HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-16 CC Mtg - A2. Recreation Impacts Text AmendmentPage 1 of 14
14581, Staff Report for the Mitigation to Recreation Impacts Text
Amendment
Public Hearing Date: Zoning Commission and Planning Board public hearing - September
6, 2016 at 6 pm.
City Commission public hearing - September 26, 2016 at 6 pm.
Project Description: A revision to the standards for how to calculate and apply required
mitigation for impacts on the recreation system in conjunction with land
development.
Project Location: Applicable throughout the City
Recommendation: Approval
Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public
comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in
the staff report for application 14581 and move to approve the text amendment and
direct staff to integrate these provisions as part of the update to the Unified
Development Code.
Report Date: September 15, 2016
Staff Contact: Chris Saunders, Interim Director
Agenda Item Type: Action - Legislative
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Unresolved Issues
At what degree of new demand for park services should development be required to provide
an offset (mitigation) for that demand? See Section 3 of the amendment text.
Project Summary
New development must mitigate (offset) its impact on the City’s recreation system. There are
several ways this can occur but the two most common are dedicating land for parks or
payment of money. Article 38.27 BMC addresses this issue. The City has generally preferred
a land dedication for mitigation but requires payment of money in defined circumstances.
The last substantial overhaul of the recreation mitigation system occurred in 2004. Since that
time, the nature of development applications has changed with a substantial increase in the
number of infill and larger scale apartment complexes. There has been an increase in the
number of mixed use applications and residential development within the commercial zoning
districts. There have also been changes in state law which affect this issue.
282
14581, Staff Report for the Mitigation to Recreation Impacts Text Amendment Page 2 of 14
The staff have evaluated the existing regulations and determined that changes are desirable to
make the regulations more clear, effective, efficient, and equitable. A summary of the
changes in each section follows.
1) Legislative findings for the changes. This does not amend the text.
2) Administrative cleanup for the subdivision platting process reflecting changed responsibilities at the city staff level. 3) Revisions to park dedication requirements. Quite a few of the changes are relocations to
improve organization in the section or clarifications in wording. Substantive changes are:
a. Revise trigger points for when the City requires mitigation of parkland impacts.
Due to changes in development patterns and types the present triggers are giving inconsistent results between projects with similar impacts. The change will shift from a procedural trigger to one based on the number of additional homes to be
created. An important element of this edit is to determine at what point the
requirement for dedication is applied.
b. Revise dedication requirements for higher density development to simplify the mitigation process by specifying use of cash-in-lieu in defined circumstances rather than an either/or approach.
c. Match the parkland language to the recently adopted incentives for affordable
housing.
d. Establish procedures to address multi-phase developments to ensure follow through on park dedication requirements. e. Clarify what land is not acceptable for park dedication.
f. Clarify and establish process for parkland dedication alternatives to ensure
provision of public access.
4) Revise cash-in-lieu provisions to explicitly authorize improvements in lieu of dedication as an option. Require the City to establish a consistent land value rather than requiring each development to demonstrate a unique land value. An alternative is allowed if a
developer wishes to independently establish a value. It is expected that this will be less
expensive and faster for the developer, will provide a more consistent and predictable
value for the city in evaluating requests for acceptance of cash-in-lieu of dedication of land, and will facilitate infill projects.
5) Require public access in areas not dedicated as parks but provided to meet mitigation of
recreational impact requirements.
6) Set up procedures to allow the City Commission to delegate acceptance of cash-in-lieu or
improvements-in-lieu. A separate resolution would be required to activate the delegation. Coordinates with prior efforts of the city to enable a greater degree of administrative
reviews to simplify the development review process.
7) Clarify submittal requirements for subdivision pre-applications to address use of cash-in-
lieu.
8) Expand contents of required park plans for subdivisions. 9) Include park master plan contents with site plans when it hasn’t already been provided
with a prior subdivision. The city is receiving applications for larger apartment
complexes and other developments that did not previously have a park master plan
provided.
283
14581, Staff Report for the Mitigation to Recreation Impacts Text Amendment Page 3 of 14
There are separate City Commission resolutions and an administrative manual which will
help implement these ordinance revisions. Those are not presented at this time as they will
need to be edited as necessary to reflect any Commission directed changes to the text. They
will be presented later. See Appendix B for background information.
This set of amendments is being processed as part of the larger update to the Unified
Development Code. If approved, the changes will take effect with the overall adoption in
early 2017.
Alternatives
1) Accept the recommendation as written.
2) Direct use of alternative wording.
3) Continue the item and request additional information from staff.
4) Do not approve the amendments.
Advisory Board Action
The Zoning Commission and Planning Board held a joint public hearing on this item on
September 6, 2016. They unanimously recommended approval of the application as written.
No public comments were offered at the public hearing. For additional description of the
discussion see Appendix B. The video record of the meeting may be reviewed online
at http://www.bozeman.net/Departments/Administration/City-Commission/Streaming-
Video/Archives.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1
Unresolved Issues ............................................................................................................... 1
Project Summary ................................................................................................................. 1
Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 3
Advisory Board Action ....................................................................................................... 3
SECTION 1 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ........................................ 4
SECTION 2 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ............................................................. 4
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria ......................................................................... 5
PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS ........................................................... 7
Section 76-1-606, MCA (Effect of Growth Policy on Subdivision Regulations) .............. 8
284
14581, Staff Report for the Mitigation to Recreation Impacts Text Amendment Page 4 of 14
Section 76-3-501, MCA (Subdivision Purposes)................................................................ 9
APPENDIX A - AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY PROVISIONS ............. 10
APPENDIX B - PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND ................................... 10
APPENDIX C - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT .................................................... 13
FISCAL EFFECTS ................................................................................................................. 14
ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................... 14
SECTION 1 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS
Having considered the criteria established for a zone map amendment, the Staff recommends
approval as submitted.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the amendment on August 31,
2016. The DRC did not identify any infrastructure or regulatory constraints that would
impede the approval of the application.
The Zoning Commission and Planning Board held a joint public hearing on this text
amendment on September 6, 2016 and forward a recommendation of approval to the City
Commission. The meeting was held at 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman. The meeting began
at 6 p.m.
The City Commission will hold a public hearing on the text amendment on September 26,
2016. The meeting will be held at 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman. The meeting will begin
at 6 p.m.
SECTION 2 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In considering applications for approval under this title, the advisory boards and City
Commission shall consider the following criteria. As an amendment is a legislative action,
the Commission has broad latitude to determine a policy direction. The burden of proof that
the application should be approved lies with the applicant, in this case the City. Two sets of
criteria are provided, one for zoning and one for subdivision. As the application affects both
types of applications both sets of criteria must be evaluated.
In considering the following criteria, the analysis must show that the amendment
accomplishes zoning criteria A-D. Zoning criteria E-K must be considered and may be found
to be affirmative, neutral, or negative. A favorable decision on the proposed application must
find that the application meets all of criteria A-D and that the positive outcomes of the
amendment outweigh negative outcomes for criteria E-K. In addition, the application must be
evaluated against subdivision criteria 1-17. A favorable decision on the proposed application
285
14581, Staff Report for the Mitigation to Recreation Impacts Text Amendment Page 5 of 14
must find that the positive outcomes of the amendment outweigh negative outcomes for
criteria 1-17.
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria
A. Be in accordance with a growth policy.
Yes. The following selections of goals and objectives from the growth policy, while not
exhaustive, indicate that the proposed changes are in accord with the goals and objectives of
the growth policy. No conflicts with the growth policy have been identified.
Objective G-1.2: Ensure that adequate public facilities, services, and infrastructure are
available and/or financially guaranteed in accordance with facility or strategic plans prior
to, or concurrent with, development.
Objective G-1.3: Require development to mitigate its impacts on our community as
identified and supported by evidence during development review, including economic,
health, environmental, and social impacts.
Goal G-2: Implementation – Ensure that all regulatory and non-regulatory
implementation actions undertaken by the City to achieve the goals and objectives of this
plan are effective, fair, and are reviewed for consistency with this plan on a regular basis.
The above three items show that identification of impacts and provision of mitigation in a
manner concurrent with development is consistent with the growth policy. This set of code
amendments is improving the effectiveness and fairness by more equally matching the
amount of impact with the amount of required mitigation
Objective LU-1.4: Provide for and support infill development and redevelopment which
provides additional density of use while respecting the context of the existing
development which surrounds it. Respect for context does not automatically prohibit
difference in scale or design.
Objective LU-2.3: Encourage redevelopment and intensification, especially with mixed
uses, of brownfields and underutilized property within the City consistent with the City’s
adopted standards. Using this approach rehabilitate corridor based commercial uses into a
pattern more supportive of the principles supported by commercial centers.
The revised provisions for cash-in-lieu will make development of infill projects easier. It will
lower costs to the developer by removing the custom appraisal requirement. The creation of
the improvement-in-lieu option will allow upgrade of existing facilities to better support
additional demand from infill development. The development of mixed uses can be limited
by large area land dedications. The enhanced land dedication alternatives support the
redevelopment of brownfields. The development of new urbanized parks, like Soroptomist
Park in Downtown can result from these revisions.
286
14581, Staff Report for the Mitigation to Recreation Impacts Text Amendment Page 6 of 14
Goal R-1: Provide for accessible, desirable, and adequately maintained public parks, open
spaces, trail systems, and recreational facilities for residents of the community.
Objective R-1.7: Ensure equity in the provision of recreation facilities and programs.
Objective R-1.8: Provide clear and concise standards and requirements to ensure
predictability for all groups providing, development, and maintaining recreation facilities.
The revised standards will better fit the level of demand for service to the required
mitigation. Therefore, the level of services provided will be better maintained. The change
from a procedural trigger for mitigation to a trigger based on numbers of new dwellings will
more equitably match demand with mitigation. The standards will be more clear and
consistent from development to development.
B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not apply to this criterion.
C. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare.
Yes. Parks are consistently highly rated by the public as important for community well-
being. Parks provide for physical exercise, informal social assembly, and community events.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes a Healthy Places
website, http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/default.htm. This source discusses many issues of
community design which influence public health and welfare. Provision of parks and active
lifestyles are included in this material under the Health Topics menu. A sample of the
material is attached to demonstrate the applicability of this material.
D. Facilitate the provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other
public requirements.
Yes. The revised standards will identify the circumstances under which dedication of park
land or its equivalent will be required. The revised standards will provide additional clarity of
process and methods by which required mitigation is provided. The creation of the
improvements-in-lieu option will support improved functionality of developed parks to better
serve park users.
E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
Yes. Parks provide open areas where light and air are readily available.
F. Effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.
Neutral. Parks include sidewalks and frequently include trails. The City strives to integrate
these facilities into the non-motorized transportation system. If non-park development
occurred on the same area sidewalks would also be required.
G. Promotion of compatible urban growth.
287
14581, Staff Report for the Mitigation to Recreation Impacts Text Amendment Page 7 of 14
Neutral. The provision of parks under these amendments is associated with residential
development. Therefore, under these provisions parks will not independently be created.
Generally, the creation and development of parks according to municipal standards ensures
that new parks are of a nature that is compatible with the continued growth of the
community.
H. Character of the district.
Yes. The revisions take the existing and planned character of developed areas more into
account than the current system. The revisions improve correspondence of the standard to the
circumstances of mixed use building and infill sites while remaining applicable to greenfield
development. The addition of the improvements-in-lieu alternative enables development of
parks with a more developed urbanized character than the typical simple grassed field often
proposed currently.
I. Peculiar suitability for particular uses.
Yes. The proposed standards include explicit recognition that some area are not physically
suitable for recreational activities. By identifying these clearly, the location and design of
parks will better fit those areas best suited for them.
J. Conserving the value of buildings.
Neutral. These standards typically will not affect the value of existing building. In an
infrequent situation the additional flexibility provided by the revision may make it easier to
redevelopment an existing building.
K. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area.
Yes. As the City urbanizes and receives more mixed use building proposals the provision of
parks becomes a more complex issue. The revised regulations and associated resolution
provide additional guidance on when and where it is appropriate to provide parks. The
improvements-in-lieu provisions enable creation of parks with features and functions better
matched to the character of the area in which they are located.
PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS
IN THE CASE OF WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST SUCH CHANGES SIGNED BY THE
OWNERS OF 25% OR MORE OF THE AREA OF THE LOTS WITHIN THE AMENDMENT AREA OR THOSE LOTS OR UNITS WITHIN 150 FEET FROM A LOT INCLUDED IN A PROPOSED CHANGE, THE AMENDMENT SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE EXCEPT
BY THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRESENT AND VOTING
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION.
288
14581, Staff Report for the Mitigation to Recreation Impacts Text Amendment Page 8 of 14
Section 76-1-606, MCA (Effect of Growth Policy on Subdivision Regulations)
1. Subdivision regulations adopted after a growth policy has been adopted must be
made in accordance with the growth policy.
Yes. The amendment is in accord with the growth policy. See discussion under Criterion A
above for details.
Section 76-3-102, MCA (Subdivision Purposes)
2. Promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by regulating the
subdivision of land.
Neutral. The City’s subdivision regulations already include regulations and procedures for
subdividing land. The park land requirements are part of those regulations. The revisions will
not modify monumentation, public notice, or essential design standards. The new regulations
will be applied within the subdivision review process.
