HomeMy WebLinkAboutBozeman Cohousing Parkland Proposal
MEMORANDUM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Recreation and Parks Advisory Board Subdivision Review Committee
FROM: Addi Jadin, Parks Planning and Development Manager
RE: 20159 Bozeman Cohousing Informal Application and Parkland Proposal
DATE: May 15, 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 38.420.030.A, BMC, 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. All proposed dedication of land and cash-in-lieu must meet standards of 38.420., BMC.
Project
Project Name: BOZEMAN COHOUSING
Type: INF
File Number: 20159
Zoning Classification: R-3
Description: A proposed 40-dwelling neighborhood to be constructed on 5 acres along Wagonwheel Dr. Consists of 10 four-plexes and a community center.
Calculations
WITH DENSITY CAP
Net Parcel size (acreage) Unknown
Units 40
Net Density (units/acre) Unknown
With Density Cap (12 du/acre for R-3 development)
Land area required _______ units x 0.03 acres/unit (square feet)
Value per square foot City established value at final plat or final site plan approval *$1.60
City approved cost appraisal NA
Total cash value **Unknown
*current appraisal value; value determined at the time of final plan approval
**values are based on net density which is not available at conceptual phase
Review Criteria
The Bozeman City Commission delegated authority to the Parks and Recreation Director the authority to evaluate requests for authorization of accepting cash-in-lieu and improvements-in-lieu of parkland dedication through Resolution 4614. Further, Resolution #4784 establishes criteria for evaluation of requests for use of cash-in-lieu and improvements-in-lieu of parkland dedication pursuant to section 38.420.030.
This delegation includes approval of acceptance of improvements-in-lieu as a subset of cash-in-lieu. Additional guidance is given in Resolution 4784, subsection 3, which may preclude acceptance of cash/improvements-in-lieu even if other criteria are favorable.
Findings
FINDINGS, CHECK ALL THAT APPLY
The City’s preference for acquisition of real property for parks.
The desirability and suitability of land within or proposed by the developer for parks and playground based on size, topography, shape, water supply, location or other circumstance.
Proximity of the development to existing parks and recreation facilities.
Type, function of and facilities including within nearby park(s) (i.e. pocket parks, special use park, neighborhood park, community park, etc.).
The level of service (as defined in the adopted city-wide park master plan) provided by nearby parks(s).
Correspondence with the City’s adopted city-wide park master plan.
Whether the proposal provides an opportunity for partnerships, or whether grant funds are currently available.
Whether the developer or future property owners are required to particulate in the costs of maintenance of nearby park or recreational facilities.
Long term availability of city funds for maintenance of the proposed facilities.
The expressed preference of the developer.
WHEN CASH-IN-LIEU WILL ALWAYS BE ACCCEPTED
Development is located within the B-3 zoning district
Section 38.420.020.A requires payment of cash-in-lieu.
FACTORS FOR CONSIDERAION OF IMPROVEMENTS-IN-LIEU
are consistent with the master plan for the park where the improvements are proposed,
Are included in the city’s most recently adopted city-wide park master plan, or
Are included on the capital improvement program for the Parks and Recreation Department.
Must be consistent with the city’s approved specifications for park equipment and improvement; and.
THE REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS FOR CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND DEDICATION.
DIRECTOR SIGNATURE
To be provided at final site plan/cilp approval Mitchell J. Overton, MS, CPRP , Director, Parks & Recreation
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1 Cash-in-lieu of parkland must be paid prior to final site plan approval
CODE CORRECTIONS
1 Please include net lot area calculation in Site Plan application according to the definition in 38.700.130 of the UDC
2 38.420.030.D Where a cash donation has been accepted in-lieu of land dedication, the amount of cash donation must be stated on the final plat or plan as appropriate.
18,0560.6
Miles
This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal,
engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and
information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Feet
2,1040
Legend
1,052
Location
2,104
Addi Jadin
RPAB Review
08/07/2020
Created By:
Created For:
Date:
Bozeman Cohousing 10-minute/0.5-mile radius Map
Proposed
Application Received
On Hold
Initial Review
In Review
Public Notice
Final Review
Approved
Street Names
Trails
Paved Paths
Gravel Paths
Proposed Shared Use Paths (PROST)
Proposed Trails (PROST)
Parks
City Limits
Proposal for Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
Parkland Proposal
For Bozeman Cohousing
3120 Wagon Wheel Road
August 7th, 2020
The group of future residents of Bozeman Cohousing and their team of design
professionals thank the members of the Parks Board for their service and
consideration of the parkland proposals described herein. The proposal includes
the following parts:
1.Parkland Proposal Narrative
a.Project Narrative
b.Overview of the Project as Proposed
c.Parkland Proposal
d.Other Alternatives Considered
e.Conclusion
2.Appendix: Project Drawings
a.Illustrative Renderings
b.Civil Site Plan
c.Architectural Site Plan
d.Floor Plans
e.Elevations
Page 1 of 14
Proposal for Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
Project Narrative
The project is a 41-dwelling neighborhood conceived using the cohousing
model. Cohousing is developed and collaboratively designed with future
residents to foster strong community ties and with a focus on sustainability. While
there are hundreds of cohousing communities in North America, this will be the
first cohousing community in Bozeman and in Montana. Roughly one-quarter of
the future residents, all citizens of Bozeman, initiated the project and collaborated
to create the site plan that was submitted to the city for informal review. The
design was developed through a series of workshops that involved hundreds of
people hours. The neighborhood is proposed as 10 four-home buildings that are
clustered together to maximize open-space in and around the community. A 4500
square foot community facility building, a maker-space, parking for 100 bicycles,
and a shared storage room is included to support the robust community life the
future residents envision. An existing barn will remain to support agriculture and
community-building activities.
