents about future development and growth in the neighborhood. Residents view development as inevitable and seek a plan that addresses sidewalks, curbs, traffic, parks and fire hydrants and streetlights so that new development will be productive and beneficial. Funding of needed infrastructure improvements is a key neighborhood issue. The Plan describes the type and location of needed improvements as identified and prioritized by neighborhood residents who helped develop the Plan. By prioritizing improvements, the Plan identifies where and in what order citizens wish to concentrate resources if and when those resources become available. The neighborhood will consider implementation and funding of individual improvement projects in steps that follow adoption of the Plan. Some residents, especially those with limited incomes, oppose being assessed or taxed for sidewalks or other improvements. Adoption of the Plan does not “bill” residents for infrastructure improvements. Neighborhood residents, including City Council representatives, expressed support for the Infrastructure Plan. Residents view the outcome of the Plan as a way to work with the City and its officials to influence the neighborhood’s future in a positive manner. The Steering Committee’s input and involvement were instrumental in the development of this Plan. The Committee recorded and summarized public comment and outlined the specific objectives and scope of the Plan. The Committee also organized neighborhood volunteers to update and 1-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan “field-check” base maps used in the Plan and to assist with neighborhood meetings and workshops. Appendix B summarizes the public process that accompanied the development of the Infrastructure Plan, including meetings, workshops, outreach activities, and comment opportunities. Plan Scope The Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan (“the Plan”) focuses primarily on the need for ─ and ways to obtain and pay for ─ specific types of infrastructure as identified by neighborhood residents and property owners who participated in development of the Plan. The Plan includes all land within the boundary of Missoula’s Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council. All known property owners and residents were included in notification about the Plan and were invited to participate in the planning process through meetings, workshops, comment forms, survey questionnaires and other activities related to development of the Plan. Despite extensive efforts to seek the input and participation of all Franklin to the Fort residents and property owners in the process, the greatest amount of citizen interest and participation came from within the area between Russell, Schilling, Third and Fourteenth Streets. That area is the least rural, and has the most similar land use. Few comments or suggestions were given from residents or property owners in area west of Reserve Street. Due to the lack of comments the Plan does not fully identify the needs or desires of the residents and property owners of the more rural area of the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood located west of Reserve Street. As a result, the Plan reflects this greater level of interest. The Plan does not reflect infrastructure needs of that portion of the neighborhood located to the west of Reserve Street primarily because those needs were not expressed by residents and property owners from that area. Plan Goals and Objectives The purpose of this Plan is to address tangible aspects of infrastructure to accommodate growth and guide development. Neighborhood residents wanted this Infrastructure Plan to address five main elements: sidewalks and curbs; traffic; parks and trails; fire hydrants; and streetlights. Residents generally feel that such infrastructure elements are absent in many parts of their neighborhood but are more common in other neighborhoods. Residents consider these infrastructure elements to be important to their neighborhood and see this Plan as a tool to gain them. 1-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan The following goals and objectives describe the results neighborhood residents wish to achieve through the Plan and how they intend to achieve them. Goal 1 – Sidewalks, Trails and Bicycle Facilities Provide for safe and convenient access within the neighborhood for pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorized travelers through a well-connected system of sidewalks, trails, paths and bike lanes or routes. Objectives A. Identify locations for additional sidewalks, trails, paths and bike routes to link neighborhood destinations and other parts of the City. B. Encourage compliance with existing City subdivision and development standards requiring installation of sidewalks on new streets and on existing streets concurrent with development on adjacent property. C. For streets without sidewalks or with incomplete sidewalks, establish a priority list for completion of links identified in Objective 1-A based on factors such as safety, availability of funds, and the amount of construction needed. D. Prioritize sidewalks or segments of sidewalks that connect schools, parks, shopping and places of employment with residential centers. E. Identify and encourage use of funding methods that minimize the financial impacts, especially those impacts on low- and moderate-income households. Goal 2 – Curbs & Gutters Prevent breakdown of pavement edges and provide for clear and safe separation of roadways and parking from pedestrian walkways and adjacent properties through curbs and gutters along neighborhood streets. Objectives A. Encourage compliance with existing City subdivision and development standards requiring installation of curb and gutter on new streets and on existing streets concurrent with development on adjacent property. B. Identify streets and street segments that do not have curbs and gutters and establish a priority list for completion of those segments based on factors such as traffic volume, pavement edge condition, safety, availability of funds, and the amount of construction needed to fill in segments without curbs and gutters. 1-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan C. Identify and encourage use of funding methods that minimize the financial impacts, especially those impacts on low- and moderate-income households. Goal 3 – Traffic (includes street classification, connectivity, traffic calming, intersection control, pedestrian safety, etc.) Provide a safe, well-connected street system within the neighborhood with appropriate separation of through and local traffic in order to achieve the best possible circulation to, from and within the neighborhood. Objectives A. Design, build and improve streets according to their functional classification. B. Whenever possible, complete missing through street connections in conjunction with development to remove hazardous conditions while at the same time striving to minimize disruptions for adjacent residents. C. Consider traffic calming measures to discourage inappropriate use of local streets as through streets or “shortcuts.” D. Encourage installation of speed limit signs, review of posted speed limits and, subject to applicable laws, adjust them as needed to improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. E. Identify and encourage use of funding methods that minimize the financial impact on low- and moderate-income households. Goal 4 – Parks (including trails, improving existing parks, and new parks) Provide increased park, trail, and other open space opportunities in the neighborhood. Objectives A. Outline goals, identify opportunities, and develop methods for preserving and enhancing open and “green” space in the neighborhood, including acquisition of land for additional parks through donation, easement or purchase. B. Identify opportunities to link parks and common areas to trails and sidewalks. Goal 5 – Fire Hydrants Provide fire hydrants in appropriate locations and in sufficient quantity to meet applicable standards for spacing and fire flow capacity. 1-5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Objectives A. Encourage inclusion of needed fire hydrants as part of subdivisions and other new development projects. B. Encourage installation of additional fire hydrants as needed to provide better spacing and coverage in built-up areas of the neighborhood. Background Neighborhood: The Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan covers the area shown in Figure 1 − Neighborhood Council and Urban Renewal Districts. The plan area (neighborhood) is bounded by South Third Street on the north, U. S. Highway 93 and the Bitterroot River on the south, Russell Street and the Bitterroot Branch of the Montana Rail Link railroad line on the east, and Reserve Street and Fort Missoula on the west. The total land area is 1,384 acres. While the Plan includes all land within the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council boundary, the greatest amount of citizen interest in infrastructure planning has come from within the area between Russell, Schilling, 3rd and 14th Streets. This area is the least rural, and has the most similar land use. As a result, the Plan reflects this greater level of interest. Reasons for the Plan: A number of issues have contributed to the need for the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan. Following is a summary of the most pressing of those problems. Housing Development: The neighborhood has experienced significant development in recent years. As of this writing, cumulative permit data is available through the end of 2005. The area has seen considerable new multiplex and multi-family housing development as well as new single-family development. Presently the neighborhood contains 994 net buildable acres (excluding streets, park land, and floodplain areas). Lack of Adequate Walkways: Most streets in the neighborhood are paved, but curbs, gutters and sidewalks occur intermittently. Today the City requires installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks as part of subdivisions or other development. However, many parts of the neighborhood were developed before adoption of current regulations. As a result, there are incomplete sidewalk systems that do not connect to schools or services. Few of these systems are coordinated with pedestrian-friendly crosswalks or streetlights. Need for Parks, Trails, and Other Recreational Facilities: The Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood has two major public parks, Franklin Park and Fort Missoula Park. While Franklin Park is readily accessible to most residents by foot or bicycle, Reserve Street separates Fort Missoula Park from most of the people in the neighborhood. 1-6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are currently limited and will be needed as population increases. The current gaps in the Bitterroot Branch Trail severely limit its use by many neighborhood residents. Continued housing development has foreclosed many possible park and trail options. Third and Russell Reconstruction: This project includes reconstruction of Russell Street from Broadway to Mount Street, including a new bridge over the Clark Fork River. The project also includes rebuilding of Third Street between Russell and Reserve Streets. The project is in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) phase, with release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) expected in early 2007. The tentative time schedule for City Council public hearings on the DEIS is spring of 2007. The City expects that reconstruction of Third Street will occur between 2008 and 2010. Completion of the Russell Street segment is expected to take longer due to the need to accumulate adequate Federal funds to cover high design and construction costs. Final plans will affect the neighborhood in a variety of ways. Neighborhood residents hope this Infrastructure Plan can constructively influence the final Third and Russell reconstruction plans. Reserve Street Traffic: South Reserve Street is a five-lane arterial that divides areas to the west, such as Big Sky High School, Community Medical Center and Fort Missoula, and areas to the east, where the majority of the neighborhood’s residents live. Reserve Street is the route for U.S. Highway 93 through Missoula, with 2004 traffic volumes ranging from 30,000 to 37,000 vehicles per day.1 High traffic volumes and speeds on Reserve Street create challenges for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians entering or crossing the street. Urban Renewal District III: In 2003 the Missoula Redevelopment Agency (MRA) established Urban Renewal District III (URD III). Also known as “Midtown Missoula,” URD III is planned as a 555-acre mixed-use redevelopment area in the center of Missoula. As shown in Figure 1, Southgate Mall is in the middle of URD III. Redevelopment in URD III will have an impact on the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood in terms of new construction, increased property value and additional traffic. Plan Assumptions In order to achieve its goals, the Plan offers both policy and site-specific action recommendations. The recommendations in this Plan are based on the following assumptions: 1. Development will continue to occur. 2. Future development will occur in accordance with zoning regulations, the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan and the Missoula Urban Comprehensive Plan 1998 Update. 1 Missoula Transportation Study Area Traffic Counting Program (2004 data) 1-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan 3. Current land use designations for the area under the Missoula Urban Comprehensive Plan 1998 Update will remain as currently adopted unless, and until, those designations change through a process separate from the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan. 4. Current zoning district classifications for the area and current zoning regulations will remain the same as currently adopted unless, and until, those designations or regulations are changed through a process separate from the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan (see Figure 10). 5. Development in the area will occur at the densities allowed under zoning regulations in force at the time of development. Financing Infrastructure Improvements There are a variety of funding sources and strategies for financing recommended infrastructure improvements. Funding sources and strategies may include but are not limited to: 1. Impact fees 2. Payment for improvements by participating property owners or developers as part of a new subdivision or other development project as a condition of approval 3. Federal, State or local transportation funds 4. Open Space funds 5. Voter-approved bond issues for specific projects 6. Urban renewal revenues administered through the Missoula Redevelopment Agency 7. Conservation easements 8. Grants from private funding sources 9. Citywide funding through property tax levies 10. Citywide funding through property taxes levied to cover all or part of the cost of a specific project identified in a Capital Improvements Program 11. Special Improvement District (SID) formed by the City Council to cover all or part of the cost of one or more kinds of infrastructure improvements through assessment of property owners in the district 12. Combinations of above strategies 13. Other strategies Chapter 3 addresses infrastructure financing methods in detail. 1-8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Previous Plans and Related Documents Previous Plans: Since 1975, the City of Missoula and Missoula County have adopted several plans that relate to land use, transportation, and other issues in the neighborhood. The Missoula Urban Comprehensive Plan, 1998 Update covers the entire Missoula urban area. The Reserve Street Area Plan, 1995 Update covers the Reserve Street corridor from the Clark Fork River to Brooks Street, including most of the neighborhood for this Infrastructure Plan. The 1995 update of the Reserve Street Area Plan is the most recently adopted neighborhood or regional plan with a particular focus on the neighborhood. Additionally, the City and County of Missoula adopted the jurisdiction wide Missoula County Growth Policy in August of 2002. The Growth Policy encompasses all other regional, issue, and topical plans as amendments thereto. Other Planning Documents: In addition to the Missoula Urban Comprehensive Plan and the Reserve Street Area Plan, the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan contains references to a number of plans and related documents prepared and adopted by the City of Missoula, Missoula County, and other governmental agencies. They include: • 2004 Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update • Russell/Third Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) due fall, 2006) • Missoula Master Sidewalk Plan • 2001 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan • Missoula Parks Master Plan, 2004 • 2004-2008 Missoula Consolidated Plan • Midtown Missoula/Urban Renewal District (URD) III Plan Neighborhood Characteristics Floodplain: Only two parcels in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood are within the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) mapped 100- year floodplain of the Bitterroot River. One parcel is federally owned and is part of Fort Missoula. The second parcel adjoins the first and is owned by the University of Montana. Both are on the north bank of the Bitterroot River. Slope: The neighborhood is predominantly flat; the general slope trends toward the confluence of the Bitterroot and Clark Fork Rivers. The neighborhood contains no slopes greater than one half of one percent except for land on the banks of the Bitterroot River and along 3rd Street. Overall, the neighborhood lies mostly on an upper terrace created by the confluence of the rivers. The elevation drops about eight feet between 3rd Street and the Bitterroot Branch Trail and about 10 feet between Russell and Reserve Streets. 1-9 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Density (Units per Acre) and Housing Characteristics: The neighborhood contains a total of 1,384 acres. As currently mapped by FEMA, the floodplain contains about 27 acres, leaving 1,357 acres, including parkland and street right- of-way. Table 1 2000-2004 Housing Units and Density City of Missoula and Franklin to the Fort Plan Area Location Gross Acres HU 2000 Est. Hsg. Units 2004 Hsg.Unit Increase Gross Density (DU/AC) Missoula City 15,285 21,566 22,812 1,246 1.5 Plan Area* 1,357 3,140 3,278 138 2.4 *Does not include Floodplain Table 1 shows that the gross density of the neighborhood is 2.4 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC), compared to 1.5 DU/AC for the entire City. This density is affected by the large amount of open space within Larchmont Golf Course and Fort Missoula. Sub areas of the neighborhood east of Reserve Street, shown in Figure 2 − Housing, Income & Population Analysis Areas, better portray the actual density of the residential portion of the neighborhood. As shown in Table 2, estimated gross density east of Reserve Street amounted to 3.9 DU/AC, with the northern portion at 4.1 DU/AC and the southern portion at 3.2 DU/AC. All densities within the neighborhood are greater than the overall gross density of 1.7 DU/AC within the city limits of Missoula Table 2 2000-2004 Housing Units and Density Franklin to the Fort Plan Area East of Reserve Street Location Gross Acres 2000 Census Hsg. Units 2004 Est. Hsg. Units Gross Density (DU/AC) North 686 2,705 2,827 4.1 South 149 458 471 3.2 Total 835 3,163 3,298 3.9 North - 3rd to South Ave., Russell to Reserve South - South Ave. to Brooks, Bitterroot Branch to Reserve Schools - Franklin Table 3 shows percentages of owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing in the City and the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood. For the entire neighborhood in 2000, owner occupied housing units within the neighborhood accounted for 46.5 percent of all occupied housing units, while the north and south areas east of Reserve Street showed 49.9 percent and 40.2 percent owner occupied, respectively. Renter occupied housing units, in 2000, were consistently above 50 percent across the entire neighborhood compared to 49.8 percent for Missoula in general. These analysis areas are shown in Figure 2 1-10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Table 3 Owner and Renter Occupied Housing City of Missoula and Franklin to the Fort Plan Area 2000 Census Occupied Housing Units & Tenure Location Occupied Hsg. Units Owner Occupied Percent Own Renter Occupied Percent Rent Percent Vacant Missoula City* 24,141 12,130 50.2% 12,011 49.8% 4.3% Plan Area 3,341 1,553 46.5% 1,788 53.5% 3.7% *Based on 2000 Census CDP Boundary Calculations based on area east of Reserve Location Occupied Hsg. Units Owner Occupied Percent Own Renter Occupied Percent Rent Percent Vacant North 2,600 1,298 49.9% 1,302 50.1% 3.9% South 443 178 40.2% 265 59.8% 3.3% Total 3,043 1,476 48.5% 1,567 51.5% 3.8% Population, Ethnicity, and Income: Table 4 shows the change in neighborhood population between 1990 and 2000 based on Census block data. Neighborhood population grew from 6,407 in 1990 to 7,076 in 2000, a 10 percent increase. Total city population grew from 42,918 to 57,053 (33 percent) during the same period. Ethnic percentages within the neighborhood, in 1990 and 2000, were consistent with the city, the urban area and the county, as shown in Table 4. The percentages remained relatively stable between 1990 and 2000 with a slight decrease in the white population. Table 4 Population, 1990 ─2000 Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood (FTF), Missoula City, Urban Area & Missoula County 1990 Race FTTF % City % Urban Area % County % Population: White 6,126 95.6% 40,983 95.5% 59,707 96.0% 75,707 96.2% Population: Black or African American 27 0.4% 148 0.3% 156 0.3% 175 0.2% Population: American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 178 2.8% 1,045 2.4% 1,377 2.2% 1,799 2.3% Population: Asian or Pacific Islander 68 1.1% 622 1.4% 779 1.3% 794 1.0% Population: Other Race 8 0.1% 120 0.3% 198 0.3% 212 0.3% Population: Two or More Races N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 6,407 100% 42,918 100% 62,217 100% 78,687 100% 2000 Race FTTF % City % Urban Area % County % Population: White 6,548 92.5% 53,387 93.6% 67,783 93.7% 90,060 94.0% Population: Black or African American 31 0.4% 207 0.4% 146 0.2% 169 0.2% Population: American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 242 3.4% 1,341 2.4% 1,723 2.4% 2,235 2.3% Population: Asian or Pacific Islander 66 0.9% 760 1.3% 773 1.1% 919 1.0% Population: Other Race 33 0.5% 290 0.5% 506 0.7% 596 0.6% Population: Two or More Races 156 2.2% 1,068 1.9% 1,439 2.0% 1,823 1.9% 1990-2000 Population Increase 10% 33% 16% 22% Total 7,076 100% 57,053 100% 72,370 100% 95,802 100% 1-11 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Table 5 shows median household and family income and per capita income for the Neighborhood, the City, the Missoula urban area, and Missoula County for 1990 and 2000. Table 5 also shows the neighborhood median income levels as a percentage of the City medians. According to the census, 1990 and 2000 neighborhood income levels fell below those of the City, Urban Area, and County. However, the gap between neighborhood income levels and those of the larger areas decreased from 1990 to 2000, especially in median household income and per capita income. Figure 2a − Housing and Income Characteristics, shows the location of areas having various housing and income characteristics. Table 5 Income, 1990 ─ 2000 Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood (FTF), Missoula City, Urban Area & Missoula County Income Averaged across the 6 block groups FTTF % of City City Urban Area County 1990 Income Households: 1989 Median hsld income $16,616 79.0% $21,033 $22,778 $23,338 Families: Median family income in 1989 $21,939 73.4% $29,894 $27,940 $30,359 Persons: Per capita income in 1989 $9,167 78.0% $11,759 $11,183 $11,944 2000 Income Households: '99 Median hsld income $26,704 87.9% $30,366 $34,279 $34,454 Families: Median family income in 1999 $31,683 75.2% $42,103 $42,622 $44,865 Persons: Per capita income in 1999 $14,949 87.1% $17,166 $17,015 $17,808 1-12 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Current Conditions & Needs ---PAGE BREAK--- [This Page Intentionally Left Blank] ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan 2. Current Conditions And Needs Following the decision to prepare this Infrastructure Plan, the neighborhood established goals for improving sidewalks, curbs, parks, trails, streetlights, fire hydrants and traffic control. In a cooperative effort, the Neighborhood Council Leadership Team (NCLT) and the Office of Planning and Grants (OPG) developed a Scope of Work outlining the intent of the Plan. The Process The next steps were to locate and measure the amount of key infrastructure already in place and assess specific needs and locations for additional infrastructure. This chapter explains the processes the planning team used to complete those steps. Inventory of Existing Infrastructure Base Maps: The inventory of existing infrastructure conditions began by dividing the neighborhood into twelve sub-areas. Using the most recent data available, OPG staff prepared base maps for each sub-area showing the existing sidewalks, curbs, parks, and other key infrastructure. Field Checking: The Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee organized volunteers to field check and update the base maps. Volunteers walked or drove through each sub-area to verify the location of the following infrastructure elements: • unpaved streets • sidewalks – indicate boulevard or curbside • curb & gutter locations • street lights • fire hydrants • traffic control devices including: o stop, yield, speed limit and children at play signs o traffic signals o crosswalks 2-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Following the field checking process, staff used the information gathered by the volunteers to update the base maps. The July 20, 2005 neighborhood meeting included a workshop session where attendees inspected the maps and offered comments and corrections. Assessment of Infrastructure Needs The planning team believed the most effective way to assess neighborhood infrastructure was to ask the neighborhood. The three main strategies used to measure neighborhood opinion were: comment forms at neighborhood meetings; a post card survey questionnaire; and a prioritized dot survey at one neighborhood meeting. Comment Forms: Comment forms were used to seek citizen feedback at the March 9 and July 20, 2005 neighborhood meetings. The planning team encouraged audience members to note their concerns, infrastructure preferences, and other comments on the forms. Participants had the choice of completing the comments forms and turning them in at the meeting or completing them at home and mailing them back to the Steering Committee. The Committee summarized the responses and organized comments by infrastructure type. Staff formatted and printed the comment summaries, including a breakout of comments related to specific locations, for example “Fill in the sidewalk gaps on 10th Street between Johnson and Kemp.” Interested citizens turned in 64 comment forms following the March and July, 2005 neighborhood meetings. Of those who offered an opinion on whether to develop a neighborhood infrastructure plan, 83 percent favored developing an infrastructure plan, 7 percent were opposed, and 10 percent were undecided. Thirty-nine comments suggested improvements at specific locations. Appendix C contains the comments, summarized by infrastructure type and location. Survey Questionnaire: In early October, 2005, the Steering Committee coordinated the printing and distribution of a post card survey questionnaire to over 3,000 neighborhood residents. The questionnaire asked recipients to check boxes indicating their preferences regarding sidewalks, curbs and gutters, parks and trails, and traffic control. The