3. Prevent the overcrowding of land.
Yes. Land become overcrowded when the intensity of use is greater than the services
provided to the property. The proposed revisions are part of system which matches intensity
of mitigation to proposed intensity of use. Therefore, the ordinance will help ensure that a
given area of land has capacity to support the level of use.
4. Lessen congestion in the streets and highways.
Neutral. The proposed revisions do not change the requirement for street frontage,
construction of sidewalks, or incorporation of trails in parks. Therefore, no impact is
expected to this criterion.
5. Provide adequate light, air, water supply, sewage disposal, parks and recreation
areas, ingress and egress, and other public improvements.
Yes. The revisions apply specifically to parks and not other municipal services. This criterion
repeats several of the criteria for zoning review which are analyzed above. See criteria D-F
above for details.
The revisions include a requirement for coordination of dedication of parkland for multi-
phase developments. During the recent recession, several larger subdivisions were broken up
into smaller parts and sold independently. This complicated or prohibited the coordinated the
centralized park system originally depicted during development review. Coordination at early
stages will enable provision of parks in a manner that avoids this problem and supports
predictability for all future buyers in the final completion of facilities.
6. Require development in harmony with the natural environment.
Neutral. The proposed does not alter the basic standards for park development. No changes to
environmental regulations are included with this proposal. The regulations do require
289
14581, Staff Report for the Mitigation to Recreation Impacts Text Amendment Page 9 of 14
provision of a phase one environmental assessment for any property proposed to be
transferred to the City for park land.
7. Protect the rights of property owners.
Yes. The procedural requirements of the City’s subdivision regulations protect rights. The
proposed regulations provide an alternative for a private party to submit an alternative cash-
in-lieu valuation if they disagree with the City’s calculated value. The City will regularly
update the cash-in-lieu valuation. Providing a clear and direct process for park impact
mitigation provides substantive and procedural due process to property owners.
8. Require uniform monumentation of land subdivisions and transferring interests
in real property by reference to a plat or certificate of survey.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion.
Section 76-3-501, MCA (Subdivision Purposes)
This section requires local governments to adopt regulations that reasonably provide for:
9. Orderly development within the jurisdictional area.
Yes. The regular placement of parks within the developed pattern of the community provides
an orderly development.
10. Coordination of roads within subdivided land with other roads, both existing
and planned.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion.
11. Dedication of land for roadways and for public utility easements.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion.
12. Improvement of roads.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion.
13. Provision of adequate open spaces for travel, light, air and recreation.
Neutral. The standards for this subject are unaltered.
14. Adequate transportation, water and drainage.
Yes. The revised regulations address the contents to be submitted with a development
application. This includes an expanded description of how irrigation water will be provided
to proposed parks, information on anticipated water consumption for the park and how that
demand will be offset.
15. Regulation of sanitary facilities, subject to section 76-3-511, MCA.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion.
290
14581, Staff Report for the Mitigation to Recreation Impacts Text Amendment Page 10 of
14
16. Avoidance or minimization of congestion.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion.
17. Avoidance of subdivision which would involve unnecessary environmental
degradation and the avoidance of danger or injury to health, safety, or welfare by
reason of nature hazard or the lack of water, drainage, access, transportation, or other
public services or would necessitate an excessive expenditure of public funds for the
supply of such services.
Yes. The proposed amendments clarify what property is not suitable for dedication of park
land. This will avoid danger or potential injury by removing hazardous areas from park use.
The proposed amendments also address mitigation of water demand.
APPENDIX A - AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY
PROVISIONS
Zoning Designation and Land Uses:
The development of residential uses creates demand for park and recreation services.
Residential uses at some level are allowed in all zoning districts. Therefore, the mitigation of
these impacts must be generally applicable to all forms of development review.
The proposed amendments address all forms of development and improve equity in
mitigation.
Adopted Growth Policy Designation:
The proposal applies to all parks constructed anywhere in town. Not all parks are specifically
designated in the future land use map of the growth policy. For discussion on accord with the
growth policy see zoning criterion A.
APPENDIX B - PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Project Background: New development must mitigate (offset) its impact on the City’s
recreation system. There are several ways this can occur but the two most common are
dedicating land for parks or payment of money. The City has had a long standing preference
for dedication of land but has set payment of money as the preferred option for the B-3
district. Chapter 38.27 addresses this issue. These amendments address three broad issues.
1) The last substantial overhaul of the recreation mitigation system occurred in 2004. Since
that time, the nature of development applications has changed with a substantial increase in
the number of infill and larger scale apartment complexes. There has been an increase in the
291
14581, Staff Report for the Mitigation to Recreation Impacts Text Amendment Page 11 of
14
number of mixed use applications and residential development within the commercial zoning
districts. There have also been changes in state law which affect this issue.
The current standards are based on limits from state law. Specifically, in 2004, the existing
state law prohibited park mitigation from minor subdivisions, those having five or fewer lots.
The presumption in the state law was than each lot has only a single house on it. In the City’s
zoning standards, a single building with up to four homes in it can be constructed as a sketch
plan which is an expedited review and does not require park mitigation. A site plan is
required for any residential development that constructs more than one building on a single
lot. In 2004, such two dwelling site plans were very rare. The City receives hundreds of
development applications a year. There are very few times when such extreme results occur.
The state has since authorized local governments to decide for themselves whether to exempt
minor subdivisions from parkland mitigation requirements. This change enables the City to
create a more accurate system of park mitigation. The City strives to have its regulations be
equitable in any mitigation requirement.
The proposed regulations establish a mitigation process which is based on the number of new
homes rather than on the development review process. This increases equality of treatment and
effectiveness of mitigation. The City Commission had a work session on this issue on October
30, 2014. The proposed revisions are consistent with the direction given by the Commission at
that time.
292
14581, Staff Report for the Mitigation to Recreation Impacts Text Amendment Page 12 of
14
2) The key element in setting this new approach is at what level mitigation is required. The City
could require that the first new home triggers mitigation. The proposed regulation exempts
projects creating only one new home. This would support smaller infill project such as accessory
dwelling units or conversion of a single home to a duplex. As written, projects creating two or
more new homes will mitigate their impacts. The same cap on total mitigation to not exceed 12
dwellings per acre remains in place.
In the discussion by the Zoning Commission and Planning Board the question of when to begin
mitigation was discussed in some detail. No motion was made to adjust the current proposal.
However, there was discussion regarding potential impacts on infill projects if mitigation was
required at low levels of intensification. There was also some discussion of cumulative impacts
from many small projects in the absence of mitigation.
The acceptability of mitigation being triggered at low levels of additional homes is affected by
the proposed changes for cash-in-lieu of parkland. Presently, there is a material effort required by
the developer to obtain pricing and additional time required in the process. If the proposed
changes are adopted the time and money required will be substantially reduced since an
independent appraisal will not be required. This facilitates infill development which may be, but
is not always, smaller in scale due to land constraints. See further discussion below.
3) The state law authorizing mitigation of parkland impacts includes alternatives to dedication of
land to the city. The most commonly used is payment of money instead of land dedication. The
proposed regulations propose two alterations to how this is addressed. First, how the valuation of
land is established. Second, creating the opportunity for the mitigation to be provided by
provision of improvements to parks instead of paying cash.
The current valuation system relies upon the developer to provide an appraisal by a real estate
appraiser. The City can determine to accept or not the valuation if it doesn’t consider the
appraisal accurate. This system ensures a custom valuation with greater precision to an
individual project. It requires time and additional expenditure by the developer and the effort to
establish a valuation for a smaller project is high compared to the amount of the mitigation
payment.
The proposed revisions change the valuation process to have the City establish a single value
which is used for all projects. This simplifies the process for both the developer and the City and
reduces overall cost. This is especially beneficial for smaller projects. If a developer disagrees
with the established value, they can still provide an independent appraisal. This approach is
recommended to pair with the low trigger point for mitigation as it makes the process for smaller
projects more streamlined and less costly. The City retains its general preference for dedication
of land, however for smaller projects that may not be desirable. The Commission has also
established cash-in-lieu as the default option for higher densities of development once past a
threshold of density that varies by district. In the past five years, the City has processed 78
residential site plan applications. Of those applications 14 paid cash-in-lieu of parkland.
293
14581, Staff Report for the Mitigation to Recreation Impacts Text Amendment Page 13 of
14
One of the anticipated future Commission resolutions is for the Commission to adopt written
guidelines for when money in place of land dedication is appropriate. The Commission can use
this tool to limit excessive use of cash-in-lieu.
The idea for improvements-in-lieu is to facilitate direct improvements to existing and proposed
parks to deliver improved services more quickly. The proposed process works by first
establishing a valuation for the amount of land not dedicated. This valuation then becomes the
baseline against which the proposed improvements are evaluated. The proposed improvements
must equal or exceed the valuation. The City has done several pilot projects utilizing this
approach and it has been successful.
The City is seeing an increased number of applications for infill and mixed use projects. These
are typically site plan type applications rather than subdivisions. The street and lot patterns for
these types of applications are established and there is less flexibility to dedicate land than there
is for a typical residential subdivision. Subdivisions for commercial property do not provide
parkland. Therefore, later mixed use or residential projects may find it difficult to set land aside.
Currently, all projects in the B-3 district are allowed to use cash-in-lieu. Most other projects must
demonstrate that land dedication should not be provided. Payment of cash-in-lieu is required in
some circumstances outside of the B-3 district for higher densities of development.
The City Commission makes this determination. As the nature of applications change additional
flexibility is desirable. The proposed revisions include authorization for the Commission to
choose to delegate the decision to accept cash-in-lieu under conditions they deem appropriate.
Additional documents will be presented to the City Commission to implement these changes. If
these changes are approved, the staff will prepare a resolution to establish criteria for evaluating
cash-in-lieu of parkland requests and a resolution for the Commission to determine if and under
what conditions they wish to delegate determinations of cash-in-lieu to the staff. An
administrative procedures manual for the Parks department will also be created to document the
process for establishing valuations and other administration of the park mitigation process.
APPENDIX C - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Noticing for amendments to the municipal code is provided by publication of a legal ad in the
Bozeman Daily Chronicle. Publication for this amendment was done on August 21st and
September 4, 2016. No public comments were received at the public hearing. No public
comments have been received as of the writing of this report.
294
14581, Staff Report for the Mitigation to Recreation Impacts Text Amendment Page 14 of
14
FISCAL EFFECTS
No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by
this amendment. The City will incur periodic costs to administer the process. The only new cost
will be the one to establish valuation of land for cash-in-lieu.
ATTACHMENTS
The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development
Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
Draft Amendment Text (two copies, one with existing numbering and one with future UDC
numbering but the same words)
Planning Board resolution
Planning Board minutes
CDC article
295
Page 1 of 18
(Unified Development Code revision element 2A, Parkland)
DESCRIPTION: REVISING SECTION 38.06.040, BMC TO AMEND SUBDIVISION
CERTIFICATES FOR DEDICATION OF PARKLAND; SECTION 38.27.020, BMC, PARK
AREA AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS; SECTION 38.27.030, BMC, CASH
DONATION IN-LIEU OF PARK DEDICATION; SECTION 38.27.100, BMC, WAIVERS OF
REQUIRED PARK DEDICATION; SECTION 38.34.010 REGARDING REVIEW AND
APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR CASH DONATION -IN-LIEU OF PARK; AND REVISING
SECTIONS 38.41.030 AND 38.41.060 TO EXPAND THE REQUIRED CONTENT OF A PARK
MASTER PLAN.
WHEREAS, Section 76-3-621, MCA requires the provision of parks or an equivalent as
a component of subdivision; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-304, MCA includes provisions of parks as part of the
purposes for municipal zoning but does not give specific criteria; and
WHEREAS, there are greater equities and efficiencies and reliability of process if both
subdivision and zoning based provision of parkland use the same standards and procedures; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Montana Legislature adopted changes to the Montana Subdivision
and Platting Act, Title 76, Chapter 3, MCA to allow park land dedication requirements for minor
subdivisions.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA:
Section 1
Legislative Findings:
296
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 2 of 18
1. The City relies upon the standards and definitions within Chapter 38, BMC to enable the
development of the City in a manner which avoids conflicts, enables public notice of and
comment on development which may affect residents and land owners, and provide
predictability in government actions.
2. There is an advantage to making regulations as clear and readily understood as possible.
3. It is important to keep the regulations in compliance with the state statutes.
4. The community need for a particular regulation will vary over time, and therefore it is
appropriate to reevaluate the adopted standards from time to time.
5. There is no material difference in public recreational needs of new homes whether they
are reviewed through the City’s subdivision or zoning authority and processes.
6. There should be an individualized analysis of the application of impact mitigation
requirements to ensure that mitigation is rationally related and proportional to the impact
of development.
7. It is reasonable to create a recreational impact mitigation program that addresses the
varied scope of developments.