The future residents of the community, that are funding the development
and are instrumental in the design process, are individuals and families that live
and work in Bozeman. The proposed neighborhood will provide workforce
housing. Many current members of Bozeman Cohousing are making sacrifices to
make the required financial commitments. For example, one member family
recently sold their home and moved into a smaller apartment, which
demonstrates how much we believe in the idea of cohousing. The members
include daycare workers, fixed-income retirees, college professors, young adults
with special needs, and government employees. Increases to the cost of this
project will have significant negative effects on the Bozeman residents creating
this project, many of whom would be priced out if project costs escalate.
We, a group of Bozeman residents, are working to create a very special
neighborhood that is designed to support relationships. The design that keeps
cars out of the part of the neighborhood that has homes providing a safe place
for kids and adults to be and connect with each other. The members of Bozeman
Cohousing are keen on fostering relationships with the surrounding community
and have had many discussions around this subject. A large region of land near
Wagon Wheel Rd. has been left open to provide a buffer in front of the buildings
and maintain a welcoming view from Wagon Wheel Rd.
A lot of work and thought has been put into the site plan and it strives to
provide for the needs of future residents while respecting the surrounding
neighborhoods. As current residents of Bozeman, we value the parks and trails
that are throughout Bozeman. We want to do our fair share to contribute to these
amenities while also achieving the goals and aspirations of this neighborhood
that is expanding the possibilities for neighborhood sustainability and community
vitality.
Page 2 of 14
Proposal for Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
Overview of the Project as Originally Proposed
Figure 1: Site Plan Submitted to City of Bozeman for Informal Review
To understand how different park options we considered would affect the
cohousing neighborhood, it is useful to understand the current plan and the
rationale for some of the design decisions. Figure 1 shows the site plan that was
submitted to the City of Bozeman in May 2020. The schematic design of the
project is the culmination of hundreds of people hours and hundreds of
thousands of dollars of investment by the future cohousing residents.
Access to the property off of Wagon Wheel Rd. (left side) is through two
“streets”. The southern street is primarily for vehicles. The northern “street” is
primarily for pedestrians and bicyclists while allowing for access for emergency
vehicles if needed. Vehicles quickly enter the clustered parking area, screened
from the street by garages and openspace. Once people park their cars they join
the pedestrian street, walk past the common house, and enter the residential part
of the community.
The residences are clustered together in four pods that provide identity
and closeness between neighbors. The four pods are in turn clustered around a
central open space and the common house which continues the idea of providing
spaces to bring people together.
The common house provides a space for residents to come together.
There is space to share meals and for kids to play, a library and a living room,
and guest rooms. The common house is visible from many of the pods and is
Page 3 of 14
Proposal for Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
adjacent to the pedestrian street so people see it often and are drawn to
community activities. Together the common facilities enable occupants to
downsize their own homes and live more affordably, as well as with more support
and connection to their neighbors.
The clustered parking, smaller and clustered homes have allowed us to
maintain many open spaces on the property. The flat open spaces on the west
and eastern sides of the property have been designated for gardening and other
agriculture to support the sustainability goals of the community. The east side of
the site features a steep hill and Mathew Bird Spring Creek. Due to the riparian
corridor, the steep hill, and our goal to maintain natural areas, this approximately
1-acre area is designed to remain a natural open space.
Forty residential homes are on the site plan as originally proposed. This
number was not chosen randomly. A developer could easily have fit only a
couple of single-family luxury homes or conversely many more than forty homes
with very little remaining open space. The forty clustered homes on the site plan
provide enough families to spread out the financial costs of purchasing land and
constructing houses while maintaining a significant amount of natural areas,
agricultural land, and gathering places.