questionnaire provided space for respondents to make written comments, and was pre-addressed for mailing back. Over 250 people completed and returned questionnaires to the Steering Committee. Questionnaire responses were tabulated by the Steering Committee. Approximately 60 percent of respondents favored additional traffic control measures such as signals, signs and traffic calming, defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as “changes in street alignment, installation of barriers, and other physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and/or cut- through volumes, in the interest of street safety, livability, and other public 2-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan purposes."1 Appendix D summarizes check-box responses in the sidewalk, curb, park and traffic categories of the survey. Appendix E summarizes the written comments from respondents to the survey. Prioritized Dot Survey: Using the suggestions made by neighborhood residents on the comment forms, staff located the improvements on four display maps for sidewalks, parks, fire hydrants and traffic control. At the October 19, 2005 neighborhood meeting, the planning team encouraged audience members to prioritize the projects in each category. Participants received dots for each infrastructure category and placed a dot next to the three projects they considered most important. Staff subsequently tabulated the results and developed priority lists for each of the four infrastructure categories. The next section describes the lists in detail. The Needs Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters Sidewalks, curbs and gutters are the most frequently mentioned infrastructure mentioned by Franklin to the Fort residents when discussing infrastructure needs in the neighborhood. Besides being visually attractive, sidewalks benefit the neighborhood by promoting pedestrian safety, walking as a means of transportation and exercise, and increasing property values. Curbs and gutters encourage proper parking, prevent breakdown of pavement edges, provide separation between street, boulevard and sidewalk, and ease street cleaning and maintenance. Although beneficial in many ways, sidewalks, curbs and gutters are expensive, and property owners usually pay for them. Therefore, cost is the main factor for many people considering whether to support or oppose installation of sidewalks on their streets. Cost increases the importance of prioritizing potential sidewalk projects in order to focus limited resources on projects that citizens want the most. Chapter 3 provides more information about financing of sidewalks and other infrastructure. Existing Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters Figure 3 − Sidewalks, Curbs & Gutters, Unpaved Streets & Crosswalks illustrates which neighborhood streets are paved, which have curbs and gutters, and which have either boulevard or curbside sidewalks. Figure 4 − Percent Completion of Sidewalk & Curbs and Gutters By Block, show each block’s overall percentage of 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, www.trafficcalming.org/definition.html 2-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan completion for sidewalks or curbs and gutters, respectively, in the area between Reserve, Russell, and Third Streets and the Bitterroot Branch Trail. The maps indicate the completion percentage for each individual block and do not necessarily reflect conditions along the entire length of any particular route, such as Johnson Street. Citizen Responses ─ Comment Form and Questionnaire Comment Forms: Of the 64 comment forms returned to the planning team, 36 forms included comments relating to sidewalks. Of those, 12 people favored installation of sidewalks throughout the neighborhood, and 22 favored installing them in selected locations. Three people either opposed or were undecided about additional sidewalks. Of 13 comments on curbs and gutters, 10 people favored installation throughout the neighborhood, two favored installation in selected locations and one opposed additional curb and gutters. Surveys Questionnaire Responses: When asked if they would like more sidewalks in the neighborhood, 74 percent of those responding answered “Yes.” Over 65 percent of the “Yes” respondents favored installing sidewalks on all streets in the neighborhood, 17 percent favored more sidewalks only on routes used by children walking to school and 15 percent favored sidewalks on arterial streets.2 When asked if they would like more curbs installed along streets in the neighborhood, 65 percent of those responding answered “Yes.” Over 74 percent of the “Yes” respondents favored installing curbs on all neighborhood streets and 19 percent favored more curbs only on arterial streets.3 2 The percentages do not total 100 because some respondents did not answer each question. 3 Again, some respondents did not answer each question. 2-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Neighborhood Priorities ─ Sidewalks, Curbs & Gutters Table 6 lists the top ten street corridors in the neighborhood that need more or improved sidewalk, curbs and gutters as ranked by neighborhood residents. The numbers in the “Rank” column represent the priority assigned to each corridor, starting with the highest and ending with the lowest. The “Dots” column contains the number of colored dots awarded to each street corridor by participants in a ranking exercise at the October 19, 2005 neighborhood meeting. In Figure 5 − Neighborhood Infrastructure Priorities, the location of each street corridor is identified by the corresponding Rank number in Table 6. Table 6 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Priorities By Street Corridor Rank Corridor Location Dots 1 Johnson Street (between 3rd Street and South Avenue) 36 2 Kemp Street (between 3rd Street and South Avenue) 33 3 Catlin Street (between 3rd and 14th Streets) 23 4 11th Street 12 5 8th Street between Russell and Grant Streets 10 6 14th Street between Eaton and Kemp Streets 8 7a Grant Street 6 7b 10th Street 6 7c 7th Street 6 8 Russell Street 4 1. Johnson Street (between 3rd Street and South Avenue) Traffic Volumes: Current traffic count data on Johnson Street shows approximate Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes ranging from 3,400 just south of 8th Street to 3,700 just north of South Avenue.4 Sidewalks are complete along 55 percent of Johnson Street within the neighborhood. Neighborhood Preferences: Residents strongly favored completion of sidewalks on Johnson Street between 3rd Street and South Avenue. They also placed high priority on pedestrian safety. Residents also supported installation of sidewalks in all directions around Franklin School, which borders Johnson Street. 4 Missoula Transportation Study Area Traffic Counting Program (2004 data) 2-5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Factors That May Advance Sidewalk Completion: The Missoula Public Works Department has a Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvement Program which includes a priority list of projects that the department expects to complete in the future. The list includes two segments of Johnson Street between 3rd and 10th Street and between North Avenue and 14th Street as No.2 and No.3, respectively.5 If a project encompassing the entire street does not prove feasible in the near future, the Public Works Department hopes to fill in sidewalk gaps on Johnson Street in small increments each year as time and resources permit. An additional factor that may improve the prospects for more sidewalks on Johnson Street is the Safe Routes to School (SRS) study being conducted by the City of Missoula Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Board in cooperation with the Missoula Parks and Recreation Department. It appears likely that the results of the study could recommend part of Johnson as an ideal route. 2. Kemp Street (between 3rd Street and South Avenue) Traffic Volumes: Current ADT information for Kemp Street shows approximate volumes ranging from 1,500 just north of South Avenue to 2,100 just north of 8th Street. Sidewalks are complete along 31 percent of Kemp Street within the neighborhood. Neighborhood Preferences: In addition to wanting complete sidewalks on Kemp Street in general, residents again cited pedestrian safety as a high priority. The proximity of Kemp Street to both Franklin School and Franklin Park also boosted neighborhood support for sidewalks on Kemp Street. Factors That May Advance Sidewalk Completion: The Public Works Department’s Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvement Program does not currently include Kemp Street. However, many residents expressed other traffic concerns about Kemp Street, a fact that could increase the likelihood of more sidewalk improvements. 3. Catlin Street (between 3rd and 14th Streets) Traffic Volumes: The most recent ADT information for Catlin Street shows approximate volumes ranging from 1,400 just north of South Avenue to 1,600 just south of 3rd Street. Sidewalks are complete along 60 percent of Catlin Street within the neighborhood. Neighborhood Preferences: As in the case of Johnson and Kemp Streets, residents cited pedestrian safety as the prime reason for complete sidewalks on Catlin Street. Since Catlin is a wide street, traffic speeds tend to be high, so pedestrians desire the increased safety that sidewalks provide. 5 Meeting with Doug Harby, Missoula Public Works Project Manager, September 20, 2005 2-6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Factors That May Advance Sidewalk Completion: The Public Works Department’s Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvement Program places Catlin Street at No.5 on its priority list. Although parts of Catlin Street already have sidewalks, curbs and gutters, Public Works would like to fill in gaps along the street. 4. 11th Street Traffic Volumes: No ADT information is available for 11th Street. Sidewalks are complete along 71 percent of 11th Street within the neighborhood. Neighborhood Preferences: Like Johnson Street, 11th Street adjoins Franklin School. Residents place a high priority on installation of sidewalks in all directions around the school. Respondents placed equal importance on the need for complete sidewalks on 11th Street as a primary route to Franklin Park. Factors That May Advance Sidewalk Completion: The Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvement Program does not currently include 11th Street. However, the SRS study could easily recommend part of 11th as an appropriate route. Parts of 11th Street identified in the final SRS report would be likely candidates for sidewalks. 5. 8th Street between Russell and Grant Streets Traffic Volumes: The ADT information available for 8th Street covers points just west and east of Garfield Street. Volumes ranged from 114 to 1250 west and east, respectively, of Garfield Street. Sidewalks are complete along 20 percent of 8th Street within the neighborhood. Neighborhood Preferences: As with Kemp and 11th Streets, residents view sidewalks on 8th Street as important for pedestrian access to Franklin School and Park. Residents cited the portion of 8th Street between Russell and Grant Streets as especially in need of better sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Factors That May Advance Sidewalk Completion: The Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvement Program does not currently include 8th Street. However, the SRS final report could recommend portions of 8th Street as an appropriate route, increasing the likelihood of additional sidewalks. 6. 14th Street between Eaton and Kemp Traffic Volumes: Current ADT information for 14th Street shows approximate volumes ranging from 9,400 just east of Eaton Street to 13,200 between Catlin and Garfield Streets. Sidewalks are complete along 68 percent of 14th Street within the neighborhood. 2-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Neighborhood Preferences: Since it functions as an eastward continuation of Mount Avenue, 14th Street completes a continuous connection through the neighborhood between Russell and Reserve Streets. Comments in support of filling in sidewalk gaps on 14th Street between Eaton and Kemp Streets underscore the streets importance as a pedestrian route. Factors That May Advance Sidewalk Completion: The Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvement Program places 14th Street at No.4 on its priority list. Another factor in support of sidewalk completion is the Recommended Project to remove parking on 14th Street and re-stripe it as a 3-lane street between Russell and Reserve Streets in the 2004 Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update. 7a. Grant Street Traffic Volumes: There is no traffic count information available for Grant Street. Sidewalks are complete along 41 percent of Grant Street within the neighborhood. Neighborhood Preferences: Grant Street adjoins Franklin School. Residents place a high priority on installation of sidewalks in all directions around the school. Factors That May Advance Sidewalk Completion: The Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvement Program places Grant Street at No.6 on its priority list. The SRS study could recommend part of Grant as an appropriate route. Parts of Grant Street identified in the final SRS report would be likely candidates for sidewalks. 7b. 10th Street Traffic Volumes: There is no traffic count information available for 10th Street. Sidewalks are complete along 55 percent of 10th Street within the neighborhood. Neighborhood Preferences: Like Grant Street, 10th Street adjoins Franklin School. Residents place a high priority on installation of sidewalks in all directions around the school. Factors That May Advance Sidewalk Completion: The Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvement Program does not currently include 10th Street. However, the SRS study could recommend part of 10th as an appropriate route. Parts of 10th Street identified in the final SRS report would be likely candidates for sidewalks. 2-8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan 7c. 7th Street Traffic Volumes: Current ADT information for 7th Street shows approximate volumes ranging from 600 just east of Kemp Street to 800 just east of Reserve Streets. Sidewalks are complete along 30 percent of 7th Street within the neighborhood. Neighborhood Preferences: As with Kemp Street, 8th and 11th Streets, residents view sidewalks on 7th Street as important for pedestrian access to Franklin School and Park. Factors That May Advance Sidewalk Completion: The Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvement Program does not currently include 7th Street. However, the SRS final report could recommend portions of 7th Street as an appropriate route, increasing the likelihood of additional sidewalks. 8. Russell Street Traffic Volumes: One of the busiest streets in the neighborhood, Russell has current ADT volumes ranging from 15,900 at the railroad crossing near Lawrence Street to 16,500 between 7th and 8th Streets. Neighborhood Preferences: Residents view sidewalks on Russell Street as important for pedestrian safety. Only 28 percent of the west side of Russell Street adjacent to the neighborhood currently has sidewalks. Factors That May Advance Sidewalk Completion: The Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvement Program places Russell Street at No.1 on its priority list. Another factor in support of sidewalk completion is that the 2004 Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update includes the reconstruction of Russell Street from the Clark Fork River to Mount Avenue as a Committed Project. Implementation Strategies ─ Sidewalks and Curbs While the sidewalk priorities expressed by participants in the infrastructure planning process are similar to those in the Public Works Department’s Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvement Program, some modification would better tailor its program to neighborhood needs. 1. The Missoula Public Works Department should incorporate the neighborhood preferences into the Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvement Program as much as possible. 2-9 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan 2. The Public Works Department should develop and maintain an inventory of sidewalks, curbs and gutters including maps that are updated as new installations occur. 3. Drawing on experience in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood, the Public Works Department and Office of Neighborhoods should work together to develop a process for determining sidewalk, curb and gutter priorities in other City neighborhood. 4. The City should work with the Safe Routes to School program and incorporate that program’s recommendations into the Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvement Program. 2-10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Traffic As a region, city or neighborhood gains population, traffic increases as people travel to and from work, shopping, school, recreation and other activities. Traffic volumes have increased in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood along with population and development. Traffic is a major neighborhood concern that accompanies new development. The effects of traffic have played a role in developing this Infrastructure Plan. This section addresses existing conditions regarding traffic-related infrastructure, identifies the types of traffic issues identified by area residents, and lists the improvements residents wish to see to better manage neighborhood traffic. Existing Traffic Conditions Functional Classification: Streets generally fall into a functional hierarchy based on the type of street and the role it serves in the local and regional transportation system. The functional classification categorizes streets into three main types. Local streets are mainly for access to property. Collectors are streets that collect traffic from local streets, connect neighborhoods to schools, commercial areas and other traffic generators. Arterials are mainly for travel mobility and carry the largest traffic volumes. The classification is useful for setting standards that help streets to function effectively, such as standards for width, driveway spacing, speed limits, parking and intersection design. Appendix A includes a table that summarizes the main characteristics of each classification. Figure 6 − Functional Road Classification, Traffic Signs and Signals, shows the functional classification of streets in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood. The Principal Arterials are Russell, 3rd and Reserve Streets and South Avenue. Mount Avenue/14th Street is classified as an Arterial. Spurgin Road and Catlin, Johnson and Eaton Streets are Collectors. The remaining neighborhood streets are classed as Local Streets.6 Traffic Volumes: Figure 7 − Missoula Traffic Counts shows the most recent traffic counts for several neighborhood streets. Traffic counts are taken on these streets annually or every other year under the Missoula Transportation Study Area Traffic Counting Program in cooperation with the Montana Department of Transportation. Figure 7 contains a table showing the average annual percentage change in neighborhood Average Daily Traffic (ADT) between 1990-91 and 2003- 04 for neighborhood street locations where counts are taken. Traffic volumes are highest on Reserve, Russell, 3rd and 14th Streets and South Avenue. Many of the largest annual percentage increases between 1990-91 and 6 2004 Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update, Fig. 2, p. 19. 2-11 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan . Traffic Mitigation: Streets between 3rd, 14th, Russell & Eaton Streets. 8 3 Russell a. Pedestrian crosswalks on Russell between RR tracks & 3rd Street. 7 b. Safety: Reinstall chirper at 3rd & Russell Street intersection. 4 14th . Intersection Improvements: Consider at Eaton/14th, Russell/14th. 5 . Traffic Control: Don't expect 14th to handle most Reserve-to- Russell traffic. Add turn lanes & specific no parking areas to encourage traffic to cross streets (Catlin, etc.) c. Traffic Control: Make North (Local), South (Principal Art.) & 14th (Arterial) planned and controlled traffic Collectors. 4 Reserve d. Reserve Street Corridor Study should consider impacts on the neighborhood. 5 Intersection improvements: Reserve, Brooks, & 7th Streets, Spurgin Road & South Avenue. f. Safety: Bike Lane at CS Porter light being used as right turn lane. Prefer ped overpass. Speed Control: Reduce Reserve Street speed limits to 35 MPH in residential areas. 4 5th & 6th h. Don't connect 5th & 6th from Russell to Reserve. Provide Traffic Calming on 5th Street. 5 5 Kemp - Intersection: Roundabouts, traffic calming & sidewalks along Kemp & around School. 4 - Intersection: Stop/Yield signs. Kemp shouldn't be a thru street. 6 Washburn a. Intersection improvements: 7th & 8th Streets. 3 b. Traffic Calming: Washburn Street between 4th & 14th Streets. 7 Johnson Speed Control: Post speed limits on Johnson & Kemp Streets. 2 8 Grant a. Intersection improvements, traffic control speed limit, stop/yield signs, traffic calming) needed on Grant, especially at 10th and 11th and between 14th and North 1 8 Kent b. Intersection: Need 2 stop signs on Clark at Kent. 1 ot mapped Table 7 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Traffic Priorities By Street Corridor Rank Corridor Type & Location Dots 1 Catlin a. Pedestrian Crossing on 3rd Street & Catlin Street. 17 b. Intersection Improvement: Crosswalks at Catlin/11th . 2 Garfield a. Intersection Improvement: Add Stop & Yield signs. Garfield should not become a through street. 8 b. Intersection improvements, traffic control speed limit, stop/yield signs, traffic calming) needed on Garfield, especially at 9th, 13th & 14th Streets. 2 Mount c. Traffic Mitigation: Mount between Eaton & Reserve Streets. 8 2 Multiple Streets *d *a *b *N 2-12 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan 2003-04 have been on these same streets. However, other streets such as Eaton, Schilling, Clark, Johnson and Kemp Streets and North Avenue have experienced substantial annual percentage increases in the years between 2000- 01 and 2003-04. The increases on these streets reflect traffic increases resulting partially from new development in the neighborhood. Citizen Responses ─ Comment Form and Questionnaire Comment Forms: Of the 64 comment forms returned by interested citizens, 51 forms included comments relating to traffic. Of those, 13 people favored additional traffic calming in the neighborhood, and seven favored additional stop signs. Four people were concerned about pedestrian safety at crosswalks, and 12 favored additional speed control such as posted speed limit signs. Seven people favored additional intersection controls such as signals or roundabouts. Ten other comments covered topics ranging from roundabouts to prohibiting parking in certain locations. Over half of all comments suggested traffic control measures to be taken at specific locations. Appendix C contains the comments summarized by type and location. Surveys Questionnaire Responses: When asked “Would you like more Traffic Control in the Neighborhood?” 61 percent of those responding answered “Yes.” Over 33 percent of the “Yes” respondents favored increased traffic control on all streets in the neighborhood and 23 percent favored controls only on streets used by children. About 26 percent supported added traffic control on arterial and collector streets, while 16 percent thought that only arterials should have additional traffic control. 7 Neighborhood Priorities ─ Traffic Control Table 7 − Traffic Priorities by Street Corridor, lists the top neighborhood street corridors where residents expressed concern about traffic–related conditions. The numbers in the “Rank” column represent the priority assigned to each corridor, starting with the highest and ending with the lowest. The “Dots” column contains the number of colored dots awarded to each street corridor by participants in a ranking exercise at the October 19, 2005 neighborhood meeting. In Figure 5 − Neighborhood Infrastructure Priorities, the location of each street corridor is identified by the corresponding Rank number in Table 7. Factors That May Affect Implementation: The variety of comments in Table 7 reflects the variety of opinions within the neighborhood on how to improve traffic conditions. For example, some respondents might favor a signal at a 7 Total percentages do not equal 100 percent because some respondents did not answer all questions. 2-13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan particular intersection while others might prefer a stop sign, roundabout or some other strategy. Below is a list of factors that may influence whether a particular traffic-related change is possible for a given street or intersection: • Jurisdiction over the Street: Whether a street is under the jurisdiction of the City of Missoula or the State of Montana determines which agency has the final decision on any change. • Functional Classification: The functional classification of the street (arterial, collector or local) influences what types of change may be allowed, regardless of jurisdiction. • Street Condition: A street must have curbs in order for an adjacent traffic calming device such as a traffic circle or curb bulb-out to be installed. Therefore, some traffic calming installations may be delayed until after completion of necessary curbs. • Traffic Volume: The amount of traffic on a street plays a major role in decisions regarding width, number of lanes, speed limits, intersection control, or traffic calming. • Use of Street: Designation as a truck route or a fire run route may make a street an inappropriate locations for signals, stop signs or some traffic calming strategies. • Signal Warrants: Traffic signals are usually installed only if the proposed location meets a series of criteria or “warrants” used by traffic engineers to determine appropriateness of signals. Traffic volume, crash history, school crossings, pedestrian volume and number of lanes are some of the warrants.8 • Funding by Benefited Area: Permanent traffic calming devices (traffic circles curb bulb-outs and medians) require formation of a Special Improvement District (SID) where property owners in the district are assessed for the cost of installing and maintaining the devices. Chapter 3 addresses infrastructure financing methods in detail. Opportunities for Addressing Traffic Concerns: The Planning and Traffic Committee is one of two subcommittees of the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council Leadership Team. The other sub-committee is Parks and Trails. The two subcommittees met together as the Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee 8 The Federal Highway Administration developed 11 warrants contained in the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices http://brgov.com/dept/dpw/Traffic/studies.htm 2-14 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan during development of this Infrastructure Plan and will resume meeting independently after completions of the Plan. At that time the Planning and Traffic Committee could work with City Public Works staff to achieve objectives reflected in the neighborhood’s traffic priorities. Citywide Intersection Improvement Priority List: The 2004 Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update list of Recommended Projects includes a project to “Develop a Priority List of Potential Future Intersection Enhancements.”9 The City Public Works Department is working with the Western Transportation Institute (WTI) to have WTI contract with the City to develop such a priority list. Implementation Strategies ─ Traffic Control 1. The neighborhood, through the Neighborhood Council Planning and Traffic Committee, and the City, through the Public Works Department, should work together to determine the best strategies for achieving the end results reflected in the neighborhood’s traffic priorities. 2. The Planning and Traffic Committee should work with interested property owners and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Office to assess support for and feasibility of possible traffic calming installations. 