Section 2
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising Section 38.06.040 to read as
follows:
A. Cash-in-lieu of park land. Where there will be a cash donation in-lieu of park land dedication,
plats of subdivision shall show the following certificate:
CERTIFICATE ACCEPTING CASH DONATION IN-LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION
In as much as dedication of park land within the platted area of (Subdivision Name) would be
undesirable for park and playground purposes, it is hereby ordered by the city commission of the
City of Bozeman, that land dedication for park purposes be waived and that cash-in-lieu, in the
amount of ____________ dollars, be accepted in accordance with the provisions of the Montana,
297
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 3 of 18
Subdivision and Platting Act (MCA 76-3-101 through 76-3-625) and the Bozeman Municipal
Code.
DATED this ____________ day of ____________, ____________.
(Signature)_______________________________
City of Bozeman Director of Parks and Recreation Public Works
B. Off-site park land dedication. Where park land will be provided off-site, in accordance with
section 38.27.100.A.4 or 5, plats of subdivision shall show the following certificate:
CERTIFICATE ACCEPTING OFF-SITE PARK LAND DEDICATION
In as much as an alternative to dedication of park land, for park and playground purposes within
the platted area of (Subdivision Name), would be desirable, it is hereby ordered by the city
commission of the City of Bozeman that land dedication for park purpose be provided off-site with
land outside of the platted area of (Subdivision Name) in accordance with the provisions of the
Montana Subdivision and Platting Act (MCA 76-3-101 through 76-3-625), and the Bozeman
Municipal Code. The off-site park land dedication will be provided with the following described
tract(s) of land or easement(s) to wit:
Description
(Exterior Boundary Description of Area Contained in Plat/Easement and Total Acreage)
DATED this ____________ day of ____________, ____________.
(Signature)_______________________________
City of Bozeman Director of Parks and Recreation Public Works
298
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 4 of 18
C. Park land dedication to School District 7. Where park land will be provided in accordance with
section 38.27.100.A.6, plats of subdivision shall show the following certificate:
CERTIFICATE ACCEPTING PARK LAND DEDICATION TO SCHOOL DISTRICT 7
In as much as an alternative to dedication of park land, for park and playground purposes within
the platted area of (Subdivision Name), would be desirable, it is hereby ordered by the city
commission of the City of Bozeman that required land dedication for park purposes be met with
land dedicated to School District 7 in accordance with the provisions of the Montana Subdivision
and Platting Act (MCA 76-3-101 et seq.), and the Bozeman Municipal Code. If School District 7
chooses to no longer use the land for school buildings and facilities, the ownership of the land shall
revert to the City of Bozeman for park purposes and School District 7 shall transfer the land to the
city with clear title and in a condition meeting the minimum development standards for parks
established in section 38.27.080. The land dedication will be provided with the following described
tract(s) of land, to wit:
Description
(Exterior Boundary Description of Area Contained in Plat and Total Acreage)
DATED this ____________ day of ____________, ____________.
(Signature) ______________________________
City of Bozeman Director of Parks and Recreation Public Works
(Signature)
Chairman, School District 7 Board of Trustees
Section 3
299
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 5 of 18
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising Section 38.27.020 to read as
follows:
38.27.020. – Park area and open space requirements.
The requirements of this article are based on the community need for parks and the
development densities identified in the growth policy and this chapter.
A. The area required by this subsection shall be provided as a land dedication unless an alternate
method of compliance is approved by the review authority. The required area or its
equivalent may be provided by any combination of land dedication, cash donation in-lieu of
land dedication, or an alternative authorized by section 38.27.100, subject to the standards of
this chapter.
1. When the net residential density of development is known, 0.03 acre per dwelling unit of
land shall be provided.
a. Net residential density of development is known when a plat or site plan depicts a set
number of lots and the final number of residential units or maximum occupancy of
group quarters at full buildout can be reasonably determined.
b. When the net residential density of development is known at the time of preliminary
plat or site plan and If net residential density is in excess of eight dwellings per acre,
the requirement for dedication for that density above eight dwellings per acre shall be
met with a cash donation in-lieu of the additional land unless specifically determined
otherwise by the review authority.
b. These requirements are based on the community need for parks and the development
densities identified in the growth policy and this chapter.
c. Net residential density of development is known when a plat or site plan depicts a set
number of lots and the final number of residential units or occupants at full buildout
can be reasonably determined.
d. When developed as group quarters, such as group living or community residential
facilities, rather than individual dwelling units living, in lieu of 0.03 acres per
dwelling unit, an area of 575 square feet per resident shall be provided up to a limit of
27 persons per net acre.
300
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 6 of 18
e. The required area Land dedication or its equivalent shall not be required for
any residential density dwelling units or group quarters occupancy in excess of the
following:
(1) For development within the R-1, R-2, and R-MH zoning districts, the maximum
net residential density shall be ten dwellings units or 22.5 persons in group
quarters per acre.
(2) For development within the R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O, and REMU zoning districts, the
maximum net residential density shall be 12 dwellings units or 27 persons in
group quarters per acre.
(3) For development within other zoning districts not previously specified and
developed for residential uses, the maximum net residential density shall be 12
dwellings units or 27 persons in group quarters per acre; or.
2. If net residential density of development is unknown, 0.03 acres per dwelling unit of land
dedication or its equivalent shall be provided as follows:
a. For initial subdivision or other development:
(1) For development Wwithin the R-1, R-2, and R-MH zoning districts: an area equal
to that required for six dwellings units or 13.5 persons in group quarters per net
acre.
(2) For development Wwithin the R-3, R-4, R-5, REMU, and unless legally restricted
from residential uses the R-O zoning districts, and REMU,: an area equal to that
required for eight dwellings units or 13.5 persons in group quarters per net acre.
(3) For development Wwithin other zoning districts not previously specified
and which are intended for residential development,: the equivalent to an area
dedication for six dwellings units or 13.5 persons in group quarters per net acre
shall be provided as cash-in-lieu.
b. For subsequent development when net residential density becomes known, the net
residential density per acre above the minimum established above must shall be
rounded to the nearest whole number and applied as shown in the following table. All
prior provision of parkland for the project site shall count towards the maximum
required dedication. follows:
301
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 7 of 18
(1) For development within the R-1, R-2, and R-MH zoning districts the land area
equivalent for the additional net residential density not to exceed a total, including
prior dedications, of ten dwellings per acre shall be provided as cash-in-lieu.
(2) For development within the R-3, R-4, R-O, and REMU zoning districts the land
area equivalent for the additional net residential density not to exceed a total,
including prior dedications, of 12 dwellings per acre shall be provided as cash-in-
lieu.
(3) For development within other zoning districts not previously specified and
developed for residential uses for the additional net residential density not to
exceed a total, including prior dedications, of 12 dwellings per acre shall be
provided as cash-in-lieu.
(4) When developed as group living, in lieu of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit, an area of
575 square feet per resident shall be provided up to a limit of 27 persons per net
acre.
Zoning District Required Dedication
per dwelling
Maximum Required Dedication
per Acre
Cash-in-lieu
Required
R-1, R-2, R-MH .03 acres or
equivalent
10 dwellings Yes
R-3, R-4, R-5,
R-O, and
REMU
.03 acres or
equivalent
12 dwellings Yes
All other
districts
.03 acres or
equivalent
12 dwellings Yes
Required Area per
Person
Maximum Required Dedication
per Net Acre
Group quarters
(all districts)
575 square feet or
equivalent
27 persons Yes
302
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 8 of 18
3. Applicability to site plans. Section 38.27.020.A.2, shall not apply to subsequent site plan
development located within major subdivisions which received preliminary plat approval
after July 1, 1973, and which received final plat approval prior to October 1, 2005.
4. Special case. The city has established chapter 38, article 43, to encourage the provision and development of affordable housing. Reductions in required parkland dedication are established in 38.43.110. The reductions in park land dedication to conform to chapter 38, article 43, may not reduce the development's park land requirements below the minimum established by MCA 76-3-621.
a. The minimum number of workforce housing units required to comply with chapter 38, article 43, are exempt from the park land dedication requirements of this article. Dwellings resulting from the density bonus provisions of section 10.08.070.1 are
exempt from the park land dedication requirements. Workforce housing units in excess of the minimum number shall provide park land on the same basis as other
development.
b. The park land requirement for development not otherwise exempted from dedication requirements shall be reduced by a 1:1 ratio based on the minimum required square
footage of the lot area necessary to provide minimum compliance with chapter 38, article 43. For example, if 50,000 square feet of lots for workforce housing units are
required then there shall be a reduction in the required park land area of 50,000 square feet.
(1) If the developer chooses to develop more than the required number or area of
workforce housing unit lots, the additional lot area square footage above the minimum required shall not further reduce the park land area.
(2) The reduction of park land shall be allowed for WHUs and/or lots provided offsite of the responsible development but only to the extent of the required WHU lot area for the development applying for this park land offset and only applied on the site of the development applying for the park land offset.
c. The reductions in park land dedication to conform to chapter 38, article 43, may not reduce the development's park land requirements below the minimum established by MCA 76-3-621.
B. Exceptions. Land dedication or its equivalent cash donation in-lieu of land dedication
shall not be required for:
1. A minor subdivision.
2.1. Land proposed for subdivision into parcels larger than five acres unless those
parcels are zoned for residential use or are planned for residential use through a
development application. Development of a parcel larger than five acres may require
parkland dedication pursuant to 38.27.020.C.
303
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 9 of 18
32. Subdivision into parcels which are all nonresidential.
43. A subdivision in which parcels are not created, except when that subdivision provides
permanent multiple spaces for recreational camping vehicles or manufactured homes.
5 4. A subdivision in which only one additional parcel is being created. Development
of the additional parcel may require parkland dedication pursuant to 38.27.020.C.
6. An application reviewed under section 38.19.070.
4 5. A development for which the required amount of park land is shown to have
already been provided.
5 6. Section 38.27.020.A.2, shall not apply to subsequent site development located
within major subdivisions which received preliminary plat approval after July 1, 1973,
and which received final plat approval prior to October 1, 2005.
6 7. Development creating only one additional dwelling unit or increasing occupancy
of group quarters by up to four additional persons.
C. Development on land initially exempted from park dedication is required to provide park
dedication if further development of the site does not continue to meet the criteria for
exemption. Development of a lot previously exempted from park dedication must be
reviewed pursuant to this article. If the lot is no longer exempt from the park dedication
requirement the development is subject to 38.27.020.A.
D. Residential site plans. For residential site plans unless otherwise provided through the
subdivision or planned unit development review process, is an amount of park land or its
equivalent equal to that required by section 38.27.020 for the proposed number of dwelling
units set aside within the project boundaries, and configured for active recreational use by the
residents of the project; or has the developer proposed to provide its equivalent as may
otherwise be allowed by this chapter.
E. Residential Site plans that include residential use; open space requirement. Site plans
containing five or more dwelling units and including dwelling units which do not have
ground floor access to a landscaped rear yard shall provide on-site open space for the use of
the residents. The area to be provided is calculated only for those dwellings which do not
have ground floor access to a landscaped rear yard, as follows:. Open space shall be provided
at a rate of 150 square feet per dwelling unit for dwellings with two or more bedrooms, and
Commented [COB1]: Determination needed as to whether we want to exempt ADUs, accessory
commercial dwellings, CRF or to treat them as all other homes. Viability of lower requirement depends on whether there is a City established value. Provides exemption for very small projects. Point of emphasis and discussion during the Commission and public review.
304
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 10 of 18
100 square feet per dwelling unit for studio and one bedroom dwellings. All landscaped
areas, public plazas or common green roof decks shall be considered a "commons" and be
accessible to all residents of the site. The requirement may be met through the use of any of
the following options. Options may be combined to satisfy the area requirement.
1. Landscaped. The required area shall:
a. Be configured in areas of not less than 600 square feet in area; and
b. Have at least one minimum dimension of 25 feet. Upon a showing that a superior
design will result, the city may allow up to a 20 percent reduction in the minimum
dimension so long as the space does not exceed a length to width ration ratio of 1:3,
and
c. Have a slope of ten percent or less; and
d. Not have nonrecreational structures or detention/retention ponds; and
e. Provide the equivalent seating area of two benches, each four feet in length, which do
not obstruct its use; and
f. Area shall be centralized within the project with a clear pedestrian connection from
all served dwelling units; or
g. Properties adjacent to a park, trail or other open space amenity shall be configured in
such a manner as to complement and relate to the adjacent open space facilities; and
2. Common plaza or common green roof deck. Area provided through this means may be
used to meet the performance requirements of article 26 of this chapter, Landscaping.
The required area shall:
a. Meet a minimum size of 225 square feet; and
b. Have a minimum dimension of 15 feet. Upon a showing that a superior design will
result, the city may allow up to a 20 percent reduction in the minimum dimension so
long as the space does not exceed a length to ration ratio of 1:3; and
c. Be fully surfaced with scored concrete, architectural pavers, or other alternative high
quality surfacing; and
d. Area must have a slope of two percent or less;
e. Provide one of the following:
305
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 11 of 18
(1) Option 1, a minimum of two benches and two permanent irrigated planters with a
cumulative area of not less than 40 square feet;
(2) Option 2, two benches and a shade structure that would cover 50 percent of the
plaza area;
(3) Option 3, a fountain of at least ten square feet with integrated seating around
fountain perimeter; or
f. For green roof deck credit the area shall include 25 percent of the surface planted
with rooftop landscaping (trays or full depth soil);
3. Private patio or private green roof deck. The required area shall:
a. Have a minimum dimension of eight feet. Upon a showing that a superior design will
result, the city may allow up to a 20 percent reduction in the minimum dimension so
long as the space does not exceed a length to ration ratio of 1:3; and
b. Be surrounded by minimum 18 inch masonry screen element wall;
c. Green roof deck shall include 25 percent of the surface planted with rooftop
landscaping (trays or full depth soil);
4. Private individual balconies shall have minimum dimensions of six feet by six feet.
F. To ensure coordination when parks are being created by a multiphase development, the entire
park land dedication shall be accomplished at the time of the initial phase of the
development. If necessary, this may be accomplished through the grant of public access
easements on later phases.