The site plan was created through a series of workshops with the future
residents of the community. Before the workshops, the design team met with
City Staff, consulted the Unified Building Code, and reviewed cohousing best
practices to bring ideas and constraints to the future residents. Then the design
team worked with future residents to articulate the goals and aspirations of the
community and finally worked on creating the details of the look, feel, and layout
of the cohousing neighborhood. The hundreds (if not thousands) of people hours
invested produced a site plan that manifests many elements that have been
shown to make strong and enduring cohousing communities, supports our
sustainability goals, and meets the financial needs of this group of Bozeman
residents.
Page 4 of 14
Proposal for Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
Parkland Proposal
As described in the above sections, this project was created by and for
Bozeman residents who want a strong sense of community in their neighborhood
and can’t find what they are looking for in the market-driven development around
Bozeman. These future residents share many of the city’s goals for robust
parkland serving the citizens. They also have become keenly aware of the
challenges that make building workforce housing in Bozeman extremely difficult
to achieve.
The group of future cohousing residents has worked with City Staff over
the past weeks and months to exchange core goals and fundamental limitations
around meeting the requirements of Division 420 of the Bozeman Unified
Development Code “Park and Recreation Requirements.” As part of this process
to arrive at this proposal, staff and the group of future residents have investigated
and assessed numerous alternatives, which are discussed in the following
section. Based on this process, cash-in-lieu is the compliance option proposed
to the board under Section 38.420.030.A of the Bozeman Unified Development
Code. It has emerged as the most appropriate alternative due to the intersection
of the city’s goals, project and site limitations, and the lack of amenities present in
adjacent parks.
Well before Annexation of the site, in the project’s initial call with Addi
Jadin (December 2019), she articulated that there are many paths to meet the
parkland requirement and that cash-in-lieu is most likely the best option for an
infill project like this one. More recently (July 2020) she added that “It is nice to
have cash-in-lieu in areas of town like this that are completely built out and
generally not seeing new development. The CILP... could go toward
improvements to the parks in the Westfield Subdivision.” The group of future
residents agrees that cash-in-lieu is in fact the best option for this project.
As Ms. Jadin points out, this is an infill development in a neighborhood
that is nearly fully built out. Much of the parkland is undeveloped or
underdeveloped. The nearby Grafs, Westfield, and Spring Meadows Parks
feature trails and open space with little to nothing in the way of amenities. In fact
there is parkland across the street from the project between Concord and
Lexington Streets that has been all but annexed into the backyards of the
adjacent lots and features an aging play structure. The PROST plan recognizes
that proximity to parks in need of improvement is an appropriate criteria for
accepting cash-in-lieu payments. It also recognizes that cash-in-lieu is especially
appropriate in the case of infill projects when ample parkland is already available,
which is the case with this project. This project’s cash-in-lieu payment would
assist the city in upgrading the neighborhood parks to meet the needs of a more
diverse cross-section of neighborhood residents.
Page 5 of 14
Proposal for Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
The group of future cohousing residents asks the board at its
meeting on August 13th to clearly indicate their support for this cash in-lieu
parkland proposal. The group also wishes the board to be aware that all other
divisions of the city government have provided sufficient direction on the
proposed informal site plan to enable the future residents to proceed with the site
plan approval process. Delay by the parks department costs the future residents
a significant amount of money and makes the homes less and less affordable
every day. As mentioned, some residents have already sold their homes to fund
the carrying costs which have exceeded $100 per family per week, this in a time
of pandemic where home finances are already stretched. Thank you in advance
for working with this group of Bozeman residents striving to create an exciting
and complementary infill neighborhood in our city.
Page 6 of 14
Proposal for Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
Other Alternatives Considered
As mentioned above, numerous options were pursued to arrive at the
proposed cash in-lieu strategy. These included the following:
CONSTRUCTION OF THE GRAFFS PARK TRAIL CONNECTOR
A trail connection from the trail immediately east of the site to Graffs Park
was proposed in the PROST plan. The future residents were excited to contribute
their time and money to building this trail connection. Staff, GLVT, and the
resident’s project manager met on site to assess possible alignments and
feasibility, which were promising. However, one of the landowners across which
the trail would need to pass to reach Graff street expressed a hard no regarding
their willingness to allow a trail easement.
IMPROVEMENT OF THE LINEAR PARK WITHIN THE WESTFIELD
SUBDIVISION
This was suggested by city staff as an alternative. However, the parkland
is owned by the Westfield Subdivision HOA (but maintained by the city). HOA
residents’ backyards adjoin the park and some have even installed garden beds
within the parkland. Thus the future residents of Bozeman Cohousing determined
that the receptiveness of the HOA was likely to be low and that attempting a
negotiation could damage relations.