3. The Planning and Traffic Committee should work with the City Public Works Department to fit neighborhood intersection improvement priorities into a citywide intersection improvement priority list. 9 2004 Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update, Table 21 p. 111 2-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Parks and Trails Residents consider parks and trails essential infrastructure elements for neighborhood livability. Parks provide opportunities for active and passive recreation ranging from picnics, softball, soccer and other sports. As open space, parks provide relief from uninterrupted development. Trails connect neighborhoods, parks and other destinations. They provide opportunities for recreational walking and bicycling and also network of routes for those who commute to work by bicycle. In May of 2004, the City of Missoula adopted the 2004 Master Parks and Recreation Plan for the Greater Missoula Area (Master Parks Plan) as the guide for land use as it relates to parks, trails, the urban forest and recreation facilities and opportunities in the greater urban area. Figure 8 − Park Service Areas, Trails, Irrigation Ditches & Railroads, shows existing parks, trails and other information that can be found in the Master Parks Plan. Existing Parks and Trails Parks: Figure 8 shows the location of existing parks and trails in the neighborhood. Franklin Park is the area’s only true neighborhood park, and covers 3.23 acres at the northwest corner of 10th and Kemp Streets. Located near the center of the area bounded by Russell, Reserve, 3rd and 14th Streets, Franklin Park is within walking distance of a large number of homes. Fort Missoula Park is a 158-acre regional park that includes picnic areas, ball fields and tennis courts. Because Fort Missoula Park is separated from a majority of neighborhood residents by Reserve Street and South Avenue, its use as a neighborhood park is limited. There are two other small parks in the neighborhood. Cottage Court is a .13-acre pocket park located off Reserve Street near Mount Street. Hart Park, a .13-acre visual green space, is located off Russell Street near 7th Street. McLeod Park lies one block east of the neighborhood boundary on North Avenue. Listed in the Master Parks Plan as a Neighborhood Park, McLeod Park contains 2.4 acres and is bounded by North and Kensington Avenues and Catlin and Washburn Streets. Goal 1 of the Master Parks Plan is to “provide a wide range of recreational and leisure time opportunities for all citizens and visitors in Missoula.” Policy 1.4 of Goal 1 is to “provide 2.5 acres of neighborhood parks and 4.5 acres of 2-16 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan community parks for every 1,000 residents.”10 Based upon this standard, the Master Parks Plan identifies several neighborhoods that are deficient in parkland, including Franklin to the Fort. More specifically, the Master Parks Plan Map No. 3 identifies the portion of the Franklin neighborhood south of Mount Avenue/14th Street as deficient in parkland, having zero acres per 1,000 populations. This information is reflected in Figure 8 of the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan. Assessment of any park deficiencies within the Neighborhood should be coordinated through Missoula Parks and Recreation Department and be consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the Master Parks Plan. Trails: The Bitterroot Branch Trail forms the easterly boundary of the neighborhood between the intersections of 13th and Russell Streets on the north and Brooks and Reserve Streets on the south. As the name implies, the trail parallels the Bitterroot Branch of the Montana Rail Link, running along the west side of the tracks. Although the Bitterroot Branch Trail is a major segment of the Missoula Bicycle Commuter Network and also receives heavy recreational use, portions of the trail are incomplete, especially between North Avenue and Livingston Streets and between McDonald and Brooks Streets. A short trail segment runs through the west side of Franklin Park connecting 9th and 10th Streets via a bicycle/pedestrian bridge constructed in the spring of 2006. 10 2004 Master Parks and Recreation Plan for the Greater Missoula Area p. 4-1 2-17 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Citizen Responses ─ Comment Form and Questionnaire Comment Forms: Of those who addressed parks on comment forms returned to the planning team, 50 percent felt that the neighborhood needed more parks in general. Forty percent favored additional pocket parks and 10 percent favored additional park development south of South Avenue. Of those who commented on trails, 64 percent were in favor of trails in selected locations, and 36 percent favored more trails throughout the entire neighborhood. None of the respondents expressed total opposition to trails. Surveys Questionnaire Responses: When asked “Would you like more parks and trails in the…neighborhood?” 68 percent of 243 respondents answered “yes” and 32 percent said “no.” Roughly 60 percent of the “yes” respondents favored more parks and trails throughout the entire neighborhood, while 40 percent favored improvements in existing locations. Neighborhood Priorities ─ Parks and Trails Table 8 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Park & Trail Priorities Rank Location Dots 1 Complete Bitterroot Branch Trail along Railroad. 26 2a Make US Forest Service land into a neighborhood park. 9 2b Construct a grade-separated crossing on the Bitterroot Branch Trail at Russell Street. 9 3 Designate Grant as an "Urban Trail Street" from 3rd to North & Bitterroot Trail 8 4 Provide a trail crossing at Reserve Street between North and Mount Avenues. 4 5a Provide a trail crossing on Reserve at Spurgin Road. 3 5b Convert Mount Avenue to a "Home Street" from Russell to Margaret, including a pedestrian crossing to the Bitterroot Branch Trail and US Forest Service site. 3 5c Develop a park at Jefferson School. 3 5d Acquire land north of Franklin Park for expansion. 3 *6 *N Incorporate trails with ditch corridors. 1 ot mapped Table 8, Park & Trail Priorities, lists the top park and trail improvement needs as ranked by neighborhood residents. The numbers in the “Rank” column represent 2-18 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan the priority assigned to each improvement, starting with the highest and ending with the lowest. The “Dots” column contains the number of colored dots awarded to each park or trail improvement by participants in a ranking exercise at the October 19, 2005 neighborhood meeting. In Figure 5 − Needed Infrastructure Priorities, the location of each improvement is identified by the corresponding Rank number in Table 8. 1. “Complete Bitterroot Branch Trail along Railroad.” Factors That May Affect Implementation: The Missoula Parks and Recreation Department has identified completion of the Bitterroot Trail between North and Livingston Avenues as a high priority. The City Council adopted a resolution in 1999 authorizing up to $200,000 of the 1995 Open Space Bond funds to be set aside specifically for funding acquisition of commuter bicycle/pedestrian trails. The connection of the Bitterroot Branch Trail qualifies for these funds. Also, the 2004 Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update includes completion of this trail segment as a Recommended Project to be completed before 2025 pending availability of funding and inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).11 2a. “Make US Forest Service land into a neighborhood park.” Factors That May Affect Implementation: Land owned by the US Forest Service west of the Bitterroot Branch Trail between Mount and Strand Avenues has been suggested as an ideal park site that would serve the neighborhood. The Parks and Recreation Department has identified the site as a high priority for parkland acquisition. However, the Forest Service currently uses the site for its motor pool and plans to continue doing so at this time due to the site’s central location.12 The site is located within the boundary of Urban Renewal District III (URD III). Therefore, a cooperative effort by the Missoula Redevelopment Agency (MRA), Parks and Recreation Department and Forest Service could facilitate future use of the site as a park if the opportunity arises. 2b. “Construct a grade-separated crossing on the Bitterroot Branch Trail at Russell Street.” Factors That May Affect Implementation: Costs for a grade-separated crossing could be as much as $1 million due to the width of Russell Street. However, the 2004 Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update includes as a Committed Project the reconstruction of Russell Street from the Clark Fork River to Mount Avenue. As of the writing of this Plan, the project is in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) phase. Construction could begin by 2008. 11 2004 Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update, Table 21 p. 109 12 Comment from Maggie Pittman, Missoula District Ranger, US Forest Service, April 7, 2006, 2-19 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan 3. “Designate Grant Street as an "Urban Trail Street" from 3rd Street to North Avenue and the Bitterroot Branch Trail.” Factors That May Affect Implementation: The intent of the suggested designation for Grant Street is to create a corridor that is a safe bicycle/pedestrian facility that also incorporates vehicular traffic in low volumes and low speeds. Since Grant is a public right of way owned and maintained by the City of Missoula, such a conversion would require concurrence of the City adjoining property owners. An extensive public process would be necessary in order to design and carry out the conversion. To date, study by the neighborhood or City of this type of conversion has not occurred for Grant Street. 4. “Provide a trail crossing at Reserve Street between North & Mount Avenues.” Factors That May Affect Implementation: The Missoula Parks and Recreation Department has identified five crossings that need to be improved for bicycle/pedestrian use as top priorities. Improving the existing crossing on Reserve Street at C. S. Porter Middle School near North Avenue would be one way to achieve this goal. 5a. “Provide Trail Crossing at Reserve at Spurgin Road.” Factors That May Affect Implementation: Again, costs approach $1 million. The Parks and Recreation Department has also identified a grade-separated crossing of Reserve Street at Spurgin Road as a top priority. 5b. “Convert Mount Avenue to a "Home Street" from Russell to Margaret Streets, including a pedestrian crossing to the Bitterroot Branch Trail and US Forest Service site.” Factors That May Affect Implementation: Sometimes referred to as a “home zone” or “woonerf,” a home street is a street or group of streets where pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles share the space on equal terms, with cars traveling at little more than walking pace.13 The Parks and Recreation Department supports the idea of the conversion of the specified portions of Mount Ave to a Home Street. Such a conversion raises issues similar to those discussed with respect to designating Grant Street as an urban trail street. As with the Grant Street proposal, conversion of Mount Avenue would require the concurrence multiple groups with varied interests through an extensive public process. 13 http://www.sustrans.org.uk/default.asp?sID=1095412985125] 2-20 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan 5c. “Develop a park at Jefferson School.” Factors That May Affect Implementation: Formerly an elementary school, Jefferson is currently the Fine Arts Center for the Missoula Public School system. Located two blocks east of the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood boundary on South Avenue, the playground is presently open for public use. According to School District officials, the facility could be used again for educational purposes in the future, or could house the district’s administrative offices.14 The District and Parks and Recreation Department have discussed possible use of the school play area for soccer fields. Regardless of the future use of the building, the District’s mission is to keep the play area open and accessible for public use. McLeod Park is a City neighborhood park located northeast of Jefferson School on the block bounded by North and Kent Avenues and Catlin and Washburn Streets. The Southgate Triangle Neighborhood Council has identified McLeod Park as their highest priority for park improvements in their neighborhood. 5d. “Acquire land north of Franklin Park for expansion.” Factors That May Affect Implementation: Expansion of Franklin Park was endorsed by 40 percent of survey questionnaire respondents who favored more and better parks for the neighborhood. The Master Parks and Recreation Plan for the Greater Missoula Area states that Franklin Park should be “expanded if possible.”15 The Parks and Recreation Department has identified improvement of Franklin Park as a high priority. The Department has constructed one of its new Splash Decks at Franklin Park and has helped pay for a new bridge connecting to 9th Street and for trail enhancements to the new bridge. 6. “Incorporate trails with ditch corridors.” Factors That May Affect Implementation: A number of irrigation ditches run across the neighborhood. Owned mostly by the Missoula Ditch Company, the ditches date back to when the area was mostly in agricultural use. Subdivisions and other development projects may present opportunities to incorporate trails with ditch corridors. In the event of abandonment and filling in of a former ditch, the resulting filled area provides an ideal space for trail development. Other Park Improvement Opportunities Mary Avenue at Railroad Crossing: The Parks and Recreation Department is considering the possibility of a park near the pedestrian crossing of the Bitterroot Branch of the Montana Rail Link at the east end of Mary Avenue. The 2004 14 Telephone interview with Gary Botchek, Director of Operations & Maintenance, Missoula County Public Schools, January 27, 2006 15 City of Missoula, Master Parks and Recreation Plan for the Greater Missoula Area, (2004) p. 4-8 2-21 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update identifies the southward extension of Johnson Street along the rail line and connection to an eastward extension of Mary Avenue as an Unfunded Transportation Project (funding for the project is not projected to be available from federal sources through 2025).16 However, the Missoula Redevelopment Agency is exploring the feasibility of such an extension as part of its Urban Renewal District III (URD III) Plan. The extension would provide more direct access to Southgate Mall from the southern tip of the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood. With or without the street extension, a park near the crossing would serve an area south of South Avenue that presently does not have a park. Opportunities for Achieving Park and Trail Priorities: The Parks and Trails Committee is the second of two subcommittees of the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council Leadership Team. The Parks and Trails Committee has met with the Planning and Traffic Committee as the Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee during development of this Infrastructure Plan. Both subcommittees will resume meeting independently after completions of the Infrastructure Plan. At that time the Parks and Trails Committee could work with appropriate City Parks and Recreation staff to achieve objectives reflected in the neighborhood’s park and trail priorities. Implementation Strategies ─ Parks and Trails The neighborhood, through the Neighborhood Council Parks and Trails Committee, the City, through the Parks and Recreation Department and the Missoula Redevelopment Agency should work together to: 1. Coordinate neighborhood park and trail preferences and current City project priorities, thus improving prospects for project implementation; and 2. Explore opportunities to accomplish neighborhood park and trail objectives through implementation of the URD III Plan wherever possible. 16 2004 Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update, Table 21 p. 111 2-22 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Fire Hydrants and Streetlights Neighborhood concerns over fire hydrants and streetlights reflect the desire for increased safety. Fire hydrants improve fire safety by assuring that in case of fire, adequate water is available to maximize firefighting capabilities. Streetlights improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and act as crime deterrents. Existing Conditions Figure 9 − Hydrants & Streetlights, shows locations of existing fire hydrants and streetlights in the neighborhood. The map also shows the location of hydrants scheduled to be installed in 2006 and 2007 through the cooperative efforts of the neighborhood, Mountain Water Company and the Missoula Fire Department. Citizen Responses ─ Comment Form and Questionnaire Comment Forms: Of the 64 comment forms returned by interested citizens, 11 forms included comments relating to fire hydrants or streetlights. Of those, four comments favored additional streetlights generally throughout the neighborhood and four favored additional streetlights along specific routes, such as on the way to schools or shopping areas. One comment supported installing streetlights along with sidewalk construction. Two comments were in support of additional fire hydrants in specific locations. Appendix C contains the comments summarized by type and location. Surveys Questionnaire Responses: The questionnaire had no check-boxes concerning fire hydrants or streetlights. However, seven respondents wrote streetlight-related comments in spaces provided for “other” comments. Neighborhood Priorities ─ Hydrants and Streetlights Table 9 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Fire Hydrant Priorities Rank Location Dots H1 Hydrants are needed at the intersections of Kemp & Kensington, Schilling & 14th, Strand & Reserve, South & Reserve 13 H2 More hydrants are needed between Grant, Eaton, 10th & 14th 10 H3 Hydrants are needed on Kensington & Schilling 7 2-23 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Minimize light pollution from streetlights. 12 L2 Provide lighting in Franklin Park. 10 Provide streetlights along major routes (schools, services, corners Table 10 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Streetlight Priorities Rank Comment / Location Dots *L1 *L3 10 L4 Provide more streetlights on 14th Street (there are only 5 streetlights lights at present). 5 L5 Provide streetlights on east side of Reserve Street. 3 Opposed to more streetlights. 3 ot mapped *L6 *N Table 9 − Fire Hydrant Priorities, and Table 10 − Streetlight Priorities, list the top neighborhood priorities for additional fire hydrants and streetlights. The numbers in the “Rank” column represent the priority assigned to each fire hydrant or streetlight improvement, starting with the highest and ending with the lowest. The “Dots” column contains the number of colored dots awarded to each improvement by participants in a ranking exercise at the October 19, 2005 neighborhood meeting. In Figure 5 − Neighborhood Infrastructure Priorities the location of each improvement is identified by the corresponding Rank number in Table 8 and Table 9. Factors That May Affect Implementation: The Missoula Fire Department and Mountain Water Company have worked with neighborhood representatives to develop a schedule for installing fire hydrants at selected locations. The schedule currently runs through the year 2007. Streetlights are generally installed either in new subdivisions if required by the City, or as part of major street or intersection improvement projects. Chapter 3 describes the process for installation of fire hydrants and streetlights. Opportunities for Addressing Hydrant and Streetlight Concerns: The Planning and Traffic Committee will resume meeting independently after completion of the Infrastructure Plan. At that time that Committee could work with appropriate City Public Works staff to achieve objectives reflected in the neighborhood’s fire hydrant and streetlight priorities. 2-24 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Implementation Strategies ─ Hydrants & Streetlights 1. The neighborhood, through the Neighborhood Council Planning and Traffic Committee, and the City, through the Public Works Department, should work together to determine the best strategies for achieving the end results reflected in the neighborhood’s fire hydrant priorities. 2. The neighborhood, through the Neighborhood Council Planning and Traffics Committee, and the City, through the Public Works Department, should work together to determine the best strategies for achieving the end results reflected in the neighborhood’s streetlight priorities. 2-25 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan [This Page Intentionally Left Blank] 2-26 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Financing Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- [This Page Intentionally Left Blank] ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan 3. Financing Infrastructure Improvements Most City residents want to live in neighborhoods where they can travel safely and efficiently using the mode of their choice, have easy access to nearby parks, and have good fire protection. Franklin to the Fort residents have worked together to identify and prioritize their needs and wishes for infrastructure improvements including sidewalks, curbs and gutters, parks and trails, traffic control, fire hydrants and streetlights. Identifying infrastructure needs leads to the question of how to pay for meeting those needs. This chapter examines the costs for the types of improvements identified in this Plan, methods for paying those costs, and ways to reduce the financial impact on residents with limited incomes. Cost of Improvements Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters How Sidewalks are Typically Installed By action of property owner or developer: Sidewalk, curb and gutter installation in the City of Missoula occurs under various ordinances and regulations. Whether they are built by a contractor hired by the City or by a contractor hired by a private property owner, sidewalks are installed according to standards administered by the City’s Public Works Department. Following are the circumstances under which the City requires installation of sidewalks: • New multi-family residential, commercial or industrial development: Sidewalks are required as part of the building permit. • Subdivisions: Sidewalks are required for streets within the subdivision and for streets adjacent to the property being subdivided. • New single-family house: Sidewalks are required as part of the building permit but only if the sidewalk either: 1. Completes a gap between two existing sidewalks or 2. Extends an existing sidewalk. • Remodeling of an existing single-family house: Sidewalks are required as part of the building permit but only if the vehicular (driveway) access is changed. 3-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan • Conversion of a single-family dwelling into a multifamily dwelling: Sidewalks are required as part of the building permit (The sidewalk, curb and all other right-of-way improvements are required.) Ordered In By City: The City sometimes “orders in” requires installation of) curbs, gutters and sidewalks on specific properties that lack such improvements. The City installs the improvements and assesses the cost to the property owner, or the owner arranges to have the work done to City specifications. The City typically orders in sidewalks in areas that are already largely developed but where the streets are not fully improved with sidewalks or curbs and gutters adjacent to all properties. By Special Improvement District (SID): City ordinances provide a public process for establishment of Special Improvement Districts (SID’s) by the City Council. SID’s are created to construct sewers, streets, sidewalks, parks and similar public improvements. After the City calculates the cost of the proposed improvement, property owners in a SID are assessed a portion of the cost, according to a formula based on such factors as the area or street front footage of the property. In most cases, SID’s are not established for sidewalks. Instead, individual property owners are assessed when the City orders in sidewalks in an area. Regardless of whether the sidewalk is ordered in by the City or is built through an SID, actual construction may occur in one of two ways. First, the property owner may choose to hire his or her own contractor to install the improvements to City standards. Second, the property owner may choose for the City to hire a contractor to do the work, usually as one of a series of sidewalk installations at several different locations. As a general rule, property owner costs tend to be lower when the City hires the contractor since contractors are bidding on multiple projects instead of just one project. Typical Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Costs Table 11 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Estimated Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Costs Cost Per Foot Sub-Total Front Feet 50 Curb & Gutter Construction Cost $25.00 $1,250.00 Sidewalk Construction Cost $20.00 $1,000.00 Total Construction Cost $45.00 $2,250.00 Interest at 5% For 8 Years $18.00 $900.00 Total Cost $63.00 $3,150.00 Escrow Payments $32.81 3-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Table 11 ─ Estimated Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Costs, summarizes the current cost for a five-foot sidewalk plus curb and gutter for a lot with 50 feet of street frontage. Included are construction costs plus interest at five percent for 8 years, a common payment period for sidewalks ordered in by the City. The cost varies depending on the amount of street frontage. Total cost is reduced greatly if the street already has curbs and gutters at the time of sidewalk installation. The cost estimates in Table 11 are for sidewalks installed by contractors doing projects at several locations under a single contract with the City. A property owner may have a sidewalk installed through a City-administered contract, or may choose to “go-it-alone” and hire his or her own contractor. Each approach has its own advantages.1 Financial Assistance for Assessment Costs The City recognizes that improvement project may have a significant financial burden on property owners. Therefore the City offers three payment options to cover the cost of sidewalk projects: cash payments; City financing; and deferred payment. 1. Cash Payment Property owners may pay cash for sidewalk improvements. Owners who choose to pay cash will receive an invoice from the City upon completion of the work adjacent to their property and will have 30 days to make their payment. 2. City Financing The City is able to make financing available for sidewalk improvement work. The City pays the contractor then arranges to have the costs plus interest added to the property owner’s semiannual tax bill. A property owner may choose to have the cost spread out over eight years, (or 12 years if the cost exceeds $3,000, or 20 years if the cost exceeds $5,000). 3. Deferred Payment The City created the Sewer Connection Deferred Loan program in 1989 to help finance sewer connections for property owners who meet certain criteria. The program is also available for sidewalk projects. The Deferred Payment Loan option delays payment for the work until the ownership of the property changes. The applicant must reside on the property and meet minimum age and income requirements. Applications are available at the City of Missoula Engineering Offices. No payment is due until all work has been completed. 1 Memorandum of discussion with Doug Harby, Missoula Public Works Project Manager, comparing the “go-it-alone” approach with having the City do the bidding, November 19, 2005. 