G. The following land is unacceptable for park land dedication:
1. Required watercourse setbacks unless approved by the review authority for incorporation
into the design of the larger park area.
2. Stormwater retention or detention ponds unless approved by the review authority and
designed and constructed to the city’s adopted standards for joint park/stormwater control
use. The city may accept such land for dedication to the city but shall be maintained by
the property owners association unless and until responsibility is assumed by affirmative
action of the city.
3. Land with a grade of 25 percent or greater unless the City Commission makes specific
findings in its favor as part of the adoption of a park master plan.
306
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 12 of 18
4. Other land such as land slides, rock falls, or subsidence areas, debris deposition areas,
environmentally contaminated areas, and land containing deteriorated structures or other
public or private nuisances, unless the review authority determines the hazards or
excessive public burdens can be eliminated or will be overcome by appropriate design
and construction plans.
H. When land offered for dedication as park land to the city exceeds the amount required the
additional usable land may be dedicated to the city in the same manner and subject to the
same standards as minimum required areas.
I. Public Use. Land donated or dedicated to meet the requirements of this section shall be
provided for public use. The developer must execute the appropriate public access easements
on privately-owned common land. The easements shall be held by the city. The city's
responsibilities for park land dedicated by easement shall be the same as for fee simple park
land dedication.
Section 4
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding to Section 38.27.030 to read as
follows:
Sec. 38.27.030. - Cash donation in-lieu of land dedication.
A. The review authority may determine whether the park dedication must be a land dedication,
cash donation in-lieu of land dedication or a combination of both. For the purposes of this
section construction of park improvements above the minimum improvements required by
ordinance may be allowed as a method of cash donation. When making this determination,
the review authority shall consider the factors established by resolution of the City
Commission. following:
1. The desirability and suitability of land for parks and playgrounds based on size,
topography, shape, location or other circumstances; and
2. The expressed preference of the developer.
307
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 13 of 18
3. Location of the site within the B-3 zoning district. The city commission has determined
that cash-in-lieu of land dedication is the default method to satisfy the requirements of
38.27.020.A within the B-3 zoning district. The approval authority of a development
within the B-3 zoning district is as governed by 38.34.010.
B. When a combination of land dedication and cash donation in-lieu of land dedication is
required, the required cash donation may not exceed the proportional amount of the total
required mitigation not covered by the land dedication. Nothing in this section prohibits a
developer from offering more than the required minimum.
C. Cash donation in-lieu of land dedication must be equal to the fair market value of the amount
of land that would have been dedicated. For the purpose of these regulations, the The fair
market value is the value of the unsubdivided, unimproved land after it has been annexed and
given an urban municipal zoning designation. The city intends to obtain the highest value for
cash-in-lieu of park land that is allowable under state law.
The city commission may adopt procedures to be used by the director of parks and recreation
to determine the fair market value. The amount of the cash-in-lieu to be provided must equal
the city’s established fair market value per square foot times the amount of land required to
be dedicated. The city must periodically update the market value as deemed necessary to
reflect changes in the price of land. The valuation used for calculating the amount due will be
the valuation in effect at the time an application for final plat or final plan approval is
complete.
1. Alternative. A developer may provide an alternate market valuation which complies with
the following:
a. 1. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to provide an appraisal of the fair market
value by a certified real estate appraiser of their choosing. The appraisal fee shall be the
responsibility of the developer.
b. 2. When a land value must be established for cash-in-lieu of land dedication to satisfy the
requirements of section 38.27.020, and the value of the land in an unsubdivided,
unimproved, but annexed and zoned condition cannot reasonably be determined, the
developer may provide an appraisal of residentially zoned property with a zoning
designation that allows the density of dwellings proposed for development.
308
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 14 of 18
c. 3. The appraisal provided for the purpose of section 38.27.030 shall be conducted not
sooner than 90 days prior to the submittal of an application for final plat or final site plan
approval.
D. Where a cash donation has been accepted in-lieu of land dedication, the amount of cash
donation shall be stated on the final plat or plan as appropriate.
E. Where a cash payment or construction of improvements donation has been accepted in-lieu of
land dedication, the city shall record in the meeting minutes or other written decision why the
dedication of land for parks and playgrounds was undesirable.
F. Use of cash donations.
1. The city shall use a cash donation for development or acquisition of parks to serve the
development.
2. The city may use the cash donation to acquire or develop parks or recreational areas within
its jurisdiction or for the purchase of public open space or conservation easements, only
if:
a. The park, recreational area, open space or conservation easement is within a reasonably
close proximity to the proposed development; and
b. The city commission has formally adopted a citywide park plan that establishes the
needs and procedures for use of the cash donation.
Section 5
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 38.27.100.B to read as
follows:
B. Section 38.27.020 requires mitigation of recreational impacts, usually by dedication of land
for parks. Under defined circumstances in this section the required dedication may be waived.
However, the underlying issue of mitigating recreational impacts must be addressed. If an
application provides one or more of the alternatives under Paragraph A of this section then the
required mitigation has been partially provided. To complete the mitigation, the alternative to
land dedication shall allow public access. The developer must execute the appropriate public
309
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 15 of 18
access easements in a form acceptable to the City Attorney prior to final approval of the
development. The easements shall be held by the city.
Section 6
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising paragraph 38.34.010.A.1 to read
as follows with the remainder of the section to remain as presently written:
A. The city commission has the right to review and require revisions to all development proposals
subject to this chapter, and delegates that authority in certain circumstances as set forth below.
The purpose of this review is to prevent demonstrable adverse impacts of the development
upon public safety, health or general welfare, or to provide for its mitigation; to protect public
investments in roads, drainage facilities, sewage facilities, water facilities, and other facilities;
to conserve the value of adjoining buildings and/or property; to protect the character of the
city; to protect the right of use of property; advance the purposes and standards of this chapter
and the adopted growth policy; and to ensure that the applicable regulations of the city are
upheld.
1. The city commission retains to itself under all circumstances the review of the following:
a. Subdivisions which do not qualify as a subdivision exemption per article 5 of this
chapter;
b. Amendments to the text of this chapter or amendment to the zoning map;
c. Determination to accept cash-in-lieu of park land dedications, except: in the B-3 zone
district;
(1) In the B-3 zone district; or
(2) When by resolution the City Commission delegates decisions on cash-in-lieu for
development for which it would not otherwise be the review authority.
d. Extensions of subdivision preliminary plat approvals for periods greater than two years;
e. Planned unit development preliminary plans and major amendments to planned unit
developments;
310
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 16 of 18
f. Conduct public hearing for applications under 76-2-402, MCA;
g. Appeals from administrative interpretations and final project review decisions;
h. Approval of park master plans;
i. Large scale retail per section 38.22.180; and
j. Exceptions to installation of bikeways and boulevard trails per 38.24.110.E.
Section 7
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising paragraph 38.41.030.A.10 to read
as follows:
10. Parks and recreation facilities. The following information shall be provided for all land
proposed to meet park land dedication requirements:
a. Park concept plan, including:
(1) Site plan for the entire property; and
(2) The zoning and ownership for adjacent properties; and
(3) The location of any critical lands (wetlands, riparian areas, streams, etc.); and
(4) General description of land, including size, terrain, details of location and
history, water features, and proposed activities; and
(5) Description of trails or other recreational features proposed to connect the proposed
park area to other park or open space areas.
b. If the applicant intends to request approval of cash-in-lieu, a response to the cash-in-
lieu review factors.
Section 8
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding to Section 38.41.060.A.16 to read
as follows:
a. Park master plan. A park plan, including:
(1) Site plan with one-foot contour topographic survey for the entire property; showing
developer installed improvements on the initial park plan and proposed future
improvements on the future park plan, and phasing proposed if any;
(2) Drainage areas;
311
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 17 of 18
(3) Utilities within, serving, and adjacent to the property;
(4) The zoning and ownership for adjacent properties;
(5) The location of any critical lands (wetlands, riparian areas, streams, etc.) and
location of watercourse setbacks and any permits from non-city agencies required
to execute the proposed plan;
(6) Park landscaping plan, prepared by a qualified landscape professional in
accordance with section 38.41.100, showing the location and specific types and
species of plants, shrubs, trees as well as grass seed mixes and the irrigation system
including but not limited to identification of water source, points of connection,
mains, laterals, valves, zones, and sprinkler heads;
(7) General description of land, including size, terrain, details of location and
history, water features, and proposed activities;
(8) Trail design and construction showing compliance with adopted city standards and
trail classifications;
(9) The requirement for approval of the final park master plan by the review authority
with a recommendation from the city recreation and parks advisory board prior to
any site work;
(10) The requirement for a preconstruction meeting prior to any site work;
(11) Appropriate sections from the design guidelines for city parks;
(12) Cost estimate, and installation phasing and responsibility, and maintenance plan
tasks and responsibility for all improvements;
(13) If playground equipment will be provided, information including the
manufacturer, installation data and specifications, installer, type of fall zone
surfacing and age group intended for use shall be provided; and
(14) Soils information and analysis;.
(15) A description of how the proposed park master plan is consistent with the goals of
the City’s long range parks plan;
(16) A description of how the proposed park will meet the recreational needs of the
residents of the development;
312
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 18 of 18
(17) The proposed manner of providing irrigation to the park including water source,
amount of water expected to be consumed annually, and proposed manner of
transfer of water facilities and rights to the city; and
(18) A phase I environmental assessment of the area proposed to be transferred to the
City of Bozeman or property owner’s association.
b. Park maintenance.
(1) Maintenance information, including levels of maintenance, a maintenance schedule, and responsible parties;
(2) Weed control plan, including responsible parties; and
(3) Plan for garbage collection, snow removal and leaf removal including responsible parties.
c. Irrigation information.
(1) An irrigation system map generally showing the locations and types of lines, including depth, water source, heads, electric valves, quick couplers, drains and control box; and
(2) If a well will be used for irrigation, a certified well log shall be submitted showing depth of well, gpm, pump type and size, voltage, water rights, etc.
d. Phasing. If improvements will be phased, a phasing plan shall be provided including
proposed financing methods and responsibilities.
e. Cash-in-lieu. If the development includes a proposal for cash-in-lieu of park a specific justification responding to the cash-in-lieu review factors established by resolution of
the City Commission. If improvements-in-lieu are proposed specific costs of proposed improvements and costs to install shall be provided.
Section 9
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding to Section 38.41.080.A2 to read as
follows:
r. When 38.27.020 requires parkland dedication in association with a site plan, and cash-in-
lieu of parkland will not be provided, the materials required by 38.41.060.A.16 must be
provided.
313
Page 1 of 18
(Unified Development Code revision element 2A, Parkland)
DESCRIPTION: REVISING SECTION 38.240.290, BMC TO AMEND SUBDIVISION
CERTIFICATES FOR DEDICATION OF PARKLAND; SECTION 38.420.020, BMC, PARK
AREA AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS; SECTION 38. 420.030, BMC, CASH
DONATION IN-LIEU OF PARK DEDICATION; SECTION 38.420.100, BMC, WAIVERS OF
REQUIRED PARK DEDICATION; SECTION 38.200.010 REGARDING REVIEW AND
APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR CASH DONATION -IN-LIEU OF PARK; AND REVISING
SECTIONS 38.220.030 AND 38.220.060 TO EXPAND THE REQUIRED CONTENT OF A
PARK MASTER PLAN.
WHEREAS, Section 76-3-621, MCA requires the provision of parks or an equivalent as
a component of subdivision; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-304, MCA includes provisions of parks as part of the
purposes for municipal zoning but does not give specific criteria; and
WHEREAS, there are greater equities and efficiencies and reliability of process if both
subdivision and zoning based provision of parkland use the same standards and procedures; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Montana Legislature adopted changes to the Montana Subdivision
and Platting Act, Title 76, Chapter 3, MCA to allow park land dedication requirements for minor
subdivisions.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA:
Section 1
Legislative Findings:
314
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 2 of 18
1. The City relies upon the standards and definitions within Chapter 38, BMC to enable the
development of the City in a manner which avoids conflicts, enables public notice of and
comment on development which may affect residents and land owners, and provide
predictability in government actions.
2. There is an advantage to making regulations as clear and readily understood as possible.
3. It is important to keep the regulations in compliance with the state statutes.
4. The community need for a particular regulation will vary over time, and therefore it is
appropriate to reevaluate the adopted standards from time to time.
5. There is no material difference in public recreational needs of new homes whether they
are reviewed through the City’s subdivision or zoning authority and processes.