DEDICATION OF A MINI PARK AS A COMMUNITY GARDEN
The future residents believe that a community garden would have
provided an excellent amenity-rich mini park and would help build community
resilience and sustainability. Such a park would have supported the climate
action, sustainability, and community engagement elements of the Bozeman
Strategic Plan and the PROST plan. The group of future residents and their
design consultants invested considerable time and money in this alternative,
including creating a revised site plan as well as researching and visiting similar
gardens in Bozeman and Missoula. However, staff concluded that the proposed
⅓-acre community garden would not meet the frontage requirements of section
38.420.060.A.2 of the Bozeman Unified Development Code.
FUTURE EAST-WEST TRAIL CONNECTION
A series of proposals for an east-west trail connection through the site
were evaluated by the group of future residents, their team of design
professionals, and city staff. Iterations of the proposal included an easement that
would be matched by a reciprocal easement on the portion of the site boardinring
county land at the time of annexation and redevelopment of that property.
Ultimately, this proposal was found not to be viable. Specific reasons are
described below.
Page 7 of 14
Proposal for Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
The proposed trail easement would come too close to bedroom windows,
which can not be feasibly relocated.
There are eight homes along the northern property line with a total of
eight bedrooms 5’ to 10’ from the property line. Eliminating windows opening on
the trail is not possible due to fire egress requirements. Leaving the windows and
buildings where they are located adjacent to the proposed trail would pose an
insurmountable safety hazard and livability problem. We all love trails, but would
you be willing to have one pass within inches of your bedroom window? Or your
child’s?
Moving the buildings to create an adequate setback is unfortunately not
possible because of the narrow panhandle nature of the infill site, utility access
easements, and fire access and building separation requirements. Lastly,
eliminating the buildings is financially untenable and would cause price
escalations in excess of $50,000 per home! To put that in context, that is about
five times the price for which the project could install enough solar panels to
generate all of its energy on site. Reducing the number of dwellings in the project
would increase the price per dwelling such that many families who have invested
in the project would no longer be able to afford their future homes. The residents,
design team, and development team have looked at this up, down, and sideways:
a trail easement adjacent to the homes is unachievable and is an existential
threat to the project.
The unique topographic characteristics of the site create a large impact on
development and an excessive hardship in achieving staff’s proposal.
It is important for the Board to recognize that the site features a 50’ to 80’
wide band of steep slope dropping over 25’ to Matthew Bird Springs Creek at
slopes of 25% to well over 33%. There is no route up or down the slope on the
property that does not traverse slopes in excess of 33%. The area proposed by
staff for an easement includes an embankment over 10’ tall exceeding 65% in
slope. In short the slope is very steep.
Constructing a city standard Class II trail on these steep slopes would
require continuous retaining walls for over 500’ of trail and would likely require
guardrails for fall safety protection near switchbacks. Even at 33% slope, let
alone at the steeper slopes, retaining walls would be required (the pink areas on
Figure 4 below). Retaining walls would be needed because 33% is the maximum
slope at which cut and fill dirt is stable based on the geotechnical engineer’s
analysis. This trail configuration would denude the landscape and leave little
room for replanting across a swath at least 150’ wide. This is exactly the type of
recreational use the PROST plan warns about being incompatible with ecological
integrity within watercourse setbacks.
It is important context for the Board to note that Section 38.420.020.E.3 of
the Bozeman Unified Development Code prevents dedication of parkland
Page 8 of 14
Proposal for Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
exceeding 25% in slope “unless the city commission makes specific findings in its
favor as part of the adoption of a park master plan.” This requirement is
presumably in place due to the major challenges that steep slopes present for the
development of amenities, such as trails.
In addition, construction of the trail would be extremely expensive, far
exceeding any cash-in-lieu payments this project would be required to make and
likely any payments the adjacent property would be required to make at the time
of redevelopment. Furthermore, a costly bridge and potentially a boardwalk over
Matthew Bird Springs Creek would be required to complete the trail connection.
The staff’s proposal to create a trail on this steep slope would require a
very large land area, would dramatically disturb the hillside and adjacent riparian
corridor, and would require costly retaining walls and guard rails. The staff’s
proposed trail alignment through this steep slope is not appropriate ecologically,
topographically, and economically.
Figure 2: The site features a band of steep slopes along the eastern edge. Only
the blue and purple colors are less than 25% in slope. The pink band across the
eastern edge of the property indicates slopes exceeding 35%, at which all
construction would require a retaining wall.
The unique spatial characteristics of the infill site create a large impact on
development and an excessive hardship in achieving staff’s proposal.
It is important for the Board to recognize that over an acre at the eastern
portion of the site (20%) lies within a watercourse and slope setback, making it
undevelopable. In addition, the infill site is long and narrow, with vehicular and
pedestrian access only from the western edge. This long narrow configuration
requires that all utilities, stormwater management systems, pedestrian circulation,
and vehicular circulation run parallel to the long axis of the site. The staff
proposal to force another layer into the “lasagne” stack running across the site
generates a large negative impact on development. In fact, an east-west onsite
Page 9 of 14
Proposal for Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
trail generates the greatest negative impact on affordability of any possible
configuration for parkland due to the unique relationship of geometry and access
on the site.