3-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Deferred Payment Qualification Criteria: To qualify for City financial assistance under the Deferred Payment Loan program, a property owner must meet all three of the following conditions: 1. Assistance is available only for properties with one single-family dwelling or mobile home – not for commercial or multi-family dwellings. 2. The property owner must occupy the dwelling on the property for which he or she seeks financial assistance. In addition to the above criteria, a property owner must meet at least one of the following conditions to qualify for financial assistance: 1. The property owner must be 55 years of age or older. 2. The property owner must be receiving annual retirement or disability benefits totaling not more than $20,100 for a single person. A married couple can receive a maximum of $23,000. On June 19, 2006, the Missoula City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3318 amending Missoula City Code (MMC) 3.16 which deals with deferred payments if property owners meet certain criteria. The changes includes an option to allow owner occupied single family residential property to defer the portion of assessed costs which exceed $6,000. The only requirement is that the property be a single family residence and owner occupied. There are no age or income criteria as there are in the total deferral which will still exist under the previous criteria. The deferred amount would accumulate interest at a rate determined by the curb and sidewalk bond sale that year. The deferred amount would be placed as a lien on the property which would have to be satisfied when the property changes ownership. Payment Options: A qualifying property owner submits an application to City along with proof of ownership and previous year’s income and signs a promissory note for the loan. Upon approval of the application, the owner has two payment options. The property owner may choose to either pay off the loan over eight years in sixteen (16) installments, or may pay over an indefinite period of time. Payment Option 8-Year Plan 1. Loan payments are spread over eight years into 16 payments plus 6.5 percent interest. Payments are due in May and November. 2. The loan can be paid off at any time. If the loan is defaulted - after 30-day notice to owner – the loan will become a tax lien on the property. 3. Full and immediate payment is required when property owner stops residing in home or cannot get the loan and then turns the property into a rental, or stops meeting the financial criteria. 3-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan 4. Full and immediate payment is required when the property is sold or transferred by deed to other people. 5. Full and immediate payment is required if the City Council determines that it would not cause hardship to require full repayment. Payment Option Indefinite Deferment 1. Interest will accumulate at 6.5percent, same rate as under Option #1 8-Year Plan. 2. The loan can be paid off at any time. 3. Payment of the loan can be deferred until: A. The property owner dies, and the spouse is not eligible for the loan; B. The property owner stops residing in the home. 4. Full and immediate payment is required when the property is sold or transferred by deed to another person. 5. Full and immediate payment is required if City Council determines that it would not cause hardship to require partial or full repayment. Traffic Control Modifications How Modifications are Typically Implanted Speed Control: The City Traffic Services Coordinator reviews requests to have speed limit signs or other regulatory signs posted at specific locations. The Coordinator investigates the location of the requested sign and decides whether the sign is warranted. If the street is under state jurisdiction, the Montana Department of Transportation would review requests to post signs. A request to change a speed limit begins with the City Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Manager, who reviews the request together with the City Engineer and Traffic Services Coordinator. A traffic speed study is required before any change in a speed limit. The City would only conduct a traffic speed study if there are indications that the current speed limits are not working accidents or other traffic violations).2 The State Transportation Commission has the authority over speed limits on State highways within the city limits Intersection Control: Stop or yield signs, traffic signals and roundabouts are the most common types of intersection control devices. Before installation of any such 2 E-mail from Steve King, Missoula Acting Public Works Director, February 21, 2006 3-5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan device, the City or State performs a warrant study to determine whether minimum conditions exist that would justify installation of the particular device at the proposed location. These conditions (warrants) include such factors as minimum vehicular and pedestrian volume; crash experience; peak hour delay; and combination of these and other warrants.3 The warrants are different for different types of intersection treatments two-way stops, four-way stop, yield, signals or roundabouts). Traffic Calming: Traffic calming employs different techniques to slow down or discourage vehicular traffic on local streets, thereby encouraging through traffic to use collector and arterial streets. Missoula’s traffic calming program is administered through the Bicycle/Pedestrian Office of the Public Works Department. The three types of traffic calming devices that have been used in Missoula to date are traffic circles, curb bulb- outs and medians.4 The City’s traffic calming program is an annual one. Notice of the program and the applications are mailed out in late November to all neighborhood councils and others who have inquired about traffic calming during the year. Applications are due in mid-February of each year. The City reviews all applications, conducts basic traffic studies, and determines if temporary traffic calming is warranted. If so, the City installs temporary devices in late spring. By fall, neighbors and the City have had a chance to see how the temporary devices work and prepare to remove them. For the traffic calming to be permanent, the neighborhood must request the City to initiate a permanent traffic calming project. The neighborhood must also agree to pay for most of the costs, usually through a Special Improvement District (SID). 3 The Federal Highway Administration developed 11 warrants contained in the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices http://brgov.com/dept/dpw/Traffic/studies.htm 4 E-mail from Phil Smith, Missoula Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Manager, October17, 2005. 3-6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Typical Traffic Control Modification Costs Speed Control: The main costs associated with speed control modifications include staff time for reviewing individual requests and labor and materials for making or buying new signs and installing them. Administrative staff time for reviewing requests is normally part of the overall City budget, as are labor and material costs for sign installation. Such costs are thus shared by all City residents. Traffic Calming: The City Public Works Department budget covers administrative costs to process traffic calming applications, conduct meetings, and install and remove temporary traffic calming devices. Traffic circles cost between $6,000 and $10,000 each, depending on size, drainage in the intersection, and the bids that the City receives. Bulb-outs vary greatly in price, but cost less per pair than traffic circles. Median prices also vary widely depending on length and design. In the case of permanent installations, costs are primarily the responsibility of the requesting neighborhood. If the City’s review determines that the proposed project meets the minimum threshold for needing traffic calming, but not the threshold for participation by the City, all expenses associated with installation will be the responsibility of the applicant. Means of funding may include: • Special Improvement Districts • Grants acquired by the neighborhood • Other neighborhood financing • Contributions of materials • Contributions of labor by licensed and bonded contractors • Other resources If the proposed project meets the threshold for City participation, the City may share part of the cost as follows: City May Provide • Excavation of pavement • Moving of drainage sumps • Similar work • Maintenance of Traffic Circle Curb • Maintenance of Signage Neighborhood Pays • Final design Costs • Construction Costs • SID Administration Costs • Maintenance Costs (except curbs & signage) In Fiscal Year 2005, the City had limited funds available to match residents' funds for permanent traffic calming devices on the basis of one City dollar for every two residents’ dollars. 3-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Parks and Trails How Parks and Trails Are Typically Implanted New park development and expansion of existing parks is generally financed through citywide bond issues or tax levies or through the Missoula Parks and Recreation Department's annual budget, which may include some capital improvements. Additional options include cash in lieu of land dedication (“cash in lieu”), impact fees, and grants. Cash in lieu payments are usually the result of conditions of approval for subdivisions. Impact fees are collected at the time of issuance of residential building permits. While they provide additional funds, options such as cash in lieu, impact fees and grants seldom add up to enough for the types of improvements citizens are seeking. Currently the only options that the City has used to acquire parkland include money from the 1995 Open Space bond issue, general funds, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG’s) and private-public partnerships such as gifts or partial gifts. According to City official, Special Improvement Districts (SID’s) are one of the most reliable tools for park development or substantial park improvements. For example, Maloney Ranch Park is being developed through an SID. The Pineview Park neighborhood is also considering requesting an SID for park improvements. Trails, including new construction as well as extending or connecting or filling in gaps of existing trails, are often financed through special federal transportation funding sources such as Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) or Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP). Federal and State grants for trails would be focused on commuter level trails such as the Bitterroot Branch Trail. Community Development Block Grants, Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grants, and private grants are options for trails as well as cash in lieu, impact fees, and SID’s. If demographics warrant, Franklin residents might consider CDBG’s. Special Improvement Districts are generally considered the "best" chance for getting the desired improvements. Park SID’s are usually at the request of the property owners in the SID area. The City Council would not impose an SID for parks or neighborhood level trails without request of citizens. However, SID’s are the most expensive for the property owners. A citywide bond issues for park improvement and development would work well for the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood but would require considerable effort to promote the bond issue. Also, there would need to be "something" in the bond issue for the other neighborhoods as well. 3-8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Fire Hydrants and Streetlights How Fire Hydrants Are Typically Installed Mountain Water installs hydrants at its own expense in conjunction with subdivision or other development. The City pays about $350 yearly in operation and amortization costs per hydrant. The City follows standards of the American Water Works Association on hydrant placement and size. The minimum space between hydrants is 200 feet in commercial and industrial areas and 500 feet in residential areas. In some areas of the neighborhood, there is a mix of commercial and residential land use. The minimum spacing in such areas is 300 feet, depending on such factors as type of building construction and square footage. In cooperation with neighborhood representatives, the Missoula Fire Department and Mountain Water Company have developed a general schedule for additional hydrant placement in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood. Shown below, the schedule is currently being implemented by the Fire Department and Mountain Water Company. 2005 1. Near 3701 Brooks, across from K-mart 2. Old highway 93 behind Bitterroot Motors on the north side of the road 3. Old Highway 93 on the west side of Reserve Street 4. East side of Reserve at Ernest Street 5. South Avenue at Schilling. (To be coordinated with reconstruction of South Ave.) 2006 1. Fairview and Schilling 2. Strand and Eaton 3. West side of Reserve at Mount 4. Grant and Burlington 5. West side of Reserve at south 7th 2007 1. Eaton and Sussex 2. South 7th at Johnson 3. South Avenue at 27th across from Community Medical Center 4. South 9th and Margaret 5. South 9th and Schilling5 Figure 9 − Hydrants and Streetlights, shows the location of existing fire hydrants in the neighborhood as well as those scheduled for installation in 2006 and 2007. 5 E-mail from Jason Diehl, Assistant to the Chief/Planning Administrator, Missoula Fire Department March 16, 2005. 3-9 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan How Streetlights are Typically Installed Subdivisions: Installation of streetlights is not an automatic requirement with new City subdivisions. The Missoula Subdivision Regulations state that the City may require street lights in new subdivisions. The City considers street lighting needs for each new subdivision on a case-by-case basis. When streetlights are required as a condition of subdivision approval, the developer pays for installation and property owners pay for operation and maintenance. Lighting Improvement Districts: Property owners can petition to the City Council for creation of a Lighting Improvement District (LID). Property owners in the LID pay the capital cost of streetlight installation. Property owners also pay for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the lights. City or State Projects: Streetlights are frequently included as part of City or State improvement projects at major intersections such as Brooks/South/Russell or corridors such as Stephens Avenue or Reserve Street. In such cases, the City pays for ongoing operation and maintenance. Private Security Lights: Property owners may install security lights through arrangement with NorthWestern Energy Corporation. 3-10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Financing Methods This section summarizes various methods currently available for financing infrastructure improvements of the type sought in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood. Included with descriptions of each method are some of the benefits and limitations. Impact Fees Also referred to as a “development impact fee,” an impact fee is imposed on new development on a pro rata basis in connection with, and as a condition of, the issuance of a building permit. The impact fee is calculated to pay for all or a portion of the costs of the public facilities required to accommodate new development at Level Of Service (LOS) standards designated by the government imposing the fee. Money raised by an impact benefits the new development on which it is imposed. The amount of the fee is proportionate to actual impact of new development on the public facilities that the fee is helping to pay for. In 2004, the City of Missoula adopted an ordinance authorizing impact fees for parks and open space development (including trails), and buildings, vehicles and equipment for fire and emergency medical services, law enforcement, and other community services.6 Fees range in amount from $13 for law enforcements services for warehousing to $481 for parks and open space for residential units with over 2,500 square feet of floor area. Money collected from impact fees can be used for capital construction or equipment purchases, but not for facility operation or maintenance. In early 2006, the City and County selected a consultant to develop a transportation impact fee that would apply to new development in the Wye/Mullan area west of Reserve Street between Broadway and the Clark Fork River. That fee will hopefully serve as a model for a transportation impact fee that could be applied to the entire Missoula urban area. Advantages: Impact fees help the City to “keep up” with the costs that arise because of new development. Money collected from the fees helps to maintain the level of service that City residents enjoyed before the new development occurred. Limitations: Impact fees help to finance infrastructure improvements made necessary as a result of new development. However, impact fees cannot be used to correct infrastructure “deficieniies.” For example, the City may use impact fees 6 City of Missoula, Ordinance No. 3250, adopted May 10, 2005 3-11 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan collected on houses in a new subdivision to help pay for a new signal needed because of the subdivision. However, the City may not use those fees to pay for a signal that was already needed before the subdivision came into existence. Private (Developer) Financing Description: Funding of many infrastructure improvements often occurs when the City approves subdivision or certain other development of property. Building permit approval triggers some types of infrastructure requirements such as sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Dedication of land or payment of cash for par development is generally a condition of subdivision approval. Advantages: As with impact fees, developer financing of infrastructure improvements helps the City keep up with additional demands that accompany growth. Although the infrastructure costs are passed on to buyers of new houses in the form of higher prices, the long term cost to City taxpayers is less. Limitations: Some infrastructure improvements such as sidewalks, streetlights and fire hydrants are fairly easy to require at the time of development. Other, improvements are larger in scale and benefit more than just the adjacent property owners. Improvements such as rebuilding a major intersection or arterial street require funding on a more regional level. Federal or State Transportation Funds Description: Through its Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Missoula urban area receives Federal funding for highway and transit improvements. The reconstruction of Reserve Street in the 1990’s and the reconstruction of Russell Street currently in the environmental review process are examples of projects that rely heavily on Federal funding. Federal Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) funds have helped finance projects such as the Brooks/South/Russell intersection reconstruction, signal improvements and construction of portions of the City’s Primary Sidewalk Network. Advantages: Federal funding can appear attractive because it reduces the potential for individual assessments. The local government generally pays a “match” of 13-20 percent of the total project cost, reducing local taxes. Limitations: Federal transportation funding is generally used for projects that are more regional in scale than most improvements needed at the neighborhood level. Due to extensive environmental assessment requirements and other regulations, the City has found that smaller projects are often easier and less expensive to implement if they are paid for with local funds. 3-12 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices ---PAGE BREAK--- [This Page Intentionally Left Blank] ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Glossary, Abbreviations & Acronyms Following are technical terms, abbreviations and acronyms used in this Plan. If you have questions, please contact the Transportation Division of the Office of Planning and Grants at (406) 258-4657. ADT Average Daily Traffic (also AADT or Annual Average Daily Traffic. The total volume passing a point or segment of a roadway facility, in both directions, during a 24-hour period. It is commonly obtained during a given time period, in whole days greater than one day and less than one year, divided by the number of days in that time period. CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality CTEP Community Transportation Enhancement Program Curb Bulb-Out Curb extensions that extend the sidewalk into the parking lane of the street, thereby narrowing the street and causing vehicles to reduce speed (see example below). DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration A-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Functional Classification A method of classifying streets by the service they provide as part of the overall street system (see table below). Functional Classifica- tion Trip Service Performed Location Access Priorities Approx. Daily Traffic Typical Speed Limit (MPH) Principal Arterial Provides mobility within and between adjacent suburbia’s Edges of neighborh oods Medium to high traffic mobility, limited land access 5,000 – 40,000+ 30 - 45 Arterial Connects activity centers in developed areas Edges or within neighbor- hoods Medium traffic mobility, medium land access 4,000 – 15,000 30 – 45 Collector Connects Neighborhoods and other land uses Edges or within neighbor- hoods Limited traffic mobility, high land access 1,000 – 8,000 25 - 35 Local Mobility within neighborhoods and developments Within neighbor- hoods or other uniform develop- ment areas Most limited traffic mobility, highest land access <1,000 25 Intersection Control Device A device for managing traffic entering an intersection, such as a stop or yield sign, signal, traffic circle or roundabout. LID Lighting Improvement District MDT Montana Department of Transportation MIM Missoula in Motion MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization. The regional planning entity responsible for transportation planning and approval of federal transportation funding for the region. The Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee (TPCC) is the MPO for Missoula. A-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- MRA Missoula Redevelopment Agency, the Urban Renewal Agency for the City of Missoula MR TMA Missoula-Ravalli Transportation Management Association MUTD Missoula Urban Transportation District, or Mountain Line. Missoula's fixed route bus system. NCLT Neighborhood Council Leadership Team OPG Office of Planning and Grants. The planning department for the City and County of Missoula. OPG is also the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) staff for the Missoula urbanized area. Roundabout A type of intersection design that has a generally circular shape, and requires all entering traffic to yield to traffic already in the circle. A roundabout is used on collectors and arterials, and has features designed to ensure slow speeds for traffic entering and traveling in the circle (example below). SID Special Improvement District Traffic Calming One or more techniques for managing traffic, usually in a residential neighborhood. Typically, a device is installed in the street which makes fast or cut-through driving inconvenient. Several types of devices are available; such as traffic circles, curb bulb-outs or medians. Improvement in noise levels and safety are the main reasons that residents seek traffic calming solutions. Traffic Circle A traffic calming device typically located on local streets, consisting of a raised island in the middle of an intersection (see example below). A traffic circle is not a roundabout. A-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- TDM Transportation Demand Management TIP Transportation Improvement Program. A multi-year program of highway and transit projects on the Federal aid system which addresses the goals of the long-range plans and lists priority projects and activities for the region. TPCC Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee Together with the TTAC, the transportation planning organization for Federal aid projects in the Missoula urbanized area. TTAC Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Together with the TPCC, the transportation planning organization for Federal aid projects in the Missoula urbanized area. The TTAC recommends projects to the TPCC for review and approval. URD Urban Renewal District Woonerf (“Street for living”) a Dutch term for a common space created to be shared by pedestrians, bicyclists, and low-speed motor vehicles. They are typically narrow streets without curbs and sidewalks. Vehicles are slowed by placing trees, planters, parking areas, and other obstacles in the street. Motorists become the intruders and must travel at very low speeds below 16 km/h (10 mi/h). This makes a street available for public use that is essentially only intended for local residents. A woonerf identification sign is placed at each street entrance. A-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B Public Process Summary The following is a summary of public discussion, actions and decisions that led to the beginning of work on the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan (F2FIP). Also summarized are meetings held as part of the planning process. March 23, 2004: Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council Leadership Team Meeting “Office of Planning and Grants (OPG) staff met with and Councilmembers Floyd and Childers to discuss process and scope of an infrastructure plan for the neighborhood.” May 18, 2004: Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee (TPCC) (Excerpt from minutes, Page 1 under “Public Comment”) “Jim Hausauer expressed support for multi-modal priorities in the 2004 Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update. Hausauer said that the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council has asked OPG for a neighborhood plan, and requested TPCC’s general support for one. Hausauer said that the Neighborhood Council supported a trail plan to identify safe routes to schools and ways to cross Reserve Street safely.” May 20, 2004: Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) Special Meeting (Excerpt from minutes Page 2 under “Public Comment”) “Jim Hausauer said that the top two concerns of the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council were transportation and housing. He hoped for general support of a neighborhood plan and for a Highway 93 corridor study.” July 7, 2004: Meeting: (Item under New Business) “Also, in order for us to gain support from Clayton Floyd, regarding our request for a neighborhood infrastructure plan, he would like to see our objectives defined more clearly, and he would like to see broader support from the neighborhood.” August 4, 2004: Meeting: (Report from Traffic & Planning) “Request for infrastructure plan is on the backburner due to 6-month moratorium on PNCs.” ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2, 2004: TTAC, (Excerpt from minutes Page 5) “TTAC approved the Unified Work Program (UWP) including the following item under Work Element 301 (Planning Area Transportation Planning, Proposed Activities FFY 2005: • Begin work on infrastructure plans for the Franklin to the Fort and Target Range/Orchard Homes areas. . September 21, 2004: TPCC (Excerpt from minutes Page 2 under FFY 2005 Unified Work Program”) “TPCC adopted the UWP including the work element and proposed activity cited above relating to the infrastructure plan.” October 6, 2004 Meeting: (Report from Traffic & Planning) “We need to wait for the first of the year, to see if OPG will have the funds to help us with an infrastructure plan.” (Item under Special Orders) “Robert wants to present an idea to Neighborhood Council so we can get a grasp of how to pursue goals & get them accomplished. He reminded us that OPG won’t look at Infrastructure Plan until 2005.” (Item under Special Orders) “Jerry feels a sense of urgency. He wants a decision at the NC meeting: infrastructure or infill?” November 3, 2004: Meeting: David Schmetterling is starting a Curbs & Sidewalks Committee. December 15, 2004: Meeting OPG staff met with to present a draft scope, activities and timeline for the proposed infrastructure plan. January 5, 2005: Meeting February 9, 2005: Meeting March 2, 2005: Meeting March 9, 2005: Neighborhood Council Meeting Leadership Team and OPG and City staff presented overview of Infrastructure Plan and answered audience questions about the process and cost of infrastructure improvements. April 13, 2005: F2F Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee Meeting B-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- May 11, 2005: F2F Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee Meeting June 8, 2005: F2F Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee Meeting July 13 F2F Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee Meeting July 20, 2005: Neighborhood Council Meeting Leadership Team and OPG and City staff reported on progress of Infrastructure Plan and presented maps showing existing infrastructure conditions in the neighborhood. Members of the audience viewed the maps and offered comments, corrections and suggestions for updating information on the maps. August 3, 2005: Meeting August 10, 2005: F2F Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee Meeting September 14, 2005: F2F Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee Meeting October 4, 2005: Meeting October 12, 2005: F2F Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee Meeting October 19, 2005: Neighborhood Council Meeting Leadership Team and OPG and City staff reported on progress of Infrastructure Plan. Members of the audience viewed the maps showing the location of possible infrastructure improvements suggested in neighborhood comments. Attendees marked the maps with dots to indicate their prioritized improvements for sidewalks, traffic control, parks, trails, fire hydrants and streetlights. November 1, 2005: Meeting November 10, 2005: F2F Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 8, 2005: F2F Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee Meeting January 12, 2006: F2F Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee Meeting February 16, 2006: F2F Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee Meeting March 2-6, 2006: Draft Infrastructure Plan released for public review and comment and posted on City, OPG and Neighborhood websites. March 9, 2006: F2F Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee Meeting April 13, 2006: F2F Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee Meeting April 20, 2006: Neighborhood Council Meeting B-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Leadership Team and OPG staff presented Draft Infrastructure Plan and answered questions from members of the audience. May 16, 2006: Missoula Consolidated Planning Board received a staff briefing and overview of Draft Infrastructure Plan. June 6, 2006: Missoula Consolidated Planning Board approved Draft Infrastructure Plan following a public hearing. June 12, 2006: Missoula City Council adopted Resolution of Intention to Adopt Infrastructure Plan and referred Draft Plan to Plat, Annexation & Zoning (PAZ) Committee. June 14, 2006: PAZ Committee discussed Draft Plan and referred it to City Council for public hearing on July 10, 2006. July 10, 2006: City Council held a Public Hearing on the Draft Infrastructure Plan and then referred the Plan back to the PAZ Committee for further discussion. July 19, 2006: PAZ Committee discussed the Draft Plan and took public comment. July 26, 2006: The PAZ Committee discussed Draft Plan and took additional public comment. August 2, 2006: PAZ Committee discussed Draft Plan, took additional public comments, and then returned the Plan to the City Council floor for adoption. August 7, 2006: City Council adopted the Infrastructure Plan following additional public comment. B-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Neighbor Comments Through 8-12-05 Ref. # Non Motorized Sidewalks Curb & Gutter (C&G) & Trails Traffic Parks Streetlights & Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants General Comments 1 S/W & C&G: Prioritize for installation; S/W: connections for major routes Ped. Crossing on 3rd & Catlin ― ― ― ― 2 S/W: on at least one side of street; C&G throughout the entire 'hood. Calming throughout 'hood ― g conjunction with sidewalks/ travel routes ― ― 3 S/W: Routes to shopping, and services; C&G: throughout the entire 'hood. Trails: Crossing at Reserve Circle at 9th & Garfield More Favor streetlights on routes to shopping, and services ― ― 4 S/W:. Plan should be based on best routes, safe routes to schools. Trails: Complete core trails, safe routes to schools (S of South Ave). 2.5mi. 93, 3rd, Russell, Mount/14th, Johnson, South Neighborhood has a severe lack of parks ― ― More time for IP, need comprehensive trail plan 5 S/W: to Franklin School/Park area, Kemp, 7th, 8th, 11th. Trails: More connectivity between 'hood and trails via bike lanes ― ― ― ― Wants more open space 6 S/W: Along 8th and Catlin Control Garfield ― ― ― ― 7 S/W: Most important, develop throughout entire 'hood ― ― ― ― State law should be changed to define sidewalks as a part of the street. Not homeowners choice 8 S/W: Along main routes to school ― ― ― ― Concerned about costs. Costs should be mitigated because benefits are to 'hood and city, not just prop. owner C-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Neighbor Comments Through 8-12-05 Ref. # Non Motorized Sidewalks Curb & Gutter (C&G) & Trails Traffic Parks Streetlights & Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants General Comments 9 Trails: More throughout 'hood More calming, and bus stops ― ― ― ― 10 Trails: Should be better developed Address speeding More ― ― More open space 11 ― ― ― ― ― ― 12 S/W: Who will pay, maintain for elderly? ― ― ― ― Get rid of addicts and other undesirables 13 ― ― ― ― ― ― 14 ― Reduce speed on Reserve, safer crossing to CS Porter, control Kent & Clark intersection ― ― ― ― 15 S/W, C&G: Entire 'hood ― ― ― ― No boulevards, all work under 1 SID, most cost effective 16 S/W: "Not on my property" C&G: Entire 'hood ― Needed S. of South ― ― ― 17 S/W & C&G: More Curious about benefits of roundabouts ― ― ― Concerned about safety, and 'hood beautification 18 S/W, C&G: More, consistent throughout neighborhood Calming devices throughout neighborhood ― ― ― ― 19 S/W: More, throughout neighborhood Calming devices throughout neighborhood Pocket parks Favor streetlights aimed downward ― ― 20 S/W, C&G: no Stop signs ― Favor streetlights ― For boundary line relocations 21 S/W, C&G: More, throughout neighborhood Yes, uncontrolled intersections Throughout neighborhood ― ― Neighborhood not maintained like other neighborhoods, people park on boulevards 22 S/W: More, throughout neighborhood, on N/S streets ― More ― ― ― C-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Neighbor Comments Through 8-12-05 Ref. # Non Motorized Sidewalks Curb & Gutter (C&G) & Trails Traffic Parks Streetlights & Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants General Comments 23 S/W: Specific concerns Specific concerns (3rd and Russell) ― ― ― ― 24 ― ― ― ― ― ― 25 S/W, C&G: more throughout neighborhood More stop signs rather than circles ― ― ― Better street maintenance 26 Trails: Not for just adding bike lanes, expand trail system like the Bitterroot trail Can be a pain and an eyesore if not done well ― Favor streetlights, but not too much lighting ― Some roads are too narrow, don't narrow too many roads 27 ― More traffic calming at uncontrolled intersections, stop signs, Garfield Street in particular ― ― ― ― 28 ― More [intersection control], in particular 5th and Russell Street; sign and light ― ― ― ― 29 ― More thoroughwort neighborhood ― ― ― ― 30 ― ― ― Need more Fire Hydrants Missing between Grant & Eaton, 10th & 14th Need more Fire Hydrants Missing between Grant & Eaton, 10th & 14th ― 31 ― Would be good to have road between Mall and Bob Wards. ― ― ― Bring Bus Route around Mall for Residents west of Bitterroot spur. C-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Neighbor Comments Through 8-12-05 Ref. # Non Motorized Sidewalks Curb & Gutter (C&G) & Trails Traffic Parks Streetlights & Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants General Comments 32 I support Sidewalks on Main Roads and around schools. Do not support sidewalks being forced on entire area. Would like to see Trail completed along Railroad I support all roads and alleys being paved and curbs installed ― ― ― ― 33 Commercial Trucks parked on Johnson [force] pedestrians to walk on street. Auto's do not look for bikes and Peds. Need something done. Need safe bike and Pedestrian crossing at Johnson and South. The light does not allow enough time to cross the street. ― ― ― Would like Skate park on Johnson North of South Ave. Weeds need to be taken care of along R.R. 34 Need better trails to south and Lolo. Could use overpass at 93. Need ped. Crossing at Mary and Reserve ― ― ― ― ― 35 Need Better (C & G, S/W) between Russell and Grant on 8th Street. Better (C&G) on all streets between 3rd & 14th; Russell & Eaton Traffic Calming on Streets between 3rd & 14th; Russell & Eaton ― ― ― CORRECTION--Need to show pocket park at 8th and Grant including sidewalk and curb. 36 Reinstall chirper at 3rd and Russell for Elderly and blind. ― ― ― ― 37 (S/W) in all directions around Franklin School ― ― ― ― ― C-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Neighbor Comments Through 8-12-05 Ref. # Non Motorized Sidewalks Curb & Gutter (C&G) & Trails Traffic Parks Streetlights & Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants General Comments 38 Johnson and Kemp are dangerous for Pedestrians to traffic speed. Would like sidewalks on Kemp and within 3 block radius around school and park. Would like the option of Curbside sidewalks where homes are close to streets. Need speed bump, roundabouts and speed posting. Fast traffic on Johnson and down Kemp with little speed posting. ― ― ― Would like to see public art to improve neighborhood pride and identity. 39 The need to walk in the streets is just sad especially for children. The busy streets need sidewalks throughout especially Johnson between South and 3rd. ― ― ― ― ― 40 ― Traffic will increase on 5th and 6th if they are made through streets. ― ― ― ― 41 Would like time table for sidewalk installation on 14th 2100 & 2200 blocks (between existing Sidewalks) Congestion at rush hours at 4-way stop on Eaton and 14th extends East. ― Need Street lights on 14th ― 42 Map shows lack of Sidewalks, crosswalks and traffic slowing devised in area and around school. Sidewalks should be installed for 3 block radius around school. Would like to see roundabouts (not traffic circles), traffic calming devices and sidewalks along Kemp and around school. Kemp needs greater traffic control and speed enforcement. Would like to see parks and open space around Fort Missoula and between 3rd and South at Railroad. ― ― C-5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Neighbor Comments Through 8-12-05 Ref. # Non Motorized Sidewalks Curb & Gutter (C&G) & Trails Traffic Parks Streetlights & Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants General Comments 43 ― ― ― ― ― CORRECTION--Curb & gutter missing in front of 1805 S. 9th St. W. 44 Need to address pedestrian safety at ditch. Children go through ditch to cross it. Dangerous. 7th between Reserve and Johnson experiences traffic with frequent excessive speeds. Need traffic calming on 5th and Kemp ― ― ― ― 45 ― Need speed control on 10th and Kemp and along border of park. Would like speed bumps to slow traffic in area. ― ― ― The bus route to Franklin School and park is in a high pedestrian area and are concerned for pedestrian safety. 46 ― Speeds and amount of traffic on Johnson has increased considerably in the past several years and needs to be addressed. ― ― ― Noise from increased traffic is becoming unbearable 47 ― Prohibit parking along 6th St. in 2100 Block. Narrow street ― Need streetlights on 7th Street due to potential crime problems ― Schilling St. does not go through 6th; No car bridge. (prowlers - North bound from park to Lynnet to 3rd St. area.) Developers should Fund infrastructure cost or hold moratorium on infill until infrastructure is done. C-6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Neighbor Comments Through 8-12-05 Ref. # Non Motorized Sidewalks Curb & Gutter (C&G) & Trails Traffic Parks Streetlights & Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants General Comments 48 Better Pedestrian Safety Better Traffic Safety. Keep heavy traffic out of neighborhood. Garfield, Kemp & Grant should not become through streets. Add stop & Yield signs on Garfield, Grant & Kemp. ― ― ― Better Fire Safety. 49 Sidewalks on Kent and Russell would be nice. The proposed "No left turn onto Russell from Kent would prevent bottleneck. Left from Russell onto Kent should be reinstated ― ― ― Lots of Post Office traffic on Kent. 50 ― 14th Street traffic has radically increased since Malfunction Junction remake. Don’t believe people will return to South. Need traffic calming at 13th & Garfield & 14th. ― Favor streetlights, but do not install street lights that shine upwards. ― What are the plans for 14th with the increased traffic. 51 No sidewalk at Langley Building and Gold's Gym, have to walk through parked cars - Central to Rosaurs. Clark St. & Kent St. through streets. Clark needs two stop signs. ― ― ― Existing sidewalk removed when new building put in. 52 Emergency/Bike Lane at CS Porter light being used as right hand turn lane. Pedestrian overpass wish. High Speed Traffic - Kids in Danger ― ― ― ― 53 27th/North/McClay Bridge - need trail access to Big Sky ― ― ― ― ― C-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Neighbor Comments Through 8-12-05 Ref. # Non Motorized Sidewalks Curb & Gutter (C&G) & Trails Traffic Parks Streetlights & Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants General Comments 54 ― ― ― ― Money at some point was set aside for dust mitigation on unpaved streets near Burlington (see map hatch) - nothing ever done. 55 Mount St as a "Home Street", Russell to Margaret. Pedestrian connection to trail and Forest Service land. ― Make Forest Service land into a park for entire neighborhood. ― ― Ask MRA for help. 56 Grant between 14th and North - HIGH speeds, no control, many accidents ― ― ― ― 57 Roundabouts at Eaton & 14th AND at Russell & Mount/14th ― ― ― ― 58 Sidewalks and curbs on Catlin, Johnson & Kemp for pedestrian safety at artery streets Make North, South & 14th planned and controlled traffic collectors ― ― ― ― 59 Spurgin east of Reserve, bad road for pedestrian safety ― ― ― Ditch safety - culverts in residential areas? 60 14th should not be expected to handle most Reserve to Russell traffic, add turn lanes and specific no parking areas to encourage traffic to cross streets (Catlin, etc.) ― ― ― Problem as 14th is traffic collector C-8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Neighbor Comments Through 8-12-05 Ref. # Non Motorized Sidewalks Curb & Gutter (C&G) & Trails Traffic Parks Streetlights & Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants General Comments 61 Bitterroot Trail from North to Livingston ― ― Fire Hydrants at Kemp/Kensington, Schilling/14th, Strand/Reserve & South/Reserve Fire Hydrants at Kemp/Kensington, Schilling/14th, Strand/Reserve & South/Reserve ― 62 ― Develop a park at Jefferson School. ― ― ― 63 Reduce Reserve street speed limits to 35 mph in residential areas ― ― ― ― 64 Designate Grant as an "Urban Trail Street" 3rd to North and Bitterroot Trail Consider corridor study 93/Reserve for influence zone Eaton/27th and Tower/Johnson ― ― ― ― C-9 ---PAGE BREAK--- [This Page Intentionally Left Blank] ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan October, 2005 Survey Questionnaire SIDEWALKS Would you like more Sidewalks in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood? Yes No All streets School Routes Arterial Streets Other Schools 184 63 120 32 27 27 3 74% 26% 65% 17% 15% 15% 2% MORE SIDEWALKS? Yes 74% No 26% MORE SIDEWALKS? WHERE? All streets 19% School Routes 46% Arterial Streets 13% Other 11% Schools 11% D-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan October, 2005 Survey Questionnaire CURBS & GUTTERS Yes No All streets Arterial Streets 155 84 115 29 65% 35% 74% 19% Would you like more Curbs installed along streets in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood? MORE CURB & GUTTER? Yes 65% No 35% MORE CURB & GUTTER? WHERE? All streets 80% Arterial Streets 20% D-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan October, 2005 Survey Questionnaire PARKS & TRAILS Yes No Everywhere Improve existing More accessible other 166 77 100 70 33 23 68% 32% 60% 42% 20% 14% Would you like more Parks and trails in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood? MORE PARKS? Yes 68% No 32% PARKS WHERE/WHAT? Everywhere 44% Improve existing 31% More accessible 15% other 10% D-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan October, 2005 Survey Questionnaire TRAFFIC CONTROL Yes No On all streets School routes Arterial Streets Arterials + Collectors 146 95 48 34 23 38 61% 39% 33% 23% 16% 26% Would you like more Traffic Control in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood? MORE TRAFFIC CONTROLS? Yes 61% No 39% MORE TRAFFIC CONTROL? WHERE? On all streets 33% School routes 24% Arterial Streets 16% Arterials + Collectors 27% D-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Questionnaire Written Comments to October, 2005 Survey Questionnaire Would you like more Sidewalks in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Curbs installed along streets in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Parks and trails in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Traffic Control in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would like a dog park where leashes would not be required Install at intersections that have frequent accidents. Would like roundabouts over stop signs Install by schools 1st & elderly and disabled 2nd Add curbs and sidewalks at the same time Family oriented and throughout the neighborhood Install by schools 1st & elderly and disabled 2nd. Affordability to residence is extremely important Reduce Infill Reduce Infill Reduce Infill Reduce Infill No roundabouts or bulb outs Would like stop signs every three blocks Street Lights Would like parks in his part of the neighborhood Would like better visibility at intersections No roundabouts On streets that do not have curbs Within reason At least not in our area No roundabouts No unvoted sides no unvoted sides No unvoted sides No unvoted sides Walking Trails Elderly need sidewalks to walk Corner of McIntosh & Reserve Need stop signs, No roundabouts E-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Questionnaire Written Comments to October, 2005 Survey Questionnaire Would you like more Sidewalks in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Curbs installed along streets in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Parks and trails in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Traffic Control in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Only if not a burden to home owners Would prefer curbside sidewalks to boulevard sidewalks Would like street lights installed on corners Need Street Lights Marked Pedestrian Crossing Paved bike and hiking trails More street lights Connect the existing sidewalks Johnson N of 14th Good the way it is No Stop signs only. No roundabouts As needed Cost and affordability Important Cost and affordability Important Install traffic control where warranted On all developed properties Add if spaces allows To do all streets would be to expensive Assumed to be installed with sidewalks Want Trails Curb Sidewalk Curb sidewalk Only complete Bike path by railroad On Garfield Nowhere to put them More stoplights on Reserve and Brooks, South Ave Seems adequate No place to put them E-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Questionnaire Written Comments to October, 2005 Survey Questionnaire Would you like more Sidewalks in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Curbs installed along streets in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Parks and trails in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Traffic Control in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Demarcation of residents that need assist with leaf and snow removal Minimal parking on arterial routes Extended as possible safer bike routes, mandatory helmet ordinance lights and reflective gear Street lights at all major crossings Stop signs at 4-way intersections Repair any needed 4 way stop light at 10th and 11th and Grant All streets prioritized- safe routes for children to school, parks should be a priority Arterial is not well defined in this survey No No No roundabouts As per the residents in each area--their design also! Lighting should go with this Would be nice, but other items should have higher priority, Take care of existing facilities Stop Light 1st 7th & Reserve, enforce existing laws 1st, then talk other things Prefer stop/yield signs to street construction X-walks on Russell, not just by stoplights! Corner of Clark & Livingston it’s a drag strip Level sidewalks (not undulating walks) Resurface cracked streets stop signs only where children walk E-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Questionnaire Written Comments to October, 2005 Survey Questionnaire Would you like more Sidewalks in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Curbs installed along streets in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Parks and trails in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Traffic Control in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Catlin & 11th. Move bus off of 10th--too narrow. Improvements at minimal cost to homeowners. This is one of Missoula's oldest neighborhoods, yet sidewalks have not been updated. Its our turn! 2300 block of Kensington not paved, or alleys! No Roundabouts Please! See Jim H. See Jim H. See Jim H. See Jim H. Could use parks south of 14th Street Stop signs every other block in all areas with uncontrolled intersections Get Street Lights First Get Street Lights First Get Street Lights First Get Street Lights First Connect existing trails with pretty bushes Prefer traffic calming devised over stop signs E-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Questionnaire Written Comments to October, 2005 Survey Questionnaire Would you like more Sidewalks in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Curbs installed along streets in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Parks and trails in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Traffic Control in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments The city has already screwed up historic sections - Law suits will follow if you impose things not wanted by the majority in the neighborhood. Did not leave address Both new and improved Need planned travel paths then control accordingly Connect existing sidewalks More stop signs, speed limit signs & bulb-outs especially at 8th & Washburn Get rid of mailboxes so there is more parking More police patrol in Franklin Park Roundabouts on 10th and 12th On streets used by children traveling to school and those streets supported by residents Expanding Franklin Park should be a priority On problem streets identified in the infrastructure plan by residents Street lights Can't afford it Can't afford it Can't afford it Can't afford it No roundabouts Add trails throughout Need to control speeding on main streets S 8th & Washburn E-5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Questionnaire Written Comments to October, 2005 Survey Questionnaire Would you like more Sidewalks in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Curbs installed along streets in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Parks and trails in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Traffic Control in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Because pets destroy yards Neighborhood parks for kids Stop signs or traffic lights At least on one side Catlin Needs to be devices for slowing traffic on 5th St Where older people are walking too But start with main streets Where deemed appropriate Extend access to current trail locations - plenty of parks now More trails connecting parks and existing bike trail Yes to stop signs and no to roundabouts Parks throughout neighborhood as possible, but more green spaces would be nice Roundabouts & slow down cars on collectors streets would be nice Wheelchair access is needed Wheelchair access is needed Our taxes are all ready too high. Almost 100% increase in 15 years with no increase of services Expand and improve existing parks E-6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Questionnaire Written Comments to October, 2005 Survey Questionnaire Would you like more Sidewalks in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Curbs installed along streets in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Parks and trails in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Traffic Control in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Need traffic control on Clark St. which has high traffic & excessive speeds Wants stop signs, roundabouts and bulb- outs 2 & 4 way stop signs. Need speed limits and better sharing of the road with bikes. Make wheelchair accessible And fix the old sidewalks More Parks Only Add paved Streets Where Necessary Extend Ped / Bike Trail With an eye on what traffic mitigation does to other streets Crosswalks markings at bus stops Sidewalks both sides on arterial streets No parking on Eaton Street or widen. Allow curbside sidewalks at mounded properties to save expense. To start with Wants cost before deciding Wants cost before deciding Wants cost before deciding Wants cost before deciding No Address Stop signs needed on unmarked intersections No roundabouts E-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Questionnaire Written Comments to October, 2005 Survey Questionnaire Would you like more Sidewalks in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Curbs installed along streets in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Parks and trails in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Would you like more Traffic Control in the F2F Neighborhood? Comments Maybe On Washburn and 7th. Likes roundabouts No address given Curbside Sidewalks preferred Improve existing locations and More added. No address Connect to the existing bike trail No Address No Address Likes roundabouts 9th and Garfield Not more--just improve and maintain existing parks On all streets used by children. Only use Stop Signs Stop lights on 7th, Spurgin and Reserve No Round-abouts just bulb-outs 4th & 3rd Streets 4th & 3rd Streets As many as possible Roundabouts are needed in this neighborhood As Needed E-8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix F Public Comment & Testimony Received on Draft Plan from March 2, 2006 through August 7, 2006 This Appendix includes public comment and testimony received on the Draft Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan from citizens as well as from staff of City departments and agencies that participated in development of the Plan. Included on the following pages are: Summary of written, e-mail, telephone and in-office comments received from residents, property owners and other interested citizens on the Draft Plan that was released on March 2, 2006. The Missoula Consolidated Planning Board (MCPB) considered the comments in its review of the Draft Plan. Summary of written, e-mail, telephone and in-office comments received from staff of City departments and agencies that participated in development of the March 2 Draft. The MCPB considered the comments in its review of the Draft Plan. Letter from Mr. Lee Baldwin dated May 16, 2006. Comment from citizens who testified on the Draft Plan at the public hearing before the Missoula Consolidated Planning Board on June 6, 2006. The comments appear in the Planning Board for the same date. The minutes may be viewed in their entirety on the web at: ftp://www.co.missoula.mt.us/opg2/Minutes/MCPB/2006/060606MCPB.pdf Comment from citizens who testified on the Draft Plan at the public hearing before the Missoula City Council on July 10, 2006. The comments appear in the City Council minutes for the same date. The minutes may be viewed in their entirety on the web at: ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2006/2006-07- 17/060710minutes.htm Comment from citizens who testified on the Draft Plan at the July 19, 2006 meeting of the Plat, Annexation & Zoning (PAZ) Committee. The comments appear in the PAZ minutes for the same date. The minutes may be viewed in their entirety on the web at: ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2006/2006-07-24/060719paz.htm Comment from citizens who testified on the Draft Plan at the July 26, 2006 meeting of the Plat, Annexation & Zoning (PAZ) Committee. The comments appear in the PAZ minutes for the same date. The minutes may be viewed in their entirety on the web at: ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2006/2006-08-07/060726paz.htm ---PAGE BREAK--- F-2 Comment from citizens who testified on the Draft Plan at the August 2, 2006 meeting of the Plat, Annexation & Zoning (PAZ) Committee. The comments appear in the PAZ minutes for the same date. The minutes may be viewed in their entirety on the web at ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/packets/council/2006/2006-08-07/060802paz.htm Comment from citizens who testified on the Draft Plan at the August 7, 2006 City Council meeting. The comments appear in the City Council minutes for the same date. The minutes may be viewed in their entirety on the web at: ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2006/2006-08- 14/060807minutes.htm ---PAGE BREAK--- F-3 Citizen Comment Summary 3-2-06 DRAFT ─ Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Note: Page and line number references are based on the March 2, 2006 Draft posed on the Missoula City and County websites under Office of Planning and Grants. The website for the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council also includes a link to the Draft. The Missoula Consolidated Planning Board’s response to each comment appears in the right-hand column. Ref. No. Citizen Comments Response Recommended by Staff Planning Board Action Recommendations 1. I do not feel that the Recommendations represent the Questionnaire replies as well as it should. There was a lot of support for sidewalks throughout the neighborhood not just the school routes. I agree that school routes should be done 1st. D. V. Gray 4-22-06 Staff recommends the following revisions to the Recommendations section (pp R-1 through R-4: Page R-1, Line 3: Strike Line 3 and insert text to read as follows: When a neighborhood-sponsored survey questionnaire asked residents whether they would like more sidewalks in the neighborhood, 74 percent of those responding answered “Yes.” Over 65 percent of the “Yes” respondents favored installing sidewalks on all streets in the neighborhood,17 percent favored more sidewalks only on routes used by children walking to school and 15 percent favored sidewalks on arterial streets.1 Recommendation Based on priorities developed by neighborhood residents who participated in the planning process, the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Recommendation Adopted 1 The percentages do not total 100 because some respondents did not answer each question. 