6. There should be an individualized analysis of the application of impact mitigation
requirements to ensure that mitigation is rationally related and proportional to the impact
of development.
7. It is reasonable to create a recreational impact mitigation program that addresses the
varied scope of developments.
Section 2
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising Section 38.240.290 to read as
follows:
A. Cash-in-lieu of park land. Where there will be a cash donation in-lieu of park land dedication,
plats of subdivision shall show the following certificate:
CERTIFICATE ACCEPTING CASH DONATION IN-LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION
In as much as dedication of park land within the platted area of (Subdivision Name) would be
undesirable for park and playground purposes, it is hereby ordered by the city commission of the
City of Bozeman, that land dedication for park purposes be waived and that cash-in-lieu, in the
amount of ____________ dollars, be accepted in accordance with the provisions of the Montana,
315
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 3 of 18
Subdivision and Platting Act (MCA 76-3-101 through 76-3-625) and the Bozeman Municipal
Code.
DATED this ____________ day of ____________, ____________.
(Signature)_______________________________
City of Bozeman Director of Parks and Recreation Public Works
B. Off-site park land dedication. Where park land will be provided off-site, in accordance with
section 38.420.100.A.4 or 5, plats of subdivision shall show the following certificate:
CERTIFICATE ACCEPTING OFF-SITE PARK LAND DEDICATION
In as much as an alternative to dedication of park land, for park and playground purposes within
the platted area of (Subdivision Name), would be desirable, it is hereby ordered by the city
commission of the City of Bozeman that land dedication for park purpose be provided off-site with
land outside of the platted area of (Subdivision Name) in accordance with the provisions of the
Montana Subdivision and Platting Act (MCA 76-3-101 through 76-3-625), and the Bozeman
Municipal Code. The off-site park land dedication will be provided with the following described
tract(s) of land or easement(s) to wit:
Description
(Exterior Boundary Description of Area Contained in Plat/Easement and Total Acreage)
DATED this ____________ day of ____________, ____________.
(Signature)_______________________________
City of Bozeman Director of Parks and Recreation Public Works
316
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 4 of 18
C. Park land dedication to School District 7. Where park land will be provided in accordance with
section 38.420.100.A.6, plats of subdivision shall show the following certificate:
CERTIFICATE ACCEPTING PARK LAND DEDICATION TO SCHOOL DISTRICT 7
In as much as an alternative to dedication of park land, for park and playground purposes within
the platted area of (Subdivision Name), would be desirable, it is hereby ordered by the city
commission of the City of Bozeman that required land dedication for park purposes be met with
land dedicated to School District 7 in accordance with the provisions of the Montana Subdivision
and Platting Act (MCA 76-3-101 et seq.), and the Bozeman Municipal Code. If School District 7
chooses to no longer use the land for school buildings and facilities, the ownership of the land shall
revert to the City of Bozeman for park purposes and School District 7 shall transfer the land to the
city with clear title and in a condition meeting the minimum development standards for parks
established in section 38.420.080. The land dedication will be provided with the following
described tract(s) of land, to wit:
Description
(Exterior Boundary Description of Area Contained in Plat and Total Acreage)
DATED this ____________ day of ____________, ____________.
(Signature) ______________________________
City of Bozeman Director of Parks and Recreation Public Works
(Signature)
Chairman, School District 7 Board of Trustees
Section 3
317
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 5 of 18
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising Section 38.420.020 to read as
follows:
38.420.020. – Park area and open space requirements.
The requirements of this article are based on the community need for parks and the
development densities identified in the growth policy and this chapter.
A. The area required by this subsection shall be provided as a land dedication unless an alternate
method of compliance is approved by the review authority. The required area or its
equivalent may be provided by any combination of land dedication, cash donation in-lieu of
land dedication, or an alternative authorized by section 38.27.100, subject to the standards of
this chapter.
1. When the net residential density of development is known, 0.03 acre per dwelling unit of
land shall be provided.
a. Net residential density of development is known when a plat or site plan depicts a set
number of lots and the final number of residential units or maximum occupancy of
group quarters at full buildout can be reasonably determined.
b. When the net residential density of development is known at the time of preliminary
plat or site plan and If net residential density is in excess of eight dwellings per acre,
the requirement for dedication for that density above eight dwellings per acre shall be
met with a cash donation in-lieu of the additional land unless specifically determined
otherwise by the review authority.
b. These requirements are based on the community need for parks and the development
densities identified in the growth policy and this chapter.
c. Net residential density of development is known when a plat or site plan depicts a set
number of lots and the final number of residential units or occupants at full buildout
can be reasonably determined.
d. When developed as group quarters, such as group living or community residential
facilities, rather than individual dwelling units living, in lieu of 0.03 acres per
dwelling unit, an area of 575 square feet per resident shall be provided up to a limit of
27 persons per net acre.
318
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 6 of 18
e. The required area Land dedication or its equivalent shall not be required for
any residential density dwelling units or group quarters occupancy in excess of the
following:
(1) For development within the R-1, R-2, and R-MH zoning districts, the maximum
net residential density shall be ten dwellings units or 22.5 persons in group
quarters per acre.
(2) For development within the R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O, and REMU zoning districts, the
maximum net residential density shall be 12 dwellings units or 27 persons in
group quarters per acre.
(3) For development within other zoning districts not previously specified and
developed for residential uses, the maximum net residential density shall be 12
dwellings units or 27 persons in group quarters per acre; or.
2. If net residential density of development is unknown, 0.03 acres per dwelling unit of land
dedication or its equivalent shall be provided as follows:
a. For initial subdivision or other development:
(1) For development Wwithin the R-1, R-2, and R-MH zoning districts: an area equal
to that required for six dwellings units or 13.5 persons in group quarters per net
acre.
(2) For development Wwithin the R-3, R-4, R-5, REMU, and unless legally restricted
from residential uses the R-O zoning districts, and REMU,: an area equal to that
required for eight dwellings units or 13.5 persons in group quarters per net acre.
(3) For development Wwithin other zoning districts not previously specified
and which are intended for residential development,: the equivalent to an area
dedication for six dwellings units or 13.5 persons in group quarters per net acre
shall be provided as cash-in-lieu.
b. For subsequent development when net residential density becomes known, the net
residential density per acre above the minimum established above must shall be
rounded to the nearest whole number and applied as shown in the following table. All
prior provision of parkland for the project site shall count towards the maximum
required dedication. follows:
319
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 7 of 18
(1) For development within the R-1, R-2, and R-MH zoning districts the land area
equivalent for the additional net residential density not to exceed a total, including
prior dedications, of ten dwellings per acre shall be provided as cash-in-lieu.
(2) For development within the R-3, R-4, R-O, and REMU zoning districts the land
area equivalent for the additional net residential density not to exceed a total,
including prior dedications, of 12 dwellings per acre shall be provided as cash-in-
lieu.
(3) For development within other zoning districts not previously specified and
developed for residential uses for the additional net residential density not to
exceed a total, including prior dedications, of 12 dwellings per acre shall be
provided as cash-in-lieu.
(4) When developed as group living, in lieu of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit, an area of
575 square feet per resident shall be provided up to a limit of 27 persons per net
acre.
Zoning District Required Dedication
per dwelling
Maximum Required Dedication
per Acre
Cash-in-lieu
Required
R-1, R-2, R-MH .03 acres or
equivalent
10 dwellings Yes
R-3, R-4, R-5,
R-O, and
REMU
.03 acres or
equivalent
12 dwellings Yes
All other
districts
.03 acres or
equivalent
12 dwellings Yes
Required Area per
Person
Maximum Required Dedication
per Net Acre
Group quarters
(all districts)
575 square feet or
equivalent
27 persons Yes
320
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 8 of 18
3. Applicability to site plans. Section 38.27.020.A.2, shall not apply to subsequent site plan
development located within major subdivisions which received preliminary plat approval
after July 1, 1973, and which received final plat approval prior to October 1, 2005.
4. Special case. The city has established division 38.380, to encourage the provision and development of affordable housing. Reductions in required parkland dedication are established in 38.380.110. The reductions in park land dedication to conform to division 38.380, may not reduce the development's park land requirements below the minimum established by MCA 76-3-621.
a. The minimum number of workforce housing units required to comply with chapter 38, article 43, are exempt from the park land dedication requirements of this article. Dwellings resulting from the density bonus provisions of section 10.08.070.1 are
exempt from the park land dedication requirements. Workforce housing units in excess of the minimum number shall provide park land on the same basis as other
development.
b. The park land requirement for development not otherwise exempted from dedication requirements shall be reduced by a 1:1 ratio based on the minimum required square
footage of the lot area necessary to provide minimum compliance with chapter 38, article 43. For example, if 50,000 square feet of lots for workforce housing units are
required then there shall be a reduction in the required park land area of 50,000 square feet.
(1) If the developer chooses to develop more than the required number or area of
workforce housing unit lots, the additional lot area square footage above the minimum required shall not further reduce the park land area.
(2) The reduction of park land shall be allowed for WHUs and/or lots provided offsite of the responsible development but only to the extent of the required WHU lot area for the development applying for this park land offset and only applied on the site of the development applying for the park land offset.
c. The reductions in park land dedication to conform to chapter 38, article 43, may not reduce the development's park land requirements below the minimum established by MCA 76-3-621.
B. Exceptions. Land dedication or its equivalent cash donation in-lieu of land dedication
shall not be required for:
1. A minor subdivision.
2.1. Land proposed for subdivision into parcels larger than five acres unless those
parcels are zoned for residential use or are planned for residential use through a
development application. Development of a parcel larger than five acres may require
parkland dedication pursuant to 38.420.020.C.
321
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 9 of 18
32. Subdivision into parcels which are all nonresidential.
43. A subdivision in which parcels are not created, except when that subdivision provides
permanent multiple spaces for recreational camping vehicles or manufactured homes.
5 4. A subdivision in which only one additional parcel is being created. Development
of the additional parcel may require parkland dedication pursuant to 38.420.020.C.
6. An application reviewed under section 38.19.070.
4 5. A development for which the required amount of park land is shown to have
already been provided.
5 6. Section 38.420.020.A.2, shall not apply to subsequent site development located
within major subdivisions which received preliminary plat approval after July 1, 1973,
and which received final plat approval prior to October 1, 2005.
6 7. Development creating only one additional dwelling unit or increasing occupancy
of group quarters by up to four additional persons.
C. Development on land initially exempted from park dedication is required to provide park
dedication if further development of the site does not continue to meet the criteria for
exemption. Development of a lot previously exempted from park dedication must be
reviewed pursuant to this article. If the lot is no longer exempt from the park dedication
requirement the development is subject to 38.420.020.A.
D. Residential site plans. For residential site plans unless otherwise provided through the
subdivision or planned unit development review process, is an amount of park land or its
equivalent equal to that required by section 38.27.020 for the proposed number of dwelling
units set aside within the project boundaries, and configured for active recreational use by the
residents of the project; or has the developer proposed to provide its equivalent as may
otherwise be allowed by this chapter.
E. Residential Site plans that include residential use; open space requirement. Site plans
containing five or more dwelling units and including dwelling units which do not have
ground floor access to a landscaped rear yard shall provide on-site open space for the use of
the residents. The area to be provided is calculated only for those dwellings which do not
have ground floor access to a landscaped rear yard, as follows:. Open space shall be provided
at a rate of 150 square feet per dwelling unit for dwellings with two or more bedrooms, and
Commented [COB1]: Determination needed as to whether we want to exempt ADUs, accessory
commercial dwellings, CRF or to treat them as all other homes. Viability of lower requirement depends on whether there is a City established value. Provides exemption for very small projects. Point of emphasis and discussion during the Commission and public review.
322
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 10 of 18
100 square feet per dwelling unit for studio and one bedroom dwellings. All landscaped
areas, public plazas or common green roof decks shall be considered a "commons" and be
accessible to all residents of the site. The requirement may be met through the use of any of
the following options. Options may be combined to satisfy the area requirement.
1. Landscaped. The required area shall:
a. Be configured in areas of not less than 600 square feet in area; and
b. Have at least one minimum dimension of 25 feet. Upon a showing that a superior
design will result, the city may allow up to a 20 percent reduction in the minimum
dimension so long as the space does not exceed a length to width rationratio of 1:3,
and
c. Have a slope of ten percent or less; and
d. Not have nonrecreational structures or detention/retention ponds; and
e. Provide the equivalent seating area of two benches, each four feet in length, which do
not obstruct its use; and
f. Area shall be centralized within the project with a clear pedestrian connection from
all served dwelling units; or
g. Properties adjacent to a park, trail or other open space amenity shall be configured in
such a manner as to complement and relate to the adjacent open space facilities; and
2. Common plaza or common green roof deck. Area provided through this means may be
used to meet the performance requirements of article 26 of this chapter, Landscaping.