A trail easement would need more land than is required to be dedicated
under 38.420.020.A.1. The project is not able to accommodate “extra”
parkland dedication in excess of code requirements.
The group of future residents of Bozeman cohousing are strong
proponents of parkland and have demonstrated their desire to cooperate with the
City in meeting parkland code requirements by proposing three code-compliant
alternatives to the Parks Board. However, as the PROST plan acknowledges,
parkland dedication comes into conflict with density and affordability in the case
of infill projects like this one. This is especially true of extra dedication above and
beyond requirements. Due to the factors described earlier, this project is simply
not able to bear the burden of the surplus land dedication proposed by staff.
Even a shared trail easement would require at minimum somewhere
between ½ acre and ¾ acre, when only ⅓ acre maximum is required. As
mentioned above, there are major feasibility hurdles to constructing a trail on the
steep slopes, so a feasible design would likely require even greater land area.
A shared trail easement assumes a less-dense zoning and development
pattern.
Walking around the trail systems near the site, it is easy to imagine a
similar trail cutting across the project site. However, it is important to recognize
that all adjacent land is zoned R-1 (with the exception of the adjacent Kent Hall
Condominium). These adjacent subdivisions were developed in the past and in
some cases under county jurisdiction, so many regulatory standards were more
relaxed when those projects were approved. In contrast, the cohousing project
site is zoned R-3 (medium density), with a minimum density of 5 dwellings per
acre. This R-3 zoning was adopted by the City Commision with arguments in
favor focusing on how wiser use of land promotes openspace and parkland and
on the flexibility in configuration provided by R-3 zoning, which is needed to
create workforce housing in the expensive Bozeman real estate context.
It is likely that the adjacent low-density development patterns that
facilitated the existing trail systems would not be possible under current code in
the R-3 project site. This is graphically represented in the following figure (Figure
3), depicting the land area occupied to create the same number of dwellings in
adjacent development models. Specifically model 1 and 2 occupy about 17 acres
and model 3 occupies about 55 acres to provide the same forty one homes.
Because there is so much more land consumed by these low-density
development patterns it is easy to understand how the closest homes range from
about 30’ to 70’ from trails. That separation provides for a safe and comfortable
Page 10 of 14
Proposal for Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
coexistence of homes and adjacent trails. In contrast, staff’s proposal would
locate a trail easement within inches of bedroom windows.
It is also important for the Board to recognize that the proposed project
does not maximize density to the fullest extent allowed in the Bozeman Unified
Development Code. Seventy-six condominium homes would be permitted on the
property, whereas only forty one are proposed (Table 38.320.030.A). Greater
density is not only hypothetically possible, the South Rows Condominiums
project, located further west on Graff Street also in R-3 zoning, provided
fifty-seven homes on 4.4 acres. Only forty-one homes are proposed on this 5.3
acre site. Perimeter trails are simply much more feasible in low density
developments. It is unreasonable and financially unfeasible for the project to
reduce the number of homes to align with development models popular in times
past and in low-density zones.
Figure 3: Land area occupied to provide the same amount of housing in the
proposed project and adjacent development patterns. Low-density R-1
development makes perimeter trails possible, while maintaining 30’ to 70’
setbacks from bedrooms. The perimeter trail typology is not similarly feasible on
the project’s medium-density zoned site.
Page 11 of 14
Proposal for Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
Requiring a continuous easement as the sole acceptable parkland solution
is unreasonable at this juncture.
It is unfortunate that the future residents only became aware of staff’s
desire to implement a trail connection through the property late in the planning
and development process, while receiving site plan comments at which point the
group of future residents had already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars
to get to this point. If it were not for the above limitations, the group would be
happy to incorporate staff’s suggestion. However, the costs are just too high. If a
trail was the only parkland solution the city was willing to accept, that could have
been proactively communicated to all citizens, land owners, and buyers by
incorporating it into the PROST plan and indicating a proposed trail connection
on city GIS. That was not the case at the time of land purchase and is still not the
case. Additionally, when the land was annexed, other departments included
conditions of annexation to clearly communicate future development
requirements. A requirement or desire to create an east-west trail connection was
not a condition of annexation. For these reasons, the group of future residents
urges the Board to approve the proposed parkland solution which facilitates the
site plan that was crafted based on the information in place and publicly available
before extensive investment was required on the part of the future residents.
A more feasible alignment for an east-west trail connection exists.