2 Total percentages do not equal 100 percent because some respondents did not answer all questions. ---PAGE BREAK--- F-4 Ref. No. Citizen Comments Response Recommended by Staff Planning Board Action recommends completion of the missing sidewalks, curbs and gutters in the follow street corridors: Page R-2, Line 2: Strike Line 2 and insert text to read as follows: When a neighborhood survey questionnaire asked residents “Would you like more traffic control in the neighborhood?” 61 percent of those responding answered “Yes.” Over 33 percent of the “Yes” respondents favored increased traffic control on all streets in the neighborhood and 23 percent favored controls only on streets used by children. About 26 percent supported added traffic control on arterial and collector streets, while 16 percent thought that only arterials should have additional traffic control. 2 Recommendation Based on priorities developed by neighborhood residents who participated in the planning process, the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood recommends a cooperative effort by the City of Missoula and the Neighborhood Council to address the traffic priorities listed in the following corridor: Page R-3, Line 10: Strike Line 10 and insert text to read as follows: When asked “Would you like more parks and trails in the neighborhood?” 68 percent of 243 respondents answered “yes” and 32 percent said “no.” Roughly 60 percent of the “yes” respondents favored more parks and trails throughout the entire neighborhood, while 40 Recommendation Adopted ---PAGE BREAK--- F-5 Ref. No. Citizen Comments Response Recommended by Staff Planning Board Action percent favored improvements in existing locations. Recommendation Based on the preferences expressed by neighborhood residents who participated in the planning process, the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood recommends that the City of Missoula and the Neighborhood Council engage in a cooperative effort by to address the following park and trail priorities: Page R-4, Lines 1-2: Strike Lines 1-2 and insert text to read as follows: Fire Hydrants & Streetlights In the comment forms and survey questionnaire responses received throughout the planning process, a number of residents expressed support for additional fire hydrants and streetlights in the neighborhood. Fire Hydrant Recommendation Based on the preferences expressed by neighborhood residents who participated in the planning process, the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood recommends that the City of Missoula and the Neighborhood Council engage in a cooperative effort by to address the following fire hydrant priorities: Recommendation Adopted Recommendation Adopted ---PAGE BREAK--- F-6 Ref. No. Citizen Comments Response Recommended by Staff Planning Board Action Page R-4, Lines 10-11: Strike Lines 10-11 and insert text to read as follows: Streetlight Recommendation Based on the preferences expressed by neighborhood residents who participated in the planning process, the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood recommends that the City of Missoula and the Neighborhood Council engage in a cooperative effort by to address the following streetlight priorities: Recommendation Adopted Chapter 2 – Current Conditions and Needs 2. I do not drive anymore so I am interested in having more sidewalks down Clark Street south of South Avenue. It’s difficult to walk with narrow streets and cars parked on both sides of the street. Most of the time I have to walk out in the street. Shirley Hawkins 5-11-06 Thanks for the comment. The number of comments reported in the Plan in support of sidewalks has been adjusted to reflect Ms. Hawkins’ input. Response to Comment Acknowledged 3. I would like a speed limit down Clark also as children are playing & darting out & I am afraid they will get hurt. Shirley Hawkins 5-11-06 Thanks for the comment. The number of comments reported in the Plan has been adjusted to reflect Ms. Hawkins’ input. Response to Comment Acknowledged 4. I would also like some type of lighting as I leave for work early and it is difficult to see. Shirley Hawkins 5- 11-06 Thanks for the comment. Comment totals have been adjusted appropriately. Response to Comment Acknowledged 5. I would like to see some type of park placed along The Bitterroot Bike Trail so the kid can go and play and not outside their yards in the street. Shirley Thanks. Staff is working to address this comment. Response to Comment Acknowledged ---PAGE BREAK--- F-7 Ref. No. Citizen Comments Response Recommended by Staff Planning Board Action Hawkins 5-11-06 6. I would like a stop light at Dorre Lane and Brooks and also a few more crosswalks along the same street. Shirley Hawkins 5-11-06 Thanks. Staff is working to address this comment. Response to Comment Acknowledged 7. Recommendations assume and support Missoula Fire Dept. plans to install 10 more hydrants for: * 2006 west side of Reserve at 7th & at Mount, Burlington & Grant, Strand & Eaton, Fairview & Schilling * 2007 7th & Johnson, 9th & Margaret, Sussex & Eaton, South & 27th, and 9th & Franklin Park (The 9th & Franklin Park one should be done now, as MHA project is underway & a cul-de-sac, curb, sidewalk, & bike-ped bridge will be built.) I also recommend the following areas to be considered for hydrant locations; *Reserve Street Corridor; -east side of 3rd & Reserve, -east of Reserve on 9th, -east side of Reserve & Spurgin, (Only with development & water main extension) -East side of Reserve & “Strand,” & east side of - Reserve & South. *other sites; 12th/Kemp, Mount/Shilling, Kensington/Kemp, Livingston/Eaton, Agnes/Clark. Jim Hausauer, Oct., 2005 Mr. Hausauer’s assumption is correct; the Plan supports the ten hydrants in the Fire Department’s schedule for 2006 and 2007. Thanks. Staff is working to address this comment. Response to Comment Acknowledged Response to Comment Acknowledged ---PAGE BREAK--- F-8 Ref. No. Comments Recommended Staff Response Planning Board Action 8. Develop Hazardous-Material Plan & Facilities for Highway 93 (Reserve & Brooks) i.e. catch basins, emergency and evacuation routes, etc… Jim Hausauer, October, 2005 Thanks. Staff is working to address this comment. Response to Comment Acknowledged 9. I favor as many traffic calming devices in our neighborhood as possible: traffic circles, bulb-outs, whatever. Especially along Catlin. Thanks. Patricia Hogan 5-16-06 Thanks. Comment totals have been adjusted appropriately. Response to Comment Acknowledged 10 Request sidewalks from 8th & Grant to Franklin School. Curbside sidewalks please. Now kids have to walk in the street. Travis Linneman 6-6-06 The Draft Plan addresses this comment. See #7a in Table 6 & Fig. 5. Response to Comment Acknowledged General Comments 11 Jerry Vacura (tel. 4-12-06 after visiting website) Wanted general info. Said “Sounds good.” Staff thanked Mr. Vacura for viewing Plan and commenting. Comments Acknowledged 12 I appreciate all of the thoughtful work you and your staff put into the plan and working with the Neighborhood Council. I did not feel you where ever trying to steer the NC to what you wanted in the Plan. I do believe the plan as a whole represents quite closely what the Neighborhood desires to have concerning Infrastructure V. Gray 4-22-06 Staff thanked Mr. Gray for the comment. The Neighborhood helped by maintaining a clear focus on what it hoped to accomplish through the Plan. Comments Acknowledged 13 I hope the City will use this plan to direct where work occurs within the Neighborhood. D. V. Gray 4-22-06 Staff thanked Mr. Gray for the comment. Staff shares the same hope. Comments Acknowledged 14 I think it is a good plan that reflects a lot of public process. Anonymous 5-11-06 Thanks to the commenter for their comment. Comments Acknowledged ---PAGE BREAK--- F-9 Ref. No. Comments Recommended Staff Response Planning Board Action 15 Can we get a traffic count on Catlin? Heather McMilin 5-11-06 Thanks for the comment. Staff will furnish current count info for Catlin. Comments Acknowledged 16 I am pleased with the draft infrastructure plan as it stands. I feel as though it represents areas of greatest need in the FTTF neighborhood while remaining forward thinking and fiscally achievable. Some highlights include the expansion of the Bitterroot branch trail, traffic calming measures, expansion of Franklin Park, proposed Forest Service land for parks & ease of pedestrian crossings of Reserve. Thank you for the opportunity for input. David Blaser 5-25-06 Thanks to Mr. Blaser for their comments. Comments Acknowledged ---PAGE BREAK--- F-10 Staff & Agency Comment Summary 3-2-06 DRAFT ─ Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Note: Page and line number references are based on the March 2, 2006 Draft posed on the Missoula City and County websites under Office of Planning and Grants. The website for the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council also includes a link to the Draft. The Missoula Consolidated Planning Board’s (MCPB’s) response to each comment appears in the right-hand column. Ref. # Comments Response Recommended by Staff MCPB Action Recommendations 1. Page R-1: I recommend an [introductory paragraph on page R-1 that explains briefly who the recommendations are from, i.e. something along the lines of] "After a series of public meetings and staff research on the infrastructure needs of the planning area, OPG developed a list of recommendations to implement the highest priorities. The following list of recommendations can most likely be implemented through joint cooperation between Public Works, Parks & Recreation, MRA, Fire Department, OPG, City Council, and neighborhood residents." (JC)* Page R-1 Line 1: Insert text to read: The following recommendations reflect the infrastructure needs identified by Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood residents who participated in the development of this Plan. After a series of public meetings and staff research, the Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee (IPSC) and the Office of Planning and Grants (OPG) identified potential infrastructure improvement projects with the highest priorities based on neighborhood input. Implementation of the following recommended projects will most likely occur through cooperation between neighborhood residents, Missoula City Council, the Missoula Fire, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation Departments, the Missoula Redevelopment Agency (MRA) and OPG. Recommendation Adopted 2. Page R-1, Lines 11: Public Works is considering the possibility of a curb & sidewalk inventory in the future. (MS) No text change needed. Recommendation Adopted ---PAGE BREAK--- F-11 Ref. # Staff & Agency Comments Response Recommended by Staff MCPB Action Chapter 2 – Current Conditions and Needs 3. General: The Parks & Trails section on pages 2-18 to 2-20 makes many references to a Parks Dept. "priority list." For example, 2-7 states that the Bitterroot Trial completion is "No. 2 on its priority list." This concerned me because I was not aware of any official park & trail priority list being adopted so I tracked down from Dave Shaw & Donna Gaukler what you were referring to. The list Dave sent you is in no way "official" and should not be cited as such. Thus, many of the revisions below reflect the need to correct that. (JC) Amend text as needed to remove references to “priority list.” or e.g., “…No. 4 on its priority list.” and replace with “of high priority.” Recommendation Adopted 4. Page 2-5, Table 6: Not clear— relationship between the numbers in the “Dots” & “Rank” columns and the numbers on the map in Fig. 5. (MS) Review Fig. 5 & revise as needed so that the numbers match the numbers in the “Rank” columns in Tables 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10. Comment Response Acknowledged 5. Page 2-5, Footnote 4 is incomplete— currently reads: 4 [Traffic Count Program data] (DP) Revise to read: 4 Missoula Transportation Study Area Traffic Counting Program (2004 data). Recommendation Adopted 6. Page 2-6, Footnote 5 is incomplete— currently reads: 5 [Harby memo—9-21-05] (DP) Revise to read: 5 Meeting with Doug Harby, Missoula Public Works Project Manager, September 20, 2005 Recommendation Adopted ---PAGE BREAK--- F-12 Ref. # Staff & Agency Comments Response Recommended by Staff MCPB Action 7. Page 2-10, Footnote 6 is no longer needed — it currently reads:6 12-19-05 Transp. Staff Mtg Note: Recommendation to City: Develop broad PI program regarding curbs, gutters and sidewalks/ to (DP) Delete footnote Recommendation Adopted 8. Page 2-11, Footnote 7 is incomplete— currently reads: 7 [Cite 2004 MUTPU] (DP) Revise footnote to read: 2004 Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update, Fig. 2, p. 19. Recommendation Adopted 9. Page 2-15, Footnote 10 is incomplete—currently reads: 10 [Cite TPU table] (DP) Revise footnote to read: 2004 Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update, Table 21 p. 111 Recommendation Adopted 10. Page 2-16, Line 34 – after the word “Street,” replace the period with a comma and add “via a bike/pedestrian bridge constructed in the spring of 2006.” (DS) Revise sentence to read: A short trail segment runs through the west side of Franklin Park connecting 9th and 10th Streets via a bike/pedestrian bridge constructed in the spring of 2006. Recommendation Adopted 11. Page 2-18 Line 10: P. 2-18 line 7, strike "as No. 2 on its priority list" and replace w/ "as a high priority." (JC) Revise sentence to read: The Missoula Parks and Recreation Department has identified completion of the Bitterroot Trail between North and Livingston Avenues as a high priority Recommendation Adopted 12. Page 2-18, Lines 18-19: strike "No. 4 on its priority list for parks" and replace w/ "as a high priority for parkland acquisition." (JC) Revise sentence to read: The Parks and Recreation Department has identified the site as a high priority for parkland acquisition. Recommendation Adopted 13. Page 2-18, Footnote 11 is incomplete—currently reads: 11 [Cite appropriate TPU table] (DP) Revise footnote to read: 2004 Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update, Table 21 p. 111 Recommendation Adopted ---PAGE BREAK--- F-13 Ref. # Staff & Agency Comments Response Recommended by Staff MCPB Action 14. Page 2-18, Footnote 12: Amend footnote #12 to cite Maggie Pittman, USFS Missoula District Ranger instead of Dave Shaw. (JC) Revise footnote to read: Comment from Maggie Pittman, Missoula District Ranger, US Forest Service, April 7, 2006, Recommendation Adopted 15. Page 2-19, line 1 – reference to contact Dave Shaw on "Urban Trail Street" - As of today, there is no satisfactory definition of this type of facility. The intention is to create a corridor that is a safe bike/ped facility that also incorporates vehicular traffic in low volumes & low speeds. (DS) After the word “Implementation” delete the bracketed phrase & add a sentence to read: The intent of the suggested designation for Grant Street is to create a corridor that is a safe bicycle/pedestrian facility that also incorporates vehicular traffic in low volumes and low speeds. Recommendation Adopted 16. Page 2-18, Line 10: add the following as the 2nd sentence under paragraph #1 - The City Council adopted a resolution in 1999 authorizing up to $200,000 of the 1995 Open Space Bond funds to be set aside specifically for funding acquisition of commuter bike/ped trails. The connection of the Bitterroot Branch Trail qualifies for these funds. (DS) Before the word “Also,” insert the following sentence to read: The City Council adopted a resolution in 1999 authorizing up to $200,000 of the 1995 Open Space Bond funds to be set aside specifically for funding acquisition of commuter bicycle/pedestrian trails. The connection of the Bitterroot Branch Trail qualifies for these funds. Recommendation Adopted 17. Page 2-19, lines 10 to 14 - reword - Costs of an improved pedestrian crossing will need to be considered (separate grade isn’t necessary in this location). Parks & Rec. has identified 5 crossings that need to be improved for bike/pedestrian use as top priorities. Improving the existing crossing near North Ave to the School would be one way to achieve this goal. (DS) After the word “Implementation” revise rest of paragraph to read “The Missoula Parks and Recreation Department has identified five crossings that need to be improved for bicycle/pedestrian use as top priorities. Improving the existing crossing on Reserve Street at C.S. Porter Middle School near North Avenue would be one way to achieve this goal.” Recommendation Adopted ---PAGE BREAK--- F-14 Ref. # Staff & Agency Comments Response Recommended by Staff MCPB Action 18. Page 2-19, lines 25-26: replace w/ - The Parks and Recreation Department supports the idea of the conversion of the specified portions of Mount Ave to a Home Street. (DS) Revise the sentence beginning with the words “The Parks and Recreation Department” to read: The Parks and Recreation Department supports the idea of the conversion of the specified portions of Mount Avenue to a Home Street. Recommendation Adopted 19. Page 2-20, Lines 7-8: replace with Southgate Triangle Neighborhood Council has identified McLeod Park as their highest priority for park improvements in their neighborhood. (JC) Add: The Southgate Triangle Neighborhood Council has identified McLeod Park as their highest priority for park improvements in their neighborhood. Delete: The Parks and Recreation Department has identified the site as No. 2 on its priority list for park improvements in the neighborhood. Recommendation Adopted 20. Page 2-20, lines 14-18 - The Parks and Recreation Department had identified improvement of Franklin Park as a high priority. As such the Department has constructed one of its new Splash Decks there as well as helped pay for a new bridge connecting to 9th St. and trail enhancements to the new bridge. (DS) After the word “possible,” revise the rest of the paragraph to read: The Parks and Recreation Department has identified improvement of Franklin Park as a high priority. The Department has constructed one of its new Splash Decks at Franklin Park and has helped pay for a new bridge connecting to 9th Street and for trail enhancements to the new bridge. Recommendation Adopted 21. Page 2-20, Footnote 14 is incomplete—currently reads: 14 [TW Gary Botchek, 1-27-06] (DP) Revise footnote to read: Telephone interview with Gary Botchek, Director of Operations and Maintenance, Missoula County Public Schools, January 27, 2006 Recommendation Adopted ---PAGE BREAK--- F-15 Ref. # Staff & Agency Comments Response Recommended by Staff MCPB Action 22. Page 2-20, Footnote 16 is incomplete—currently reads: 16 [Cite TPU table] (DP) Revise footnote to read: 2004 Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update, Table 21 p. 115 Recommendation Adopted 23. Page 2-21, Lines 2-3: revise: south of South Avenue that presently does not have a park. (JC) Revise sentence to read: With or without the street extension, a park near the crossing would serve an area south of South Avenue that presently does not have a park. Recommendation Adopted 24. Page 2-21, Line 14-22: I recommend combining these paragraphs to say that all 3 "entities" need to work together. (JC) Beginning at Line 8, revise rest of page to read as follows: The neighborhood, through the Neighborhood Council Parks and Trails Committee, the City, through the Parks and Recreation Department and the Missoula Redevelopment Agency, should work together to: 1. Coordinate neighborhood park and trail preferences and current City project priorities, thus improving prospects for project implementation; and 2. Explore opportunities to accomplish neighborhood park and trail objectives through implementation of the URD III Plan wherever possible. Recommendation Adopted ---PAGE BREAK--- F-16 Ref. # Staff & Agency Comments Response Recommended by Staff MCPB Action 25. Page 2-16, Line 8-24: City Parks & Recreation staff & OPG Transportation staff believe that it is necessary and appropriate to clarify the relationship between information in the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan and information in the 2004 Master Parks and Recreation Plan for the Greater Missoula Area (Master Parks Plan) Beginning at Line 8, revise Lines 8-24 on page 2-16 to read as follows: commute to work by bicycle. In May of 2004, the City of Missoula adopted the 2004 Master Parks and Recreation Plan for the Greater Missoula Area (Master Parks Plan) as the guide for land use as it relates to parks, trails, the urban forest and recreation facilities and opportunities in the greater urban area. Figure 8 − Park Service Areas, Trails, Irrigation Ditches & Railroads, shows existing parks, trails and other information that can be found in the Master Parks Plan. Existing Parks and Trails Parks: Figure 8 shows the location of existing parks and trails in the neighborhood. Franklin Park is the area’s only true neighborhood park, and covers 3.23 acres at the northwest corner of 10th and Kemp Streets. Located near the center of the area bounded by Russell, Reserve, 3rd and 14th Streets, Franklin Park is within walking distance of a large number of homes. Fort Missoula Park is a 158-acre regional park that includes picnic areas, ball fields and tennis courts. Because Fort Missoula Park is separated from a majority of neighborhood residents by Reserve Street and South Avenue, its use as a neighborhood park is Recommendation Adopted 3 2004 Master Parks and Recreation Plan for the Greater Missoula Area p. 4-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- F-17 Ref. # Staff & Agency Comments Response Recommended by Staff MCPB Action limited. There are two other small parks in the neighborhood. Cottage Court is a .13-acre pocket park located off Reserve Street near Mount Street. Hart Park, a .13- acre visual green space, is located off Russell Street near 7th Street. McLeod Park lies one block east of the neighborhood boundary on North Avenue. Listed in the Master Parks Plan as a Neighborhood Park, McLeod Park contains 2.4 acres and is bounded by North and Kensington Avenues and Catlin and Washburn Streets. Goal 1 of the Master Parks Plan is to “provide a wide range of recreational and leisure time opportunities for all citizens and visitors in Missoula.” Policy 1.4 of Goal 1 is to “provide 2.5 acres of neighborhood parks and 4.5 acres of community parks for every 1,000 residents.”3 Based upon this standard, the Master Parks Plan identifies several neighborhoods that are deficient in parkland, including Franklin to the Fort. More specifically, the Master Parks Plan Map No. 3 identifies the portion of the Franklin neighborhood south of Mount Avenue/14th Street as deficient in parkland, having zero acres per 1,000 populations. This information is reflected in Figure 8 of the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan. Assessment of any park deficiencies within the Neighborhood should be coordinated through Missoula Parks and Recreation Department and be consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the Master Parks Plan. Recommendation Adopted ---PAGE BREAK--- F-18 Ref. # Staff & Agency Comments Response Recommended by Staff MCPB Action Chapter 3 – Financing of Infrastructure Improvements 26. Page 3-1, Lines 16-17: Re- write sentence beginning with the word “Whether” to read as follows: Whether they are built by a contractor hired by the City or by a contractor hired by a private property owner, sidewalks are installed. . (MS) Revise sentence to read as follows: Whether they are built by a contractor hired by the City or by a contractor hired by a private property owner, sidewalks are installed according to standards administered by the City’s Public Works Department. Recommendation Adopted 27. Starting Page 3, Lines 12-23: “Chapter 3, re: City loans for financing sidewalks and curb work is incorrect. Any property owner can qualify for the 8 or 12 year assessment program. The criteria you set forth is for the deferred payment option only.” (DH) Page 3-3, Lines 12-33: Revise to read as follows: The City recognizes that improvement project may have a significant financial burden on property owners. Therefore the City offers three payment options to cover the cost of sidewalk projects: cash payments, City financing; and deferred payment. 1. Cash Payment Property owners may pay cash for sidewalk improvements. Owners who choose to pay cash will receive an invoice from the City upon completion of the work adjacent to their property and will have 30 days to make their payment. 