The required area shall:
a. Meet a minimum size of 225 square feet; and
b. Have a minimum dimension of 15 feet. Upon a showing that a superior design will
result, the city may allow up to a 20 percent reduction in the minimum dimension so
long as the space does not exceed a length to width rationratio of 1:3; and
c. Be fully surfaced with scored concrete, architectural pavers, or other alternative high
quality surfacing; and
d. Area must have a slope of two percent or less;
e. Provide one of the following:
323
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 11 of 18
(1) Option 1, a minimum of two benches and two permanent irrigated planters with a
cumulative area of not less than 40 square feet;
(2) Option 2, two benches and a shade structure that would cover 50 percent of the
plaza area;
(3) Option 3, a fountain of at least ten square feet with integrated seating around
fountain perimeter; or
f. For green roof deck credit the area shall include 25 percent of the surface planted
with rooftop landscaping (trays or full depth soil);
3. Private patio or private green roof deck. The required area shall:
a. Have a minimum dimension of eight feet. Upon a showing that a superior design will
result, the city may allow up to a 20 percent reduction in the minimum dimension so
long as the space does not exceed a length to width rationratio of 1:3; and
b. Be surrounded by minimum 18 inch masonry screen element wall;
c. Green roof deck shall include 25 percent of the surface planted with rooftop
landscaping (trays or full depth soil);
4. Private individual balconies shall have minimum dimensions of six feet by six feet.
F. To ensure coordination when parks are being created by a multiphase development, the entire
park land dedication shall be accomplished at the time of the initial phase of the
development. If necessary, this may be accomplished through the grant of public access
easements on later phases.
G. The following land is unacceptable for park land dedication:
1. Required watercourse setbacks unless approved by the review authority for incorporation
into the design of the larger park area.
2. Stormwater retention or detention ponds unless approved by the review authority and
designed and constructed to the city’s adopted standards for joint park/stormwater control
use. The city may accept such land for dedication to the city but shall be maintained by
the property owners association unless and until responsibility is assumed by affirmative
action of the city.
3. Land with a grade of 25 percent or greater unless the City Commission makes specific
findings in its favor as part of the adoption of a park master plan.
324
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 12 of 18
4. Other land such as land slides, rock falls, or subsidence areas, debris deposition areas,
environmentally contaminated areas, and land containing deteriorated structures or other
public or private nuisances, unless the review authority determines the hazards or
excessive public burdens can be eliminated or will be overcome by appropriate design
and construction plans.
H. When land offered for dedication as park land to the city exceeds the amount required the
additional usable land may be dedicated to the city in the same manner and subject to the
same standards as minimum required areas.
I. Public Use. Land donated or dedicated to meet the requirements of this section shall be
provided for public use. The developer must execute the appropriate public access easements
on privately-owned common land. The easements shall be held by the city. The city's
responsibilities for park land dedicated by easement shall be the same as for fee simple park
land dedication.
Section 4
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding to Section 38.420.030 to read as
follows:
Sec. 38.420.030. - Cash donation in-lieu of land dedication.
A. The review authority may determine whether the park dedication must be a land dedication,
cash donation in-lieu of land dedication or a combination of both. For the purposes of this
section construction of park improvements above the minimum improvements required by
ordinance may be allowed as a method of cash donation. When making this determination,
the review authority shall consider the factors established by resolution of the City
Commission. following:
1. The desirability and suitability of land for parks and playgrounds based on size,
topography, shape, location or other circumstances; and
2. The expressed preference of the developer.
325
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 13 of 18
3. Location of the site within the B-3 zoning district. The city commission has determined
that cash-in-lieu of land dedication is the default method to satisfy the requirements of
38.27.020.A within the B-3 zoning district. The approval authority of a development
within the B-3 zoning district is as governed by 38.200.010.
B. When a combination of land dedication and cash donation in-lieu of land dedication is
required, the required cash donation may not exceed the proportional amount of the total
required mitigation not covered by the land dedication. Nothing in this section prohibits a
developer from offering more than the required minimum.
C. Cash donation in-lieu of land dedication must be equal to the fair market value of the amount
of land that would have been dedicated. For the purpose of these regulations, the The fair
market value is the value of the unsubdivided, unimproved land after it has been annexed and
given an urban municipal zoning designation. The city intends to obtain the highest value for
cash-in-lieu of park land that is allowable under state law.
The city commission may adopt procedures to be used by the director of parks and recreation
to determine the fair market value. The amount of the cash-in-lieu to be provided must equal
the city’s established fair market value per square foot times the amount of land required to
be dedicated. The city must periodically update the market value as deemed necessary to
reflect changes in the price of land. The valuation used for calculating the amount due will be
the valuation in effect at the time an application for final plat or final plan approval is
complete.
1. Alternative. A developer may provide an alternate market valuation which complies with
the following:
a. 1. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to provide an appraisal of the fair market
value by a certified real estate appraiser of their choosing. The appraisal fee shall be the
responsibility of the developer.
b. 2. When a land value must be established for cash-in-lieu of land dedication to satisfy the
requirements of section 38.420.020, and the value of the land in an unsubdivided,
unimproved, but annexed and zoned condition cannot reasonably be determined, the
developer may provide an appraisal of residentially zoned property with a zoning
designation that allows the density of dwellings proposed for development.
326
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 14 of 18
c. 3. The appraisal provided for the purpose of section 38.420.030 shall be conducted not
sooner than 90 days prior to the submittal of an application for final plat or final site plan
approval.
D. Where a cash donation has been accepted in-lieu of land dedication, the amount of cash
donation shall be stated on the final plat or plan as appropriate.
E. Where a cash payment or construction of improvements donation has been accepted in-lieu of
land dedication, the city shall record in the meeting minutes or other written decision why the
dedication of land for parks and playgrounds was undesirable.
F. Use of cash donations.
1. The city shall use a cash donation for development or acquisition of parks to serve the
development.
2. The city may use the cash donation to acquire or develop parks or recreational areas within
its jurisdiction or for the purchase of public open space or conservation easements, only
if:
a. The park, recreational area, open space or conservation easement is within a reasonably
close proximity to the proposed development; and
b. The city commission has formally adopted a citywide park plan that establishes the
needs and procedures for use of the cash donation.
Section 5
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 38.420.100.B to read as
follows:
B. Section 38.420.020 requires mitigation of recreational impacts, usually by dedication of land
for parks. Under defined circumstances in this section the required dedication may be waived.
However, the underlying issue of mitigating recreational impacts must be addressed. If an
application provides one or more of the alternatives under Paragraph A of this section then the
required mitigation has been partially provided. To complete the mitigation, the alternative to
land dedication shall allow public access. The developer must execute the appropriate public
327
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 15 of 18
access easements in a form acceptable to the City Attorney prior to final approval of the
development. The easements shall be held by the city.
Section 6
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising paragraph 38.200.010.A.1 to read
as follows with the remainder of the section to remain as presently written:
A. The city commission has the right to review and require revisions to all development proposals
subject to this chapter, and delegates that authority in certain circumstances as set forth below.
The purpose of this review is to prevent demonstrable adverse impacts of the development
upon public safety, health or general welfare, or to provide for its mitigation; to protect public
investments in roads, drainage facilities, sewage facilities, water facilities, and other facilities;
to conserve the value of adjoining buildings and/or property; to protect the character of the
city; to protect the right of use of property; advance the purposes and standards of this chapter
and the adopted growth policy; and to ensure that the applicable regulations of the city are
upheld.
1. The city commission retains to itself under all circumstances the review of the following:
a. Subdivisions which do not qualify as a subdivision exemption per division 38.240;
b. Amendments to the text of this chapter or amendment to the zoning map;
c. Determination to accept cash-in-lieu of park land dedications, except: in the B-3 zone
district;
(1) In the B-3 zone district; or
(2) When by resolution the City Commission delegates decisions on cash-in-lieu for
development for which it would not otherwise be the review authority.
d. Extensions of subdivision preliminary plat approvals for periods greater than two years;
e. Planned unit development preliminary plans and major amendments to planned unit
developments;
f. Conduct public hearing for applications under 76-2-402, MCA;
328
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 16 of 18
g. Appeals from administrative interpretations and final project review decisions;
h. Approval of park master plans;
i. Large scale retail per section 38.360.190; and
j. Exceptions to installation of bikeways and boulevard trails per 38.400.110.E.
Section 7
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising paragraph 38.220.030.A.10 to read
as follows:
10. Parks and recreation facilities. The following information shall be provided for all land
proposed to meet park land dedication requirements:
a. Park concept plan, including:
(1) Site plan for the entire property; and
(2) The zoning and ownership for adjacent properties; and
(3) The location of any critical lands (wetlands, riparian areas, streams, etc.); and
(4) General description of land, including size, terrain, details of location and
history, water features, and proposed activities; and
(5) Description of trails or other recreational features proposed to connect the proposed
park area to other park or open space areas.
b. If the applicant intends to request approval of cash-in-lieu, a response to the cash-in-
lieu review factors.
Section 8
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding to Section 38.220.060.A.16 to read
as follows:
a. Park master plan. A park plan, including:
(1) Site plan with one-foot contour topographic survey for the entire property; showing
developer installed improvements on the initial park plan and proposed future
improvements on the future park plan, and phasing proposed if any;
(2) Drainage areas;
(3) Utilities within, serving, and adjacent to the property;
329
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 17 of 18
(4) The zoning and ownership for adjacent properties;
(5) The location of any critical lands (wetlands, riparian areas, streams, etc.) and
location of watercourse setbacks and any permits from non-city agencies required
to execute the proposed plan;
(6) Park landscaping plan, prepared by a qualified landscape professional in
accordance with section 38.220.100, showing the location and specific types and
species of plants, shrubs, trees as well as grass seed mixes and the irrigation system
including but not limited to identification of water source, points of connection,
mains, laterals, valves, zones, and sprinkler heads;
(7) General description of land, including size, terrain, details of location and
history, water features, and proposed activities;
(8) Trail design and construction showing compliance with adopted city standards and
trail classifications;
(9) The requirement for approval of the final park plan by the review authority with a
recommendation from the city recreation and parks advisory board prior to any site
work;
(10) The requirement for a preconstruction meeting prior to any site work;
(11) Appropriate sections from the design guidelines for city parks;
(12) Cost estimate, and installation phasing and responsibility, and maintenance plan
tasks and responsibility for all improvements;
(13) If playground equipment will be provided, information including the
manufacturer, installation data and specifications, installer, type of fall zone
surfacing and age group intended for use shall be provided; and
(14) Soils information and analysis;.
(15) A description of how the proposed park master plan is consistent with the goals of
the City’s long range parks plan;
(16) A description of how the proposed park will meet the recreational needs of the
residents of the development;
330
Ordinance No. 15-1914, Revisions to Chapter 38 BMC Regarding Dedication of Parkland
Page 18 of 18
(17) The proposed manner of providing irrigation to the park including water source,
amount of water expected to be consumed annually, and proposed manner of
transfer of water facilities and rights to the city; and
(18) A phase I environmental assessment of the area proposed to be transferred to the
City of Bozeman or property owner’s association.
b. Park maintenance.
(1) Maintenance information, including levels of maintenance, a maintenance schedule, and responsible parties;
(2) Weed control plan, including responsible parties; and
(3) Plan for garbage collection, snow removal and leaf removal including responsible parties.
c. Irrigation information.
(1) An irrigation system map generally showing the locations and types of lines, including depth, water source, heads, electric valves, quick couplers, drains and control box; and
(2) If a well will be used for irrigation, a certified well log shall be submitted showing depth of well, gpm, pump type and size, voltage, water rights, etc.
d. Phasing. If improvements will be phased, a phasing plan shall be provided including
proposed financing methods and responsibilities.
e. Cash-in-lieu. If the development includes a proposal for cash-in-lieu of park a specific justification responding to the cash-in-lieu review factors established by resolution of
the City Commission. If improvements-in-lieu are proposed specific costs of proposed improvements and costs to install shall be provided.
Section 9
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding to Section 38.220.080.A2 to read
as follows:
r. When 38.420.020 requires parkland dedication in association with a site plan, and cash-in-
lieu of parkland will not be provided, the materials required by 38.220.060.A.16 must be
provided.
331
Mitigation of Recreational Impacts Text Amendment, Application 14581
1
RESOLUTION NO. 14-581
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD REGARDING AN
AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 38.27 AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE ADDRESSING PARKLAND AND THE MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON THE RECREATIONAL SYSTEM BY DEVELOPMENT.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted a growth policy pursuant to Section 76-1-601, Mont. Code Ann.; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board has been created by ordinance by the
Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Title 76-1-101, Mont. Code Ann.; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-3-621, MCA requires the provision of parks or an equivalent as a
component of subdivision; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-304, MCA includes provisions of parks as part of the purposes for municipal zoning but does not give specific criteria; and
WHEREAS, there are greater equities and efficiencies and reliability of process if both
subdivision and zoning based provision of parkland use the same standards and procedures; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Montana Legislature adopted changes to the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, Title 76, Chapter 3, MCA to allow park land dedication requirements for minor subdivisions.