The most feasible route for an east-west trail connection lies on the parcel
to the north: 3186 Wagon Wheel Road. There an alignment could be created
traversing slopes not exceeding 33%. On these flatter slopes, a trail could
presumably be constructed without ecologically and economically costly retaining
walls and guardrails, instead using earthen cut and fill slopes. This alignment is
illustrated in Figure 4 below.
It is also worth considering the purpose of the proposed trail connection.
There is no feasible connection further west through the Westfield Subdivision to
reach South 3rd Avenue (where the street continues south after jogging west).
Instead, aligning the trail to the intersection of Graff, South 3rd, and Wagon
Wheel would likely be more useful and create greater connectivity. There the trail
would connect to bike and pedestrian infrastructure planned in the Transportation
Master Plan along South 3rd and along Graff. This infrastructure has high
connectivity, extending northward up South 3rd toward MSU and downtown and
west down Graff Street toward the Gallagator Trail extension and Sacagawea
Middle School.
Page 12 of 14
Proposal for Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
Figure 4: Steep slopes and an embankment impede construction of a trail up
from the creek on the project site. More feasible alignments exist on the property
to the north, 3186 Wagon Wheel, and could be implemented at the time of
redevelopment. A northern alignment would provide uninterrupted connectivity to
the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure described in the 2017 Bozeman
Transportation Master Plan at the intersection of Wagon Wheel Road, Graff
Street, and South Third Street.
Requiring both land dedication and cash-in-lieu is excessive.
Section 38.420.030 of the Bozeman Unified Development Code allows
the board to approve a park proposal consisting of only cash-in-lieu. As
mentioned above, this project is funded by local residents to create workforce
housing. Also as the PROST plan acknowledges, parkland requirements,
especially in infill projects, are in conflict with affordability. Requiring “extra” from
this project will not come out of developer profits or from out-of-town luxury condo
owners; it will make the project less affordable for the local residents funding it.
The board does not have to choose between parks and affordability, but a choice
to require extra is a choice against affordability.
Page 13 of 14
Proposal for Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
Conclusion
The group of future residents of Bozeman Cohousing and their team of
design professionals thank the members of the Parks Board for their service and
time invested considering this project. They look forward to a productive
discussion of the proposal described above. The Bozeman Cohousing project
aligns with many city goals and policies around housing affordability, openspace,
parkland, health, and community engagement. The future residents have worked
through numerous alternatives and are presenting a strong proposal which is in
line with city goals, policy, and code. The investigation of numerous alternatives
and the final proposal is reflective of the group, which is composed of Bozeman
citizens and future residents of the project, who are barely able to create
workforce housing within Bozeman’s costly development context. The proposal
provides financial resources, valuable to the park system, but also do not include
extras or “both/ands” because creating housing affordability in Bozeman is not
compatible with doing so, at least for this project. Thus the residents urge the
Board to clearly indicate their support for the proposal, which will allow an
exciting resident-driven project to move forward.
Page 14 of 14
A0.0 Cover sheetA1.0 Site planA3.1&2 Buidings - Type 1 & 2A3.3 Buidings - Type 3A3.4 Buidings - Type 4A4.3 Common House - First Floor plansA4.4 Common House - Basement & 2nd Floor plansA5.1 Building elevations Building 1A5.2 Building elevations Building 2A5.3a Building elevations Building 3A5.3b Building elevations Building 3A5.4 Building elevations Building 4A6.0 Outbuilding plans and elevationsA6.1 Outbuilding plans and elevationsSHEET INDEXSTUDIO CO+HAB, LLC914 W Babcock St BOZEMAN, MT 59715895 Technology Blvd #203 Bozeman, MT 59718MADISON ENGINEERINGARCHITECTCIVILVICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALE28 JULY 2020109 E Main St suite b Bozeman, MT 59715WGM GROUP.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSchematic Design - 7/28/2020Bozeman Cohousing3120 Wagonwheel Rd. Bozeman, MT, 59715Bozeman Coho, LLCSchematic Design
UNIT (2/2)ROW
UP
UNIT (2/1)F. INT.UNIT (3/2)ROW
BUILDING
T
Y
P
E
1
COMMONGARDENPLAY0'25'50'100'SCALE: 1" = 30'-0
" @ 24x36GARDENSHED + BARN(EX. BARN)OPENSPACESECONDARY SITEEGRESS (WOONERF)WORK-SHOPBIKESPRIMARY SITE ACCESS15
0
'150'15
0
'BUILDING TYPE 2BUILDING TYPE 2UNIT (2/2)ROW
UP
UNIT (2/1)F. INT.UNIT (3/2)ROW
BUILDING TYPE 1UNIT (2/2)ROWUPUNIT (2/1)F. INT.UNIT (3/2)ROWBUILDING TYPE 1UNIT (2/2)ROWUPUNIT (2/1)F. INT.UNIT (3/2)ROWBUILDING TYPE 1UNIT (2/2)ROW
UPUNIT (2/1)F. INT.