2. City Financing The City is able to make financing available for sidewalk improvement work. The City pays the Recommendation Adopted ---PAGE BREAK--- F-19 Ref. # Staff & Agency Comments Response Recommended by Staff MCPB Action contractor then arranges to have the costs plus interest added to the property owner’s semiannual tax bill. A property owner may choose to have the cost spread out over 8 years, (or 12 years. if the cost exceeds $3,000, or 20 years. if the cost exceeds $5,000). 3. Deferred Payment The City created the Sewer Connection Deferred Loan program in 1989 to help finance sewer connections for property owners who meet certain criteria. The program is also available for sidewalk projects. They Deferred Payment Loan option delays payment for the work until the ownership of the property changes. The applicant must reside on the property and meet minimum age and income requirements. Applications are available at the City of Missoula Engineering Offices. No payment is due until all work has been completed Deferred Payment Qualification Criteria: To qualify for City financial assistance under the Deferred Payment Loan program, a property owner must meet all three of the following conditions: 1. Assistance is available only for properties with one single-family dwelling or mobile home – not for commercial or multi-family dwellings. 2. The property owner must occupy the dwelling on Recommendation Adopted ---PAGE BREAK--- F-20 Ref. # Staff & Agency Comments Response Recommended by Staff MCPB Action the property for which he or she seeks financial assistance. In additional to the above criteria, a property owner must meet at least one of the following conditions to qualify for financial assistance: 1. The property owner must be 55 years of age or older. 2. The property owner must be receiving annual retirement or disability benefits totaling not more than $20,100 for a single person. A married couple can receive a maximum of $23,000. On June 5, 2006, the Missoula City Council held a public meeting regarding changing Missoula City Code (MMC) 3.16 which deals with deferred payments if the property owners meet certain criteria. The proposed changes would include an option to allow owner occupied single family residential property to defer the portion of accessed costs which exceed $8,000. The only criteria is that the property be a single family residence and owner occupied. There is no age or income criteria as there are in the total deferral which will still exist under the previous criteria. The deferred amount would accumulate interest at a rate determined by the curb and sidewalk bond sale that year. The deferred amount would be placed as a lien on the property which would have to be satisfied when the property changes ownership. Recommendation Adopted ---PAGE BREAK--- F-21 Ref. # Staff & Agency Comments Response Recommended by Staff MCPB Action 28. Page 3-3, Footnote 1 is incomplete—currently reads: 1 [Cite 11-9-05 memo discussion with Doug Harby comparing the “go-it-alone” approach with having the City do the bidding.] (DP) Revise as follows: Memorandum of discussion with Doug Harby, Missoula Public Works Project Manager, comparing the “go-it-alone” approach with having the City do the bidding, November 19, 2005. Recommendation Adopted 29. Footnote 2 is incomplete— currently reads: 2 [Cite Steve King email, 2-20-06.] (DP) Revise as follows: E-mail from Steve King, Missoula Acting Public Works Director, February 20, 2006. Recommendation Adopted 30. Footnote 4 is incomplete— currently reads 4 [Cite Phil Smith e-mail 10-17-05] (DP) Revise as follows: E-mail from Phil Smith, Missoula Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Manager, October17, 2005. Recommendation Adopted 31. Footnote 5 is incomplete— currently reads 5 [Cite 3-16-05 Fire Hydrants--MFD’s F2F Hydrant Schedule.] (DP) Revise as follows: E-mail from Jason Diehl, Assistant to the Chief/Planning Administrator, Missoula Fire Department March 16, 2005. Recommendation Adopted 32. Footnote 6 is incomplete— currently reads 6 {Cite Missoula Ordinance 3250] (DP) Revise as follows: City of Missoula, Ordinance No. 3250, adopted May 10, 2005 Recommendation Adopted General Comments I like the overall layout of plan & compliment you on the format, style and readability. (JC) Thanks, we try! *Key to Commenters: JC: Jackie Corday, Open Space Program Manager, Missoula Parks & Recreation Department DS: Dave Shaw, Parks & Trails Design & Development Manager, Missoula Parks & Recreation Department DH: Doug Harby, Construction Project Manager, Missoula Public Works Department MS: Monte Sipe, Engineering Inspector, Missoula Public Works Department DP: Dave Prescott, Transportation Planner, Missoula Office of Planning & Grants ---PAGE BREAK--- F-22 [Blank Page] ---PAGE BREAK--- F-23 F2F Steering Committee Received Friday June 1, 2006 1731 S. 11th St. West via E-mail from David V. Gray Missoula MT 59801 May 16, 2006 Dear Sirs, In regard to the current planning process for the Franklin to the Fort neighborhood, I would like to offer my input. Stop Signs on 4th Street at Garfield - This should have been done a long time ago. The visibility at this intersection, when traveling either direction on Garfield, is very poor. The drivers on 4th Street always seem to be traveling faster than 25 MPH and rarely slow down for this intersection. It is the greatest hazard in this part of the neighborhood. Traffic Circles/ Round Abouts - I am in strong opposition to traffic circle and round abouts any where in the F2F neighborhood. They are very costly for one thing and are more of a hindrance than anything else. The streets are just not large enough to allow there. A. good example of this is at 4t St. and Prince. The circle is so large that when traveling West on 4a'you must drive into the dip for the storm drain. This is very abrupt when traveling any faster than 5 MPH. 4th St. on that side of Russell never had enough traffic to need any traffic calming devices, especially not one that practically stops traffic. To me traffic calming is allowing a smooth controlled flow of traffic, not placing large concrete bathers in the middle of-the road. Signs (Stop, Yield and Speed Limit) - Signs are easy and cost effective to install. They are very functional for traffic calming and control. They also do not block off the street. I think installing well placed signs would benefit the neighborhood greatly. Sidewalks / Curbs - Russell St. is extremely lacking in sidewalks from the bridge all the way to Mount / 14tt' St. area. This is where I see the main need for a sidewalk on at least one side of the street, preferably both. When walking or biking I see this area as the greatest safety hazard because there is always a large volume of vehicle traffic on Russell St. Russell St. should receive priority before a sidewalk is installed anywhere else. Sidewalks / Curbs - Catlin St. While significantly less important than Russell St., Catlin St. would also benefit from sidewalks between 3'1 and 14th. This section of street, being a direct route between 3Fd and 14e and being fairly wide, could be safely posted with a 30 MPH speed limit. All intersections with Catlin St. have stop signs already, so I don't think 30 MPH would be excessive. Even if it were left at 25 MPH a couple speed limit signs would be an improvement. Garfield St. - Garfield St., also being a direct route from 3rd to 14th should have stop sign on every side street just as Catlin St. does. It could also be posted with 25 MPH signs, just to make motorists more away of the proper speed. This would allow freer ---PAGE BREAK--- F-24 moving traffic on Garfield, with less question of right-of-way at intersections and I think would reduce accidents on Garfield. Johnson St. - Johnson St. would benefit from a 30 MPH speed limit fro m 3 St. all the way to South Ave, with the exception of the school zone (Franklin School). The section of Johnson St, from 14th Street to South Ave. was up until recently 30 MPH. The sign was taken down without warning and never replaced. I think 25 MPH is unnecessarily restricting. Installing sidewalks everywhere would be nice, but because of the cost to the homeowner I do not think it is practical. I believe there are other things more important that should be addressed before sidewalks and street lights are installed everywhere. This is not an all inclusive list of everything I think should be improved, just some ideas about a few points that I think are important. I mainly would like to point out that 4th and Garfield intersection as a trouble spot, to say that in a neighborhood that is not the richest that cost should be considered as an important factor for any and to be done and that traffic circles / round abouts are just not as good as they sound. original on file dated 5/16/06 Lee Baldwin 1841 S. 8th St. West Missoula MT 59801 [EMAIL REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- F-25 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Public Comment Missoula Consolidated Planning Board June 6, 2006 David V. Gray: Just to confuse the minutes, I’m David V. Gray, as in Vincent and I don’t work in Planning. I am the Infrastructure Plan Chairman. This is the stack of flyers--of questionnaires that we mailed out--or no, passed out to every resident, unit anyway and the whole neighborhood. And these are all the comments that we got back. These are summarized in the Plan. We’ve had three neighborhood council meetings. We’ve had a dedicated committee, citizens volunteer since last April just dealing with this, on top of the leadership team committee. We’ve had up to 70 to 80 show up for resident council meeting, which are probably the largest in the whole City. And this plan I think really does represent all the different issues that those people brought up whether they want sidewalks specifically in front of their house or if they didn’t want sidewalks in front of their house. So, I think all sides are shown on it and I hope that you would support the plan. * * * Marilyn Marler: Hello Planning Board, am I talking into the--are you catching it? My name is Marilyn Marler; I live at 1750 South 8th Street West. I’m also on City Council. . . I’ve been involved with this infrastructure plan since far before I got onto City Council. It’s been a long time in the works, this plan and I have to say that I’m proud of it. I’m proud of how closely our neighborhood worked with the Office of Planning and Grants and I wanted to thank everyone who worked on it. And that’s not just people who were able to come to meetings because not everyone can come to meetings. But people submitted comments on the internet and they did it through the mail and they made phone calls and I really feel like we made a big effort to reach out and find out what people really wanted, or what they didn’t want as the case may be. And I want to take a minute to thank everyone at OPG, Mike Barton, and Mike Kress, who can’t be here unfortunately, maybe not unfortunately for him, but unfortunately for us because we wanted to see him here. And these gentlemen, Dave Prescott, David Gray, and Amber Blake and just everyone who worked on it. And thanks for considering this plan. I hope that you’ll vote to adopt it and I think that it will be a helpful tool for City Council to use. You know, infrastructure and new development comes up in Ward 6. I mean the Franklin to Fort neighborhood is so lacking sidewalks and traffic calming and basic infrastructure to the point where it’s a public safety issue and I just think this was a really good example of the neighborhood working with the City Planning Office and thanks for hearing public comment tonight. * * * John Wolverton: Good evening, my name is John Wolverton. I’m also a resident of the Franklin to Fort neighborhood. . . . I want to ask you to support this plan, pass this on. We really do need sidewalks, curbs, and gutters and we also need--we’ve taken a pretty good look at parks and trails issues in this neighborhood also. I think it’s a great idea that in the future when planning--for when Public Works wants to put some sidewalks in or when they want to do something, they have this document to refer to and they some good idea of what the neighborhood wants and what support is there for what issues. Thank you for your time. * * * ---PAGE BREAK--- F-26 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Public Comment Missoula Consolidated Planning Board June 6, 2006 (cont’d) Chris Pinjuv: Good evening, my name is Chris Pin, P-I-N-J-U-V, and I’m here to encourage you to vote to adopt this infrastructure plan. I’ve spent a lot of time working on it and I don’t feel safe in my neighborhood and I really think that we need some attention focused on our traffic and sidewalk situation in our neighborhood. Thank you. * * * Shellan Miller: Hi, my name is Shellan Miller. My first name is S-H-E-L-L-A-N. I just wanted to reiterate two things that were said tonight. The first is that I think it was very clear to most--or almost all the members of the neighborhood that this plan wasn’t going to put in place a ton of cost to each owner. That it was strictly a way for our local politicians to figure out what was the priority and what people wanted. So I think that--I know that you mentioned it earlier and I just wanted to reiterate the point that our neighborhood understands that it’s just a prioritization of the infrastructure that we would like to see in the future. And the second thing is, on the same line, that I think our neighborhood really understands that the SIDs would only be put in place after they have been prioritized. And that just the cost of those, there’s different ways of individual households to acquire them and especially with the portion of the presentation that Mike Kress gave at the last neighborhood council meeting really outlining--he spent a lot of time outlining the different options that the members of the neighborhood have been paying for, this type of costs. So I just wanted to reiterate that and urge you to support it because I think that it’s a great example of what a neighborhood, a strong leadership, and a lot of people that are interested in finding safer routes, both to school and throughout their neighborhood can be a part of. Thank you for your time. * * * Heather McMilin: Hi, my name is Heather McMilin, M-C-M-I-L-I-N. I live at 1758 South 14th West. I’m also the development manager for homeWORD, an affordable housing provider here in Missoula. And I wanted to ask you guys to support the infrastructure plan that we’ve been working on for the past couple of years, not only for all the reasons that everybody has talked about, but also we’ve seen a lot of infill development happen in our neighborhood and we wanted to have a voice on what happened with that--with PUD’s [Planned Unit Developments] and other developments happening. We just wanted to have a record of what we think we would like to see as development happens in the neighborhood. So, I encourage you to support it and I’d like to also thank staff that worked on it and also realize that this is a good way for us to communicate with the City Engineering and Planning Department as well. So thank you. * * * John Salmonson: I’m John Salmonson. I live at 1919 South 8th West, S-A-L-M-O-N-S-O- N. I worked on the infrastructure plan as part of the Franklin to Fort neighborhood group and I want to ask your support in passing this. The Office of Planning and Grants has been remarkably vigorous in working on this, in doing all kinds of extra things, and the neighborhood is certainly behind this. You’re mostly working with new plans, new areas and new developments and so forth, but for a City to grow beyond a certain area--beyond the neighborhood that was left semi-rural in some sense is something that has to be dealt ---PAGE BREAK--- F-27 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Public Comment Missoula Consolidated Planning Board June 6, 2006 (cont’d) John Salmonson (cont’d): with. We have to come back and finish what wasn’t done at the time. So we need those infrastructure things that now as a normal course, you’re approving on every development. We need this. Thank you. Patricia Hogan: My name’s Patricia Hogan, H-O-G-A-N. And I live in Franklin to Fort neighborhood. I’m a previous member of the leadership team and I was only peripherally involved in getting this plan together, but I just wanted to support it, encourage you to adopt it, and to say how proud I am of our neighborhood for doing this in such a timely manner. And I think that the present and immediate past leadership teams deserve a great vote of thanks from our neighborhood, from the City in general, and also the staff at OPG that supported us in doing this. Thanks. ---PAGE BREAK--- F-28 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Public Comment Missoula City Council July 10, 2006 David V. Gray said, I’m the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee Chairman. I would like to thank the Council for the time that they took to review the plan, providing the staff and providing the support for the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan. This was the largest project that the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council has participated in and accomplished. It addresses what residents want and do not want to happen concerning sidewalks, gutters, traffic, parks and trails, fire hydrants and street lights in the neighborhood. I would like to explain to you the extent to which the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council and many neighborhood volunteers have participated in creating the Infrastructure Plan. The plan started with a group of concerned citizens that wanted to make sure that the appropriate infrastructure would be provided for residents to safely walk, play, park vehicles, and have fire protection as the number of dwelling units continue to increase in the neighborhood. The amount of people interested in addressing these issues grew very quickly. The Neighborhood Council got involved to the traffic and planning subcommittee as a place where the conservative effort by volunteers could work together to find out what the greatest concerns for the rest of the neighborhood and where OPG staff would be able to coordinate the fact finding and editing of the Infrastructure Plan that had been asked to draft. I would like to clarify that these concerned citizens and the participating Council members were crucial in getting the Infrastructure Plan started by OPG. The Neighborhood Council never passed a motion requesting OPG to create the Infrastructure Plan instead the Neighborhood Council provided volunteers and participated in fact finding and the collection of information for the creation of the plan. The Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council, leadership team and Infrastructure Plan Steering Committee have kept minutes and attendance records of the meetings. The Neighborhood Council has a web page with meeting minutes published and information in the Infrastructure Plan status as well as meeting times and locations shown. The Neighborhood Council advertised meetings on the web, emailed notices, delivered flyers, mailed invitations, put out sign boards and personally invited the residents of the neighborhood to participate. I invite you to take a look at these records so that you can see that the Infrastructure Plan is not the tool of a few people trying to impose what they want for the neighborhood but is a compilation of what the residents of the neighborhood want to see addressed. The Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council has had its largest meeting attendances of discussing the plan and collecting information. The Neighborhood Council found volunteers to survey the entire 1,384 acres of the neighborhood and document on maps where fire hydrants, street lights, sidewalks, curbs, traffic signs and traffic lights were located. The Neighborhood Council sent out a survey flyer and collected comments. These are all the returned comments. I believe this plan represents the greatest concerns that the residents feel need to be addressed in the neighborhood. As in all public input process, some people in the Franklin to the Fort neighborhood feel that their individual issues were not prioritized highly enough. Other residents believe SIDs would be placed on their properties. This plan represents what the majority of the participant would like addressed – not the few – and it does not place SIDs on ---PAGE BREAK--- F-29 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Public Comment Missoula City Council July 10, 2006 (cont’d) David V. Gray (cont’d): properties. I’m requesting your support for the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan and ask that a motion be passed to have this plan incorporated into the planning pools of the City. Thank you for your time. Public Works Director Steve King said, I would like to support this plan. I would like to highly recommend its adoption. It is a collaboration of City and citizens. I want to acknowledge the Office of Planning and Grants, their encouragement and their invitation; also Public Works staff, including myself and other members of the engineering division as well that participated in this process, the collaboration of Fire and Parks and other city departments. It is truly a collaborative plan and a creation of many different entities and cooperation with Public Works Department. I believe it’s a logical and considerate plan; considerate of the diverse interests and the cost of doing business of these types of infrastructure. I want to thank the participants and recognize that this is a long-term durable document. This is something that will assist my office, Public Works, City Engineering, for many years to come and providing one valuable tool for future infrastructure development throughout these neighborhoods. I want to acknowledge that, and I appreciate the work that’s gone into it. Patricia Hogan said, I’m a resident of the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council, past member of the leadership team of the Neighborhood Council and only peripherally involved in getting this plan together. I want to speak in support of it because I think it’s a wonderful thing. I think that our Neighborhood Council has done an exemplary job in bringing this to fruition. When I was on the leadership team, I think it was in 2003, I can’t remember exactly, this is the kind of thing that I dreamt about and I really didn’t think it would come to pass this expeditiously. So I want to acknowledge the wonderful work that our Neighborhood Council has done and also OPG for their support and help. Thank you for your support. John Salmonson said, I live on 1919 South 8th West and I’m on the Franklin to the Fort leadership team. I would like to strongly support this and hope that you support the plan. It has features that our community sorely needs. The City has sort of leapfrogged with the boundaries beyond its development so that we ended up rather rural neighborhoods where we’re walking down the middle of the street and dodging cars and so forth; not something that should be going on in the city. We’re not the only community but ours has put together this plan. If I have any question about the plan – I would like to thank the OPG people who did such a massive amount of work; Mike Kress, Dave Prescott, and Dave Gray. If I have one quibble with the text it’s with page 1-3 where it refers to sidewalks as “amenities.” I would like to recommend that you take that word out of the vocabulary in referring to the sidewalks. They’re a necessity to me. Absolutely essential for any town and I recommend the plan, which is a good plan. Thank you very much. Julie Merit said, I’m also a resident of the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood. I would also like to offer my support to the plan. Our neighborhood faces a lot of challenges ---PAGE BREAK--- F-30 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Public Comment Missoula City Council July 10, 2006 (cont’d) Julie Merit (cont’d): and I think that this is a plan to put us on the road to getting some of those challenges addressed. I just hope that you guys will all support it as well. David Gray said, may I explain why we did the financing to keep it on the floor, why it needs to be on the floor? Is that what you’re – Mayor Engen said, you certainly may argue why this should stay on the floor. David V. Gray said, this argument needs to stay on the floor because we went through great at the Neighborhood Council meetings to discuss the financing. Mr. Nicholson hit it on the head; we are not a wealthy neighborhood. We cannot afford SIDs for the whole neighborhood. We have to – there has to be other funding options looked first before SIDs are forced on the neighborhood because we can’t afford it. But we need improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- F-31 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Public Comment Plat, Annexation And Zoning (Paz) Committee July 19, 2006 Jim Hausauer encouraged the Committee to discuss this issue at another date. The Committee had not yet had any real time to discuss the issue and the public may not have had an opportunity to voice their concerns yet. He felt that his neighbors would not agree with him in requesting to send the matter back to the neighborhood council for more work. He supported the infrastructure plan, but the neighborhood needed to further discuss some of the issues for a more all encompassing plan. There was no need to hurry. The problem was that the statistics, a priority list of concerns and recommendations, and the folks who made public comment should all be analyzed and contrasted them. They needed to look at traffic, parks and trails, high density, and continual development. This was not discussed in Map 5. They needed a more forward thinking plan, but they had a good foundation with 80% of the work being done on the plan. He requested that his neighbors buck it up and complete the task they’ve signed on for. The Planning Board had also indicated that the plan was not forward thinking. Their only source of funding was traffic funding. David V. Gray (Franklin to the Fort Leadership Team) restated that the Infrastructure Plan was not an implementation plan. It only addressed existing conditions and what citizens had suggested as priorities. SIDs were not the first option because of financial status of the residents, it was only a planning tool for the City and gave them direction as to what to implement first. Opinions for and against infrastructure change were in the plan and most want improvements. He has stated at neighborhood meetings and the website also stipulates that infrastructure is paid for by the residents. Arlene Harris lives at 2045 S. 7th Street and she did not want sidewalks around her property. She said that her total cost would be over $8,000 and that along with the present SID would be more than she paid for the house. She said that there was really no purpose for having a sidewalk, and that she has done fine for 50 years without them and does not see why this is being forced on the neighborhood. Clayton Floyd stated that in a perfect world sidewalks were ideal. It was always easy to ask for sidewalks when someone else’s money was being spent. The highest priority for sidewalks identified for this plan were 3rd Street to South on Johnson and 3rd Street to South on Kemp Street. Much of Johnson Street already has curb and sidewalk. Most people using the street still choose not to walk or run on the sidewalk. He felt that discussion was a two way conversation and he did not feel that the neighborhood was given adequate time to voice their opinions before the Plan was voted on. Those most affected would be senior citizens on fixed incomes. The City has full knowledge of areas that are deficient in the Plan area, and it would not be difficult for the City to order SIDs. He requested that Council consider those most impacted, and he had two proposed amendments for the Plan. One that it should be voluntary to develop the improvements, especially since some folks were willing to pay for them; and two would be to find out what the total cost would be to do everything proposed and then divide it equally