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment application has been properly submitted,
reviewed, and advertised in accordance with the required procedures; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board held a joint public hearing on Tuesday, September 6, 2016, with the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission to review the application and any written public testimony on the application; and
WHEREAS, no members of the public provided written or oral testimony on the matter
of the text amendment application; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development, based on the materials and information provided by the Applicant and analysis of the proposal included in the Staff Report, recommended approval of the requested text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board reviewed the application against the
purposes of the subdivision and platting act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board voted 8:0 and the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission voted 4:0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the text amendment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, having heard and considered public
332
Mitigation of Recreational Impacts Text Amendment, Application 14581
2
comment, application materials, and staff findings the City of Bozeman Planning Board voted
8:0 to officially recommend to the Bozeman City Commission approval of text amendment
application no. 14581 to amend Article 38.27 and associated sections of the Bozeman Municipal
Code
DATED THIS 6th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016 Resolution No. 14581
_____________________________ ____________________________
Chris Saunders, AICP Paul Neubauer, President
Department of Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board
333
Zoning Commission and Planning Board
Tuesday, September 6, 2016 6:00 PM
City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Ave.
A. 06:17:20 PM (00:08:25) Call meeting to order
Lauren Waterton - Planning
Henry Happel - Planning
Brianne Dugan - Planning
Julien Morice – Zoning
Jordan Zignego – Planning and Zoning
Paul Neubauer – Planning
George Thompson – Planning and Zoning
Eric Garberg – Zoning
Paul Spitler – Planning
B. 06:18:00 PM (00:09:05) Changes to the Agenda – As part of public comment,
Mr. Rogers will give an update on the code update.
C. 06:18:13 PM (00:09:19) Public Comment - No Comments from the public.
06:18:28 PM (00:09:34) Tom Rogers presents a UDC update.
D. 06:21:28 PM (00:12:33) Action Items
1. 06:21:50 PM (00:12:55) Parkland Mitigation Text Amendment
A revision to the standards for how to calculate required mitigation for impacts on the
recreation system.
334
Chris Saunders begins presentation on the Parkland Mitigation Text Amendment.
Provides board with statistics on growth in the City and surrounding areas.
Discusses the change in the type of growth and development we are experiencing.
06:24:39 PM (00:15:45) Mr. Saunders indicates the 4 types of changes we are looking to make
with regards to parks program and why.
06:37:50 PM (00:28:55) Conclusion of presentation – open for questions for staff
George Thompson questions the process for the City establishing cost. Mr. Saunders responds
that it’s based on raw land value and how we have done this in the past. He states that we may
continue to do it that way or explore other means for determining cost.
06:39:39 PM (00:30:44) Mr. Thompson is concerned with the Parks Department not being
qualified to determine cost. Mr. Saunders states that the parks department will be the agency
that will secure an agreement with someone qualified to make these estimates.
06:40:06 PM (00:31:11) Erik Garberg questions one unit as the trigger for park land. Mr.
Saunders stated that it is a place holder or starting point until they can get more feedback.
06:41:13 PM (00:32:18) Mr. Garberg questions items that were excluded – for example Peet’s
Hill would likely be excluded according to the stipulations. Mr. Saunders stated those are
guidelines, but the City can determine if it is acceptable as an exception to the general rule.
06:43:05 PM (00:34:10) Mr. Garberg questions when cash-in-lieu is acceptable. Mr. Saunders
responds there are some areas where they want a more urban and dense area (like in B-3), so
cash-in-lieu is always accepted. In addition, he states that land is valuable, but at some point,
too much open grass space is unnecessary and we should start making improvements on
existing open spaces to make some parks more functional. In addition, in an effort to maintain
affordability, improvements are preferable at times.
06:46:09 PM (00:37:14) Brianne Dugan questions what prevents someone from doing one unit
at a time over and over (or whatever the indicated number of homes may be) to avoid hitting
the requirement for park land. Also, she questions how we enforce parkland. Mr. Saunders
responds with an example of a property that was presented as one large project, but had to be
broken down into multiple developers, which messed up the original park land plan. He
responds that to avoid losing parkland, the city requires a parkland easement to secure the park
land with the initial phase, which can be reduced or changed if the project changes, if need be.
Mr. Saunders responds that there is nothing keeping someone from submitting for one property
at a time, but it’s impractical for builders, so unlikely they will go that route.
06:48:49 PM (00:39:54) Mr. Neubauer questions who is the deciding factor. Mr. Saunders
responds that it is the commission, because the commission is responsible for approving sub-
335
divisions. Mr. Saunders provides examples of ways that developers can get approval on their
parkland independent of the subdivision process as well.
06:50:53 PM (00:41:59) Mr. Garberg questions how the City keeps other developers from
claiming the set aside park land. Mr. Saunders responds that it’s allocated by parcel.
Mr. Garberg questions if it’s possible to use the large community parks to allocate towards
helping form affordable housing – instead of requiring additional park land. Mr. Saunders
responds that it would likely need to be presented to the City Attorney to determine if that’s an
option.
Mr. Neubauer questions what happens if appraisals done by the City and the Developer have a
great discrepancy. Mr. Saunders stated that we are relying on professionalism and if an estimate
just seems completely unrealistic, we will explore realistic numbers.
06:54:44 PM (00:45:49) Julian Morice questions if this document removes the cash-in-lieu
option from the developer and puts it in the City’s hands. Mr. Saunders responded that it has
always had to be requested, this process should just make the process easier.
Mr. Morice questions if improvements to a water course or a trail system will count towards the
parkland requirement. Mr. Saunders responds that is true, those improvements do count. For
some situations, it is at the City’s discretion.
07:00:00 PM (00:51:06) Chris Mehl states there were 4 categories in the beginning, but he does
not feel that valuation was really covered. He states that he has been a commissioner for 6
years and doesn’t feel that cash-in-lieu ever really seems to cover the full cost of the land not
being dedicated. Mr. Saunders responds.
Commissioner Mehl questions if by making the cash-in-lieu process more streamlined and easy,
if we will see an increase in cash in lieu proposals. Mr. Saunders responds that we may see
more, but for smaller projects, it may make the process more accessible. Ultimately it’s up to
the City to approve and determine if it is a good fit.
Commissioner Mehl states that by the time these proposals get to the commission, there is
usually a lot of momentum to keep moving forward. Mr. Saunders responds that they are
working on a way to make this independent of the subdivision process so that it comes before
the commission first to decide if it’s appropriate.
07:03:25 PM (00:54:30) Commissioner Mehl questions how the city will set a value on
improvements. Mr. Saunders responds that we have some bench marks, that we know how
much some things cost, but can also get pricing on specific projects.
07:04:36 PM (00:55:41) Commission Mehl questions how far away improvements can be made.
Mr. Saunders states that it has to show that it will benefit the specific project being presented
based on a service radius.
336
Commissioner questions what happens for parks that do not have a plan. Mr. Saunders state
that either the park doesn’t qualify, or the developer or parks department can put a plan
together.
07:06:58 PM (00:58:04) Commissioner Mehl questioned the access to land. Mr. Saunders
responds that there are some cases where public parks aren’t provided, but there may be space
on private sites, which need to have a public access easement.
07:07:52 PM (00:58:57) Commissioner Mehl questions non park land open space. Mr. Saunders
states there has been no changes to open space that is not park land.
07:08:34 PM (00:59:39) Paul Spitler questions who pays for maintenance of parks after
improvements have been made. Mr. Saunders responds it can be the City or the Developer. In
some cases, it is indicated that until the City establishes a park’s district, that the HOA must
maintain the park.
Mr. Spitler states that it seems important to indicate who will be responsible for the
maintenance of parks before allowing cash in lieu.
Mr. Spitler questions the exemptions listed. Mr. Saunders explains in detail – specifically as it
applies to high density.
Mr. Spitler questions the difference between the .03 acres and square footage measure for
parkland. Mr. Saunders responds that mathematically, it should be the same.
07:15:36 PM (01:06:41) Mr. Spitler questions if the manual for cash-in-lieu would come back to
the planning board. Mr. Saunders stated that no, it would not, not unless the commission
requested it was.
Mr. Morice questions if it’s true that what the Park’s Department can maintain is being
exceeded. Mr. Saunders responded that yes, they have reached their capacity and if we create a
park district, then the department would need to expand.
07:17:31 PM (01:08:36) Mr. Neubauer states that in B-3 and Downtown allows for cash-in-lieu,
but questions if land is even an option. Mr. Saunders responds that there is an option for land,
but you do not have to provide land, unlike other districts, where you start with land and get to
cash-in-lieu depending on what is being proposed.
07:18:36 PM (01:09:42) Ms. Waterton questions the different plans mentioned and if they were
the same. Mr. Saunders explains the different park plans – master plan, plan and concept plan.
07:20:37 PM (01:11:42) Mr. Neubauer questioned if there should be individual votes for
planning and zoning boards. Mr. Saunders responds that yes, both boards should vote
independently.
07:20:56 PM (01:12:01) Open for Public Comment – no public comment
337
07:21:21 PM (01:12:26) Board discussion on the proposed text amendment
07:21:44 PM (01:12:50) Erik Garberg comments that the trigger should be set at about 8
residential units to encourage smaller projects and infill.
07:22:39 PM (01:13:44) Julien Morice responds that he agrees that the baseline needs to be
much higher than 1, to encourage infill projects.
07:23:27 PM (01:14:32) Lauren Waterton questions if the goal is to encourage infill. If so, is
parkland the best way to do that.
07:24:03 PM (01:15:09) Commissioner Mehl states that there will be a portion of the code that
relates directly to infill, so the board may want to revisit this issue at that time, if other
incentives are not sufficient.
Mr. Garberg states that we could possibly just as a note that “if infill… than…”.
Board continues to discuss parkland with respects to infill and the threshold for parks.
Mr. Spitler states that it comes down to which type of development we are looking to
incentivize.
Mr. Spitzler questions how much each home costs in terms of parkland. Mr. Saunders said that
for cash-in-lieu, it’s roughly $1,100 per home. The change with this process is that the appraiser
would typically cost the project about $600/project. Whereas in this case we will be able to use
a pre-determined amount.
07:32:41 PM (01:23:47) Julien Morice questions some of the subsequent documents needed to
support this and how long it will take to put them in place. Mr. Saunders responded that a lot of
it has been written up already. This will also allow for the City Staff to make some cash in lieu
decisions without it going to the commission depending on what the commission feels is best.
07:35:28 PM (01:26:33) Mr. Spitler states that it appears that this will lead to an increase of
cash-in-lieu. He sees opportunities and challenges. He said that it will be important to have
some strong master plans to know the direction of our parks and who is responsible for the
maintenance.
Discussion about how to present motion to both boards for discussion.
07:37:46 PM (01:28:51) Eric Garberg Moves: Having reviewed and considering the application
materials, public comment all information presented, I hereby move to adopt the findings
presented in the staff report for application 14-581 and move to approve the text amendment
and direct staff to integrate these provisions as part of the update to the Unified Development
Code.
Second by Julien Morice
338
07:38:48 PM (01:29:53) Discussion on the motion
Erik Garberg states that he doesn’t want to spend a ton of time determining the threshold
number whether it’s 1 or 8, but that he generally supports what is being presented.
He feels that the board is being presented with a lot of information quickly and must absorb it
quickly.
Julien Morice supports the document, but has concerns with the level of predictability with the
documents for the developers and encourages having those documents as detailed as possible
while maintaining some flexibility.
07:40:16 PM (01:31:21) Vote by the zoning commission – board unanimously approves the
motion.
07:40:36 PM (01:31:41) Motion by the planning board: George Thompson: Having reviewed
and considering the application materials, public comment all information presented, I hereby
move to adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 14-581 and move to
approve the text amendment and direct staff to integrate these provisions as part of the
update to the Unified Development Code.
Second by Paul Spitler
Mr. Thompson states that he appreciates that we are moving forward with streamlining this
process for the planners and developers.
Mr. Spitler agrees that he appreciates the changes.
Vote by the Planning Board – Unanimously approve the motion
2. 07:42:10 PM (01:33:15) Maintenance and Demolition Text Amendment
These amendments clarify obligations of property owners to maintain their property and
address the process for when and under what conditions structures can be removed when a
structure is classed as a historic structure.
07:42:32 PM (01:33:38) Chris Saunders begins presentation on the Maintenance and Demolition
Text Amendment.
07:58:50 PM (01:49:55) Open for questions for staff
Eric Garberg questions who would determine that properties need to go through this process
and what burden would it place on them. Mr. Saunders clarifies that it applies only to
demolition, it would not alter the process of additions and changes.
Mr. Garberg questions if there can be an interim plan for demolition. Or if you need to go from
demo to building. Mr. Saunders responds in detail.
339
08:01:21 PM (01:52:26) Henry Happel questions if contributing structures are considered
historic and therefore, who determined that they were. Mr. Saunders responds with how those
homes were listed as contributing – based on a site survey that was also sent to the state
historic preservation office for final say.
Mr. Happel questions how many homes in Bozeman are listed formally on the national historic
registrar. Mr. Saunders responds. Mr. Happel concludes that about 70%-80% of the homes in
the historic districts have a historic label on them. Mr. Saunders responds that is correct. Within
the conservation overlay it would be a smaller number.
Mr. Happel questions how home owners know that their homes are listed as historic. Mr.
Saunders responds with how many of them got listed and how individuals should be aware that
their home is included in the historic district.
Mr. Saunders indicates that the national register listing does not require homes be preserved. It
is through City zoning that we have determined that homes should or can be preserved.
Mr. Saunders explains how different districts are formed and how they need to speak to a
common element. To be considered contributing to a district, individual properties or structures
need to fit the elements of that district.
08:07:46 PM (01:58:51) Mr. Happel questions if historic designation is based on just the exterior
of a home or if it’s based on the interior as well.
Me Saunders responds that generally speaking, it is simply the exterior. The interior can be
designated if it had been open to and accessible to the public. He gave the example of the Rialto
vs the Hotel Baxter.
Mr. Happel states that it appears that the commission favors vacant buildings over vacant lots –
he asks for clarification on why. Mr. Saunders responds that it is economic value, in addition to
maintaining character of the neighborhood.
08:11:17 PM (02:02:22) Mr. Thompson states that with the demo application it appears there
will be a requirement for a building permit as well and he appreciates that. He states he lived in
a community where there were smaller affordable homes that were being demoed and replaced
with a home 2 or 3 times the size. In this case, it does not meet the character of the
neighborhood. He questions how we stop these larger homes from coming in.
Mr. Saunders states that this will not solve that. However, individual neighborhoods could
create the expectation for specific building sizes through zoning. We cannot solve the problem
in a blanket way.
Mr. Thompson questions a specific building being historic. The building does not look historic,
and is unattractive. Mr. Saunders states that there are a number of criteria to determine if a site
is historic, and they are not always attractive.
340
08:16:39 PM (02:07:45) Mr. Thompson questions who can document what is historic. Mr.
Saunders states that the standards apply to everyone, regardless of who is doing the work. It
will need to be done appropriately though and approved. So, if someone is indicating something
in a document, it must be backed up.
08:17:58 PM (02:09:03) Mr. Morice indicates that it’s also on the person who wants to demo a
property to indicate that a property is not historic. Mr. Saunders said that is correct. In many
cases the forms have been completed and it would be up to the developer to come in and
indicate that the form is incorrect.
Julien Morice disclosed to the board and FYI that he will be apply for a demo permit in a couple
of months for a property outside of the overlay district.
Julien Morice questions who determines if a home is salvageable. Mr. Saunders stated the
historic preservation officer will be involved. In addition engineering will need to indicate if a
building is not salvageable. In addition, there will be a building inspection to determine if there
is any economic life left in the building – that the cost to remodel is greater than the cost of a
new home.
08:22:00 PM (02:13:06) Julien Morice questions demolition by neglect and what the
requirements are if you do not remodel a structure and it loses economic integrity over time.
Mr. Saunders stated that is in part why maintenance requirements have been included.
Further discussion between Julien Morice and Mr. Saunders about enforcement to avoid
demolition by neglect.
Mr. Happel questions enforcement mechanism for making sure individuals maintain their
property. Mr. Saunders responds that it will be through general code enforcement. Mr. Happel
argues that it does not count as a public nuisance and wonders how it gets included in that
provision. Mr. Saunders states that he will bring that up to the city attorney, but that he feels
comfortable enforcing it through that provision.
Mr. Happel argues that the statute does not give the City authority to deal with the nuances for
specific homes – he questions if there was a thought to give the city more discretion on a
property by property basis. Mr. Saunders states that it was considered, but this was considered
to be what was legally permissible.
Discussion continues between Mr. Happel and Mr. Saunders regarding renovation of properties
and new construction. Mr. Saunders gives details about how new construction can be
implemented in historic districts.
08:34:54 PM (02:25:59) Commission Mehl questions why we do not adopt the international
maintenance code. Mr. Saunders responds that we could not adopt them through the building
341
code authority – that is limited through the state. We might possibly adopt it under different
authority, but it will be a question about who will maintain the code. We currently do not have
the appropriate staff for that.
08:36:28 PM (02:27:34) Mr. Spitler questions what triggers a determination on what is historic
or not. Mr. Saunders responds that if someone requests changes to a home in a district that
triggers it. Otherwise, the neighborhood could trigger it or the City could trigger it. Likewise,
they could drop a designation.
08:37:37 PM (02:28:43) Julien Morice moves: Having reviewed and considering the application
materials, public comment all information presented, I hereby move to adopt the findings
presented in the staff report for application 14-623 and move to approve the text amendment.
Eric Garberg Seconds
Mr. Morice comments that the text seems appropriate. He feels it adds more substance to an
argument about whether a property is historic. He does not agree with staff on waiting for
demo until a permit is pulled, he feels some structures that are in complete disarray should be
able to just come down – it can give a better view for potential buyers. A vacant lot that is
maintained could be much more aesthetic than a degrading home.
08:41:02 PM (02:32:07) Mr. Garberg questions if this will be moving historic outside of the
NCOD. Mr. Saunders states that is correct. Mr. Garberg states that this will expand a subjective
element beyond its current bounds and therefore he cannot support it.
08:42:13 PM (02:33:18) Mr. Morice states that he shares Mr. Garberg’s concerns about
expanding beyond the current NCOD.
08:43:13 PM (02:34:18) Vote by the Zoning Commission: Eric Garberg only one to vote against
the motion. Motion passes. 3:1
08:43:30 PM (02:34:36) Mr. Thompson makes a motion for the Planning Board: Having
reviewed and considering the application materials, public comment all information
presented, I hereby move to adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 14-
623 and move to approve the text amendment.
Second by Jordan Zignego
George Thompson comments that the nuances will always be a challenge, but feels the
document is a good starting point.
08:45:50 PM (02:36:55) Henry Happel comments that he feels this is a step in the right direction.
He however, he does not feel he’s in favor of having a building permit in hand before demolition
of non-historic structures. Otherwise, he supports the document. As an unresolved issue, he
doesn’t feel the building permit item does not need further attention.
342
Commission Mehl suggests he can amend the motion to reflect that.
08:48:26 PM (02:39:32) Mr. Happel moves to amend the motion to the city commission to
indicate that a certificate of appropriateness not be required to demo a non-historic structure.
Second by Commissioner Mehl
Amendment to the motion passed unanimously.
Vote on the amended motion: Motion passes unanimously.
F. FYI/Discussion – no additional discussion
G. 08:52:04 PM (02:43:10) Adjournment
For more information please contact Alicia Kennedy at akennedy@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require
assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Scott at 582-2307 (TDD 582-2301).
343
Adults and Older Adults
Adults need two types of activity each week to improve their health:
•Aerobic
• Muscle-strengthening
Get physical activity guidelines here
(http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/index.html).
Physical Activity
Physical activity can improve health. People who are physically active
live longer and have lower risks for heart disease, stroke, type 2
diabetes, depression, and some cancers.
According to The Surgeon General’s Vision for a Healthy and Fit Nation 2010 [PDF -840 KB]
(http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/initiatives/healthy-fit-nation/obesityvision2010.pdf) , the
social, cultural, physical, and economic foundations of a community support a healthy lifestyle for its
citizens. For example, stairwells, bicycle paths, walking paths, exercise facilities, and swimming pools
that are available, accessible, attractive and safe, may play a role in how much and the type of
physical activity people engage in.
Regular physical activity is one of the most important things you can do for your health. It can help:
• Control your weight
• Reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease
• Reduce your risk for type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome
• Reduce your risk of some cancers
• Strengthen your bones and muscles
• Improve your mental health and mood
• Improve your ability to do daily activities and prevent falls, if you're an older adult
• Increase your chances of living longer
Learn more about these benefits at
http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/health/index.html#ControlWeight
(http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/health/index.html#ControlWeight).
Page 1 of 5CDC - Healthy Places - Physical Activity
8/16/2016http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/physactivity.htm
344
Children and Adolescents
Young people need three types of activity each week:
•Aerobic
• Muscle-strengthening
• Bone-strengthening
Get physical activity guidelines here
(http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/children.html).
CDC Recommendations
To help lead the nation toward active living, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
recommends the following strategies to create environments that encourage physical activity:
• Improve access to outdoor recreational facilities such as parks and green spaces.
• Build or enhance infrastructures such as sidewalks, paths and trails to support walking and
bicycling for transportation and recreation.
• Support locating schools within easy walking distance of residential areas.
• Improve access to public transportation.
• Support mixed-use development where people can live, work, play and meet everyday shopping
and lifestyle needs within a single neighborhood.
• Enhance personal and traffic safety in areas where people are or could be physically active.
• Participate in community coalitions or partnerships to address obesity.
Resources
U.S. Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Walking and Walkable Communities
[PDF - 1.27 MB](http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/calls/walking-and-walkable-
communities/call-to-action-walking-and-walkable-communites.pdf)
The Call to Action looks to increase walking across the United States by calling for improved access
to safe and convenient places to walk and wheelchair roll and by creating a culture that supports
these activities for people of all ages and abilities. It includes five strategic goals to promote walking
and walkable communities in the United States: make walking a national priority; design
communities that make it safe and easy to walk for people of all ages and abilities; promote
programs and policies to support walking where people live, learn, work, and play; provide
information to encourage walking and improve walkability; and fill surveillance, research, and
evaluation gaps related to walking and walkability.
Page 2 of 5CDC - Healthy Places - Physical Activity
8/16/2016http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/physactivity.htm
345
Strategies to Prevent Obesity and Other Chronic Diseases: The CDC Guide to Strategies to
Increase Physical Activity in the Community [PDF -1.09 KB]
(http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/PA_2011_WEB.pdf)
This 2011 document provides guidance for program managers, policy makers, and others on how to
select evidence-based strategies to increase physical activity in the community.
2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (http://health.gov/paguidelines/)
The Department of Health and Human Services issued the Physical Activity Guidelines for
Americans to describe the types and amounts of physical activity that offer substantial health
benefits.
The Surgeon General’s Vision for a Healthy and Fit Nation [PDF -840 KB]
(http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/initiatives/healthy-fit-nation/obesityvision2010.pdf)
Dr. Regina Benjamin, former Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service, calls on all
Americans to join in a national grassroots effort to reverse overweight and obesity trends. This plan
shows people how to choose nutritious food, add more physical activity to their daily lives, and
manage the stress that can derail their best efforts at developing healthy habits.
Environmental and Policy Approaches to Increase Physical Activity: Community-Scale Urban
Design Land-Use Policies (http://www.thecommunityguide.org/pa/environmental-
policy/communitypolicies.html)
The CDC-funded Task Force on Community Preventive Services recommends design and land- use
policies and practices that support physical activity in urban areas. The recommendation is based on
a systematic review of all available studies.
Facilitating Development of a Community Trail and Promoting Its Use to Increase Physical
Activity among Youth and Adults (http://www.prevent.org/downloadStart.aspx?id=27)
This CDC-funded action guide, developed by Partnership for Prevention, provides information on
the resources and key steps that help facilitate the development of a community trail and promote
its use among youth and adults. It translates a specific recommendation from The Guide to
Community Preventive Services into “how to”guidance.
Active Design Guidelines: Promoting Physical Activity and Health in Design
(http://centerforactivedesign.org/guidelines/)
This City of New York publication focuses on the community planner’s role in tackling obesity and
related diseases. The publication provides strategies for designers to increase physical activity in
their architectural projects. The strategies are rated according to the strength of the supporting
research evidence.
Page 3 of 5CDC - Healthy Places - Physical Activity
8/16/2016http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/physactivity.htm
346
Active Living Research’s literature database
(http://activelivingresearch.org/resourcesearch/literaturedatabase)
This online database features papers that study the relationship between environment and policy
and physical activity and obesity. The searchable database includes detailed information on study
characteristics and results and improves the use of studies for research and policy purposes.
Active Living By Design (http://activelivingbydesign.org/resources/)
Active Living By Design (ALBD) creates community-led change by working with local and national
partners to build a culture of active living and healthy eating. ALBD is part of the North Carolina
Institute for Public Health at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health in Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
Journal Articles
Khan L, Sobush K, Keener D, Goodman K, Lowry A, Kakietek J, Zaro S. Recommended community
strategies and measurements to prevent obesity in the United States
(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5807a1.htm). MMWR 58:RR-7, 2009.
Humpel N, Owen N, Leslie E. Environmental factors associated with adults’participation in
physical activity, a review. Am J Prev Med 2002;22(3):188-99.
Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the
transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Ann Behav Med, 2003; 25:80-91.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Programs
Obesity, Healthy Weight and Physical Activity
• Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity
◦Overweight and obesity page(http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/)
◦Healthy weight page(http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/index.html)
◦Physical activity page(http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/index.html)
Diabetes
• National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
◦Diabetes page(http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/)
◦National diabetes fact sheet: national estimates and general information on diabetes and
prediabetes in the United States, 2011 [PDF -2.66 MB]
(http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2011.pdf)
• National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
Page 4 of 5CDC - Healthy Places - Physical Activity
8/16/2016http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/physactivity.htm
347
(//www.cdc.gov/Other/plugins/#pdf)
◦Heart disease & stroke prevention page
(http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/AAG/dhdsp.htm)
File Formats Help:
How do I view different file formats (PDF, DOC, PPT, MPEG) on this site?
(//www.cdc.gov/Other/plugins/)
Page last reviewed: October 15, 2009
Page last updated: February 4, 2016
Content source: National Center for Environmental Health(/nceh/default.htm)
Page 5 of 5CDC - Healthy Places - Physical Activity
8/16/2016http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/physactivity.htm
348