UNIT (3/2)ROW
BUILDING TYPE 1 RAINGARDEN
150'TRASH &RECYCL.CLOTHES LINEPAVEDPLAZABACKYARDWATERCOURSESETBACKPAVEDPATHGARAGECAR PORTCOMMONTERRACEFIRE APPARATUSACCESS, TYP.PROPERTY LINESETBACKN.W. ENERGYEASEMENTPROPOSEDLOT LINEADJUSTMENTEXISTING TREETO REMAIN, TYP.BIRD SPRINGCREEKBIOSWALEUNIT (3
/2)F. EXT
.UNIT (2/1
)
F. EX
T.UNIT (2/2)RATRIUMUNIT (2/2)RMIRROREDUNIT (1/1)RATRIUM
UNIT (2/2)RATRIUM AG4 CARGARAGECOMMONHOUSECOMMONAMENITIES ATRIUM
PAVEDPLAZABUILDING TYPE 2BUILDING TYPE 3UNITSBUILDINGUNIT TYPESq Ft#TotCOMMON AMEN
ITIES
SFBuilding 1Unit (3/2) Row house146668796First
f
loo
r
3765Unit (2/1) Flat interior - 1st floor94065640
Second floor
792Unit (2/1) Flat interior - 2nd floor94065640
TOTAL4557Unit (2/2) Row house113966834SUBTOTAL - SF Bldg4485
OUTBUILDINGSSFBuilding 2Unit (3/2) Flat exterior - 1st floor128633858
2-CAR GARAGE5184Unit (3/2) Flat exterior - 2nd floor128633858
4-CAR GARAGE1097Unit (2/1) Flat exterior - 1st floor106833204
CARPORTS486Unit (2/1) Flat exterior - 2nd floor106833204
WORKSHOP576SUBTOTAL - SF Bldg4708
STORAGE650BIKE SHED1000Building 3Unit (2/2) Row house (mirrored)113911139 TOTAL6281Unit (3/2) Row Atrium113011130Unit (2/2) Row Atrium116811168Unit (1/1) Row Atrium7811781SUBTOTAL - SF Bldg4218PRIVATE HOUSE TOTAL4045252COMMON AMENITIES TOTAL4557OUTBUILDINGS TOTAL6281PROJECT TOTAL56090SFPARKINGTYPE
#TotOpen pa
rking
-
Standard1717Open pa
rking
-
Compact1616Open pa
rking
-
ADA222-car garage9184-car garage14Carport33On stree
t park
ing
77TOTAL67BYCYCLE PARKING#Car parking
sta
lls
requi
red
93Bicycle pa
rking
-
required*9.3Bicycle pa
rking
-
p
rovided
100* per Bozeman
Munic
ipal
Code
Sec
. 38
.540
.050.A.4UNIT (2/2)ROWUPUNIT (2/1)F. INT.UNIT (3/2)ROWBUILDING TYPE 1STORAGESITE PLANSCALE: 1"= 30'-0" @ 24x3601NA1.0SITE PLANArchitect:STUDIO CO+HAB, LLC914 W Babcock StBOZEMAN, MT 59715651.336.0394erik.bonnett@gmail.comBozemanCohousingBozeman Coho, LLCSheet Title:DateDrawn ByProject Number15 MAY, 20201904BOZRevisions:3120 Wagonwheel Rd.Bozeman, MT, 59715M.B & E.BCivil:MADISON ENGINEERING895 Technology Blvd #203Bozeman, MT 59718406.586.0262chris@mad-eng.comLandscape Architect:WGM GROUP.109 E Main St suite bBozeman, MT 59715406.728.4611lracow@wgmgroup.com
0'25'50'100'SCALE: 1" = 30'-0
" @ 24x36SECONDARY SITEEGRESS (WOONERF)PRIMARY SITE ACCESS15
0
'150'15
0
'150'HOSE PULLSAT MOST DISTANTLOCATIONS"Y" TURNAROUNDFIRE HYDRANTNATIVELANDSCAPINGBIRD SPRINGCREEK2
0
'
-
0
"
TY
P
.EMERGENCYVEHICLE ACCESS24'-0"TYP.FIRE SITE PLANSCALE: 1"= 30'-0" @ 24x3601NA1.1FIRE SITE PLANArchitect:STUDIO CO+HAB, LLC914 W Babcock StBOZEMAN, MT 59715651.336.0394erik.bonnett@gmail.comBozemanCohousingBozeman Coho, LLCSheet Title:DateDrawn ByProject Number11 MAY, 20201904BOZRevisions:3120 Wagonwheel Rd.Bozeman, MT, 59715M.B & E.BCivil:MADISON ENGINEERING895 Technology Blvd #203Bozeman, MT 59718406.586.0262chris@mad-eng.comLandscape Architect:WGM GROUP.109 E Main St suite bBozeman, MT 59715406.728.4611lracow@wgmgroup.com
REF.REF.REF.UPUPUPDNREF.DNDNREF.REF.UPREF.REF.DNA5.11A5.12A5.13A5.140' 5'10' 20'40' - 6"26' - 9 1/2"32' - 4"16' - 9"34' - 0"28' - 6"SKYLIGHT(velux)WOOD STOVESHOWERWINDOW SEATBOOKSHELF927 SFUNIT (3/2)R.895 SFUNIT (2/1)F. Int.569 SFUNIT (2/2)RWOOD STOVEROWHOUSEFLATROWHOUSEA5.11A5.12A5.13A5.14539 SFUNIT (3/2)R.977 SFUNIT (2/1)F. Int.569 SFUNIT (2/2)RGREEN ROOF?(when no solar panel)POSSIBLE BALCONYWOOD STOVESOLAR TUBELOFT AFTER CONSTRUC.SLOPED CEILINGIKEA STYLE CLOSETSLOPED CEILINGROWHOUSEFLATROWHOUSEDNA5.21A5.22A5.23A5.2438' - 6"48' - 7"36' - 0"30' - 8"1347 SFUNIT (3/2) F. Ext977 SFUNIT (2/1)F. Ext.FIREPLACE INSERTBARN DOORIKEA STYLE CLOSETFIRE PLACE0' 5' 10' 20'FLATFLATA5.21A5.22A5.23A5.241340 SFUNIT (3/2) F. Ext977 SFUNIT (2/1)F. Ext.POCKET DOORFIRE PLACEFLATFLATArchitect:STUDIO CO+HAB, LLC914 W Babcock StBOZEMAN, MT 59715651.336.0394erik.bonnett@gmail.comSheet Title:DateDrawn ByProject NumberRevisions:M.B & E.BCivil:MADISON ENGINEERING895 Technology Blvd #203BOZEMAN, MT 59718406.586.0262chris@mad-eng.com Landscape Architect:WGM GROUP.109 E Main St suite bBOZEMAN, MT 59715406.728.4611lracow@wgmgroup.com 7/24/2020 10:45:49 AMA3.1&2Buidings -Type 1 & 2BozemanCohousingBozeman Coho, LLC7/28/20201904BOZ3120 Wagonwheel Rd.Bozeman, MT, 597157/28/2020 Schematic DesignUnit types - Area ScheduleName Level AreaUNIT (1/1) R ATRIUM 2nd floor 383 SFUNIT (1/1) R ATRIUM 1st floor 398 SF780 SFUNIT (2/1)F. Ext. 1st floor 977 SFUNIT (2/1)F. Ext. 2nd floor 977 SF1955 SFUNIT (2/1)F. Int. 1st floor 895 SFUNIT (2/1)F. Int. 2nd floor 977 SF1873 SFUNIT (2/2)R 1st floor 569 SFUNIT (2/2)R 2nd floor 569 SF1139 SFUNIT (3/2) F. Ext 2nd floor 1340 SFUNIT (3/2) F. Ext 1st floor 1347 SF2686 SFUNIT (3/2) R ATRIUM 2nd floor 416 SFUNIT (3/2) R ATRIUM 1st floor 654 SF1070 SFUNIT (3/2)b R ATRIUM 1st floor 638 SFUNIT (3/2)b R ATRIUM 2nd floor 712 SF1350 SFUNIT (3/2)R. 2nd floor 539 SFUNIT (3/2)R. 1st floor 927 SF1466 SF1/8" = 1'-0"Building type 1 - 1st floor11/8" = 1'-0"Building type 1 - 2nd floor21/8" = 1'-0"Building type 2 - 1st floor31/8" = 1'-0"Building type 2 - 2nd floor4
REF.REF.REF.W/DW/DW/DREF.UPUPUPUPREF.REF.DNDNREF.REF.A5.3b12A5.3a1A5.3a3654 SFUNIT (3/2) R ATRIUM638 SFUNIT (3/2)b R ATRIUM398 SFUNIT (1/1) R ATRIUMUNIT (2/2)RUNIT (3/2) F. ExtUNIT (2/1)F. Ext.ATRIUMSHARED SPACESBUILDING TYPE 2MirroredBUILDING TYPE 3COMMONFACILITIESBUILDING 3ABUILDING 3B4 CAR GARAGE(Unconditioned space)COVERED OUTDOOR SPACEROWHOUSEROWHOUSEROWHOUSEROWHOUSE-A5.3b12A5.3a1A5.3a3OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWSKYLIGHT(velux)383 SFUNIT (1/1) R ATRIUM712 SFUNIT (3/2)b