among the property owners. ---PAGE BREAK--- F-32 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Public Comment Plat, Annexation And Zoning (PAZ) Committee July 19, 2006 (cont’d) Jay Sage indicated that sidewalks and gutters would be beneficial and he would like to have them, but it would not be beneficial financially to everyone. There were those who had owned property for quite some time who were older and retired. If sidewalks were included in the plan it would accelerate and shove people out and drastically change these areas. There would be unintended consequences with high density housing that would replace the current housing. He would like to see the sidewalk gutter portion of the Plan deleted. Darleen Everhard lives at 2904 S. Clark Street. She lives on a corner, she’s a widow on a fixed income, has existing curbs, and has underground sprinklers and a fence which would have to be moved. She cannot afford this and requested that the improvement be voluntary. Jennifer Clary stated that she is a member of the Planning Board and she lives in the neighborhood. Considerable outreach has been made on this plan to talk to the neighbors. It was not an implementation plan, Steve King said it was not an implementation action, and that was not what the plan was about. There were health and safety concerns in the area and this was the core of the City, but it lacked principal infrastructure. If the Plan did not move forward it would damage the progress the neighborhood wants to see. Carmen Mackey stated that she lived in Macintosh Loop. She and her husband often walk in the neighborhood and they walk on the streets. The streets were wide so two cars could easily fit. She felt that the neighborhood did not need sidewalks except around schools. This was Montana, not New York City. Wilma Sage stated that the Plan had would price all the old homeowners out of their homes. She has only $750.00 a month to live on and she’s lived in her house for 61 years. Her kids also lived in her house and they did fine without the sidewalks and had no problem getting to school. There were no more problems then than there are now without bike paths and sidewalks, they manage. The biggest majority of residents in the area cannot afford to pay for sidewalks. John Wolverton explained that he was on the neighborhood leadership team and that on the night before he almost rode his bike into two young people. The sidewalk ends halfway down his block and the potholes in the road can be very scary. The road was also on a crown and was splitting. Having no curbs made the road rough and noisy and it was a safety issue. The City wanted to know what the neighborhood wanted and the financing issue had been very public. If people did not know what was going on with the Plan, they were not paying attention. The City should externalize costs of curb and sidewalk since it was an issue for everyone. He felt that a home street on Mount would be a very good idea to divert bike and pedestrian traffic since traffic was heavy on 14th Street. The Johnson Street sidewalks were the top priority since there was a school in the area. He asked that the Plan be passed to City Council so it could be acted on. ---PAGE BREAK--- F-33 Franklin To The Fort Infrastructure Plan Public Comment Plat, Annexation And Zoning (Paz) Committee July 26, 2006 Arlene Harris, 2045 S. 7th Street. Ms. Harris asked about the mailing that was conducted to determine how many folks in the neighborhood were in agreement with the sidewalk proposal. She wondered who had conducted the study. Heidi Kendall explained that the comment cards were hand delivered through the efforts of neighborhood residents. Ms. Harris did not think that the study was valid since she and many of her neighbors had not received comment cards. She requested to see the data collected from the study to see if the conclusion reached was correct. She was opposed to the SID and was not willing to pay over $8,000 for sidewalk improvements. David V. Gray (Franklin to the Fort Leadership Team), 1731 S. 11th Street West. Mr. Gray brought in the comment cards that were returned on the survey. These results were shown in Appendix D and E of the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan. Mr. Gray read some of the responses on the comment cards. He also emphasized that the plan also came about due to the concern over infill in the area. Those cards in opposition (comments): - No checked on every question, taxes too high, and there had been no increase in services - No checked on every question, no more un-voted SIDs - Some said yes and no, more parks needed on South 14th Street, consider cost and what land owners can afford, need planned travel paths and controls, stop signs, make curbs and sidewalks wheelchair accessible Those cards in favor (comments): Mr. Gray explained that all this information was also included in the plan, whether they were in favor or against the plan. Darlene Eberhard, 2904 S. Clark. Ms. Eberhard explained that she never received a card in the mail for the survey. She was a widow living on a fixed income, she had no health insurance. She was concerned because she could not afford to put in sidewalks. She lives on a corner, has an underground sprinkler system and a fence that would have to be moved, plus she would have to reseed her lawn and remove some existing trees. She also lives by herself and had no one to help her. She said that if she was required to put in sidewalks it would be devastating and she may have to sell her home. She said that there were also others in the neighborhood with the same concerns who could not afford sidewalks. Bolich, 2046 S. 10th Street West. Ms. Bolich was born and raised here. She noticed that kids on bikes and skateboards used the sidewalks at Franklin Park, but the majority of the neighborhood walked on the street. People in the area did not have money to put in sidewalks. She did not want to sell her property because of the expense that would be incurred. She said that putting in the sewer was very expensive. She did not feel the need to have a bunch of concrete in the neighborhood and maybe local environmentalists would appreciate that. She was discouraged because there were many things that the neighborhood did not get to vote on or have a say in. She said that that it was very important for Council to think twice before ---PAGE BREAK--- F-34 Franklin To The Fort Infrastructure Plan Public Comment Plat, Annexation And Zoning (Paz) Committee July 26, 2006 (cont’d) Bolich (cont’d): voting on this proposal. She said that maybe the younger residents of the neighborhood could afford it, but not the retired folks and seniors. She said that there were no sidewalks on 7th and 8th Streets and there still was not a need for them. She would only agree to the proposal if it was voluntary. She said that SIDs were ridiculous if they were tied to their property. Her husband had been gone for ten years and she lived on a fixed income. Pinjuv, 1805 S. 9th Street West. Ms. Pinjuv supported the infrastructure plan. She and her daughter could not safely walk to the park or the grocery store because there were no sidewalks. She recently sold her house but hoped that the plan would be adopted for the neighborhood. She also encouraged those in attendance to read the plan. She said that the improvements, including sidewalks, were not automatic and the plan did so much more than address sidewalks. Dick Pedersen lives at the corner of 8th and Johnson. He said that many of the neighbors in the area are on social security, local taxes have gone up, bills have gone up, and it was not fair to put this pressure on the people in the neighborhood. The sidewalk costs were too much. He said that if he was forced to put in a sidewalk he had a friend who could do it much cheaper than what was being proposed. Jon Salmonson, 1919 S. 8th Street West. Mr. Salmonson stated that he supported the plan and he reiterated that it was an amendment to an existing plan. What it did was give the neighbors a chance to contribute their suggestions and preferences. If the plan did not exist, sidewalks would be forced in or come about according to the Master Sidewalk Plan. He stated that he thought that the neighborhood would support the plan because security and safety was very important. He was concerned about hitting a person in a wheelchair while they were using the street to get somewhere. He also wanted to discuss the economic point of not being able to afford the sidewalks. Recently some neighbors were paying to improve their alleys by having them paved. Those neighbors who could not afford it were able to put payment off until they decided to sell their property, meaning that it would not cost them anything until they sold their house. He also felt that sidewalks would add value to their property and he hated to think of Franklin to the Fort as a poor community. John Wolverton lives on 8th Street. He reminded everyone that there was a lot more to this plan than just sidewalks and to please support the plan. Robert Coffman, 2415 Mount. Mr. Coffman wondered if interest on the improvements would accrue if a person chose to hold off payment until they sold their house. He wondered whether there would by any money left to reinvest in another house if the interest kept accruing? He had a corner lot and it would cost him $8,000 for the sidewalk improvements. He wondered how the average person would be able to afford that. He said that his taxes went up a third when he was annexed into the City. He said that he received fewer services now. He also thought that those who could afford it would have to pay for those who could not. People should not lose the investment they have in their house when they move or die. ---PAGE BREAK--- F-35 Franklin To The Fort Infrastructure Plan Public Comment Plat, Annexation And Zoning (Paz) Committee July 26, 2006 (cont’d) Jim Hausauer reiterated that he did not believe the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan to be an actual plan; he felt it was more like a list of concerns, but it was a good list. A real plan would achieve greater results. Also, the effort put into the plan would be paid with transportation dollars. He felt that it was important to discuss those issues in the transportation plan that concerned the neighborhood. Mr. Hausauer wanted the traffic calming in the area to succeed. He also thought that further discussion should be taken back to the neighborhood council which had not happened yet. Jim Hausauer had some suggested changes as follows: The Infrastructure Steering Committee did not have Map which they should have been able to review; the first priority for construction should be the Bitterroot Trail construction, and some of the streets in the area could be turned into “home streets.” Clayton Floyd stated that one question he was asked was if they decided to have voluntary compliance, would they be diminishing in any way the authority of the City to provide for the safety of the neighborhood. Mr. Floyd said that he did not believe that would be the case. He said that when the legislature passed a law there was a legislative intent and the purpose of that intent was to help folks after the fact once the law was passed, and it would state the intention of the governing body at the time the law was passed. He said that would address the main concern of the neighbors and would solve most of the problems. Mr. Floyd added that none of the planned improvements would come about if they did not take action and they would not have an action unless the cost was born by someone. He said that someone will pay for this. He said that the perception was that there was money to help pay for the improvements, but there was not a lot of money available and it was important to be realistic. He said that in the budgeting process it was important to be honest with the public. ---PAGE BREAK--- F-36 Franklin To The Fort Infrastructure Plan Public Comment Plat, Annexation And Zoning (PAZ) Committee August 2, 2006 MOTION: The Committee recommends that City Council adopt a resolution to adopt the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan as an amendment to the Missoula County Growth Policy. Chair Kendall indicated that she would ask for public comment at the end of discussion and opened up the floor for amendments or comments by Committee members. She was reminded that there was a motion on the floor to adopt the resolution to adopt the Plan. Councilman Nicholson circulated amendments which he felt both had the same intent of making installation of curbs and sidewalks voluntary instead of mandatory. He made a motion to incorporate these two amendments into the Plan. Councilwoman Marler appreciated what Councilman Nicholson was trying to do but could not support the motion since the Plan would not dictate sidewalk installation. The Plan only provided a sense of where they should be located. Council needed to have a conversation about sidewalks and funding. Councilwoman Rye called for the question. The motion passed. Public Comment on the motion: Clayton Floyd felt this was an important item since it would establish intent to have the language in the document. If anyone wanted to protest an SID, they could come back to this document. This plan did not address the whole city so this should be spelled out since it spoke to this particular area. David V Gray the section in R-2 was actually how the neighborhood felt. It was currently voluntary to put sidewalks in now and nothing had been done. This purely says what the neighborhood wanted to have done. He was willing to ask neighbors if they wanted to take the next step. Robert Coffman stated that the cost to install a sidewalk would be considerable for residents of this area. He said that he did not feel the plan was a viable solution. Mike Kress pointed out that whether the Plan was adopted or not, Council still had the power to order in sidewalks. The question of whether to make sidewalks voluntary comes at the point of an SID which was beyond the stage of this plan. The motion failed with 4 ayes and 7 nays. Dave Strohmaier called for the question on further discussion and the motion passed. The motion to adopt the resolution to adopt passed with 7 ayes and 4 nays. This item will go to Council for a vote at its August 7th meeting. ---PAGE BREAK--- F-37 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Written Public Comment Submitted to the Plat, Annexation and Zoning (PAZ) Committee August 2, 2006 E-mail Received Monday, July 31, 2006 From: Bobbi Day 7/31/06 To: Dave Prescott Re: FWD From: Heidi Kendall 7/30/06 To: Bobbi Day Re: FWD Bobbi, can you get these added to the record? I'm not exactly sure how we do that. Thanks. Heidi From: David V. Gray 7/30/06 To: Heidi Kendall Re: FWD I am forwarding this comment from a resident to be added to the public comment for the F2F Infrastructure Plan. David V. Original Message From: Lauren Varney 7/26/06 To: David. V. Gray Re: PAZ Meeting--F2F Infrastructure Plan Sorry I cannot make it, but I feel strongly that the current plan is excellent and will be a great map for the neighborhood to follow. I understand the concerns of certain council persons regarding the financial impacts of infrastructure improvements but I feel the lack of creativity by our city regarding those burdens leaves something to be desired. I think we should be taxing a certain percentage of the equity gained in a property and putting that towards neighborhood improvements. So there is my two cents worth. Thanks, David for all your work on this. Lauren Varney ---PAGE BREAK--- F-38 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Written Public Comment Submitted to the Plat, Annexation and Zoning (PAZ) Committee August 2, 2006 E-mail Received Wednesday, August 2, 2006 "Heidi Kendall" <[EMAIL REDACTED]> 8/2/2006 9:24 AM Shellan, thanks for your comment. This will be included in the record. Heidi Heidi Kendall Missoula City Council, Ward 1 [EMAIL REDACTED] (406)543-2260 -----Original Message----- From: shellan miller [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 9:22 AM To: [EMAIL REDACTED] Cc: David Gray; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Jon Salmonson; John Wolverton; Josh Rodriguez Subject: Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Good Morning, I am sorry I am unable to attend this morning's PAZ meeting. Again, Iwould like to support the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan. As an active member of the Neighborhood Leadership Team, I believe the Plan successfully outlines a narrow scope of infrastructure needs in the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood. The Plan sets priorities in regard to locating sidewalks, curbs, trails, fire hydrants and street lights within the neighborhood, although it does not force any of these improvements on any neighborhood member, it simply prioritizes them. Throughout the document's public process I have heard from City staff and City Alderman that they are faced with difficult decisions in determining where and how money is spent. In my mind, a neighborhood Infrastructure Plan provides guidance to these decision-makers. I also want to stress the amount of involvement that came from the Neighborhood on this Plan. The Infrastructure Plan enabled people in the neighborhood, of all ages and backgrounds, to come together to discuss the issues that affect their quality of life, to incorporate their ideas into the Infrastructure Plan and to become active and empowered in their role as community members. Originally, the Infrastructure Plan spurred my interest and I became involved with the Neighborhood Council and eventually the Neighborhood Leadership Team. I urge you to consider the amount of neighborhood support and involvement the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan has received as you determine the Plan's future this morning. I urge you to support the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan. Thank you for your good work! Shellan Miller 1721 S. 7th St. W. Missoula, MT 59801 ---PAGE BREAK--- F-39 Franklin To The Fort Infrastructure Plan Written Public Comment Submitted to the Plat, Annexation And Zoning (PAZ) Committee August 2, 2006 Proposed changes and additions to the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Requested by Jim Hausauer Regarding Figure 5 changes; 1. Add to Park and Trails map: a #1 icon and arrow pointing south west at the current south end of the Bitterroot Trail (south of Mc Donald). 2. Change the Hydrants and Streetlights map by mostly removing the indicated hydrant corridors (except for H2), and identify the specific locations listed under H1 and H3. Locate the H2 icon at the intersection of 12th and Kemp and mark the interval street of those listed between, but not including, Eaton to Grant and 10th to 14th with the hydrant corridor or location designation. Additions: 3. Add “Home Street Outline” as an appendix 4. Add “Neighborhood Parks Service Area Study” as an appendix ---PAGE BREAK--- F-40 Franklin To The Fort Infrastructure Plan Written Public Comment Submitted to the Plat, Annexation And Zoning (PAZ) Committee August 2, 2006 Attachment Submitted by Jim Hausauer I. Home Street Outline A tool that redefines a street (not an arterial or a major thru street) to slow traffic and create a more pedestrian friendly neighborhood, a safe place for kids to play, while maintaining vehicle access (especially emergency routes) and parking as needed. The street is redefined so that vehicles share the right-of-way and yield to pedestrians and bikes with the following tools and techniques: 1. Entry areas are defined with traffic calming structures (possibly bulb-outs, medians, etc.), signage, landscaping, sidewalk or trails, lighting, and other possible approved items such as fences, gardens, benches, art, etc. 2. Entry areas are posted with “Home Street”, YIELD, and speed limit signs (5-15 mph.) 3. Internal street design allows neighborhood flexibility including parking option, gardens, pocket parks, playgrounds, plazas, ball courts, etc. (if practical and accountable) to get drivers to slow down and share the roadway. 4. Project design and development needs wide neighborhood involvement and support (60% min.) with possible help from the neighborhood council and help from Public Works (and possibly Parks and Recreation). 5. Streets eligible for consideration should be: - Low traffic volume (300-400 vehicle trips per day) - Short distances (possibly 1-5 blocks) - Not on a thru street ---PAGE BREAK--- F-41 Franklin To The Fort Infrastructure Plan Written Public Comment Submitted to the Plat, Annexation And Zoning (PAZ) Committee August 2, 2006 Submitted by Jim Hausauer ---PAGE BREAK--- F-42 Franklin To The Fort Infrastructure Plan Written Public Comment Submitted to the Plat, Annexation And Zoning (PAZ) Committee August 2, 2006 Submitted by Jim Hausauer ---PAGE BREAK--- F-43 Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan Public Comment Missoula City Council August 7, 2006 Clayton Floyd said, I think it was difficult for me to want to come down here tonight because I think you’ve heard a lot of good testimony from a lot of the folks that were in the area. I think it’s important to understand how this process unfolded. What we’ve witnessed in the process has really kind of an abuse of the democratic process. The last Franklin to Fort Neighborhood Council meeting it was stated that there were 7,500 residents in this Neighborhood Council area. During the testimony that was provided to you in committee, it was stated that 3,000 questionnaires were sent out to and within the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council of which 250 responded. It was indicated that 74% of the 250 that responded were in favor of advancing the plan. That is 185 residents out of 7,500 favoring the plan. Clearly the majority of the residents did either 1) not understand the plan and the potential impact it might have or 2) that they had no interest in the plan at all 3) or maybe it was because it was associated with the Neighborhood Council. I testified that there was a serious equity issue and who was going to pay for this in the improvements recommended by this plan. One of the things that has come up, as Mr. Ballas raised the issue this evening, the City could order in these sidewalks without a plan. I think the thing that was significant about how this unfolded however, was the City itself had no detailed information of where these deficiencies were until this plan was done. Now, clearly, the City has a list of who does and who does not have curbs and sidewalks. It’s important to understand the equity issues. I don’t think anybody entered into this plan with the intention that they were going to get by less. That’s not what I meant to imply in any of the emails that I sent to Council; but, having said that, for a person who lives on a corner lot that’s 90 feet across 120 feet deep, that’s 210 linear feet, at $50 a linear foot, that’s a $10,500 SID that will pay for that improvement once we get into implementation. Divide that by 8 years, that’s $1,313 per year, divide by 12 and that’s $109.42 plus interest that will be paid by that person. For seniors, that will buy a lot of food or drugs. Some who are proponents of this plan didn’t face that same kind of potential SID bill. When you have a mid-block lot or parcel that’s 65 feet across, $50 a foot, that’s a $32,050, divide by 8 years, divide by 12, you get down to $33.85 per month. Where’s the fairness? Mike Kress stated in committee that sidewalks and curbs could be done on a voluntary basis now without a plan; that’s true statement. What is not said, however, is most citizens haven’t been beating the doors down at City Hall to voluntarily place curbs and sidewalks. One could argue that it either means that they do not want them or that their unwilling to pay for them. But 185 in collusion with Missoula City Government are dictating the 7,300 citizens that they are going to have to pay for these improvements. You have to believe that that is the intent of the Missoula City Government because Mr. Nicholson, as he did point out in his comments, attempted to place language in that would establish clearly that the plan was designed to be voluntary in compliance once we got to the implementation phase and that motion was defeated by a vote of 6-4. The plan, through its volunteers, have identified where we were lacking sidewalks and curbs. As I said before, they didn’t have that detailed information but they do now. To believe sidewalks and curbs will not be ordered in is naive. Lastly, when this plan was first proposed, I asked John Engen, Ed Childers, Cindy Klette, Mike Barton and Mike Kress to have a special meeting regarding ---PAGE BREAK--- F-44 Franklin To The Fort Infrastructure Plan Public Comment Plat, Annexation And Zoning (Paz) Committee July 26, 2006 (cont’d) Clayton Floyd (cont’d): this plan. We agreed that it was only fair up front to notify that citizens in this area would, in all likelihood, pay the bulk of the cost. That was what we agreed to but that is not what happened. David Gray promised in committee last Wednesday that he will take it to the Neighborhood Council and ask the neighborhood if they want to pay for it. Why did we not ask that question in the beginning of this process, before the decision had already been made? Where’s the truth in the process? We can say that there is language in there explaining how all of this will be paid for and what the potential options are now but the draft that is before you in this plan is dated June 6, 2006. So for a whole two months citizens have had the opportunity to see what they might have to pay under this plan. Mr. Marler mentioned that this has been an ongoing process for two years and yet, we’ve got two months to look at what that cost might be. Others have already had to pay for sidewalks I heard from some folks. Like somehow that’s supposed to make it easier for the folks who are going to be burdened by this plan once we start ordering it in. I just have to ask where the fairness in this process was. I think next time we can improve by getting a little bit of buy-in in the first place by laying out exactly what’s going to happen. Thank you. Kanji Matthew Jenkins said, I’m a candidate in this House District that incorporates the Franklin to the Fort. I’ve not been as attentive as I could be but I did have my business in that area for seven years and I knew that our past Mayor Kadas had decided that whole area was blighted. I don’t quite understand that. There’s a lot of lovely homes in there and a lot of old homes in there that will probably outlast some of the structures that we’re building today. I actually wanted to ask two questions. 1) The reference that Mr. Nugent made to the MCA code that gives the City the right to just put side walks in. I would like to know what that code is. 2) Who owns the property that the sidewalks are going to be built on? Dick Pedersen said, I live on the corner of 8th and Johnson. I don’t have sidewalks but I do have curbs. It will cost me money to put them in. Anyway, I agree mainly with Clayton that that area did not receive any kind of a form to fill out in that area to show what they wanted, whether it was sidewalks or what it was. I was out talking to some of the people around my neighborhood and they said that they would just a soon have better lighting, water hydrants than they would sidewalks. Because if you put in the sidewalk first then you’re going to end up taking them out again just to put in the other stuff. They would just as soon start at the beginning and put in new lighting, new hydrants and stuff like that if it’s got to be done. Most of the people that I’ve talked to can’t afford to put in sidewalks right now. I’m going around and doing this on my own to let you know what my neighborhood is like. These 200 votes or what ever it is, 175 votes or survey that they’ve taken, out of the 7,500, I kind of think we’re getting conned on that deal. If I could have a copy of all of those votes on that survey, I will go around and check on these people that did this and I will also check on the people that they never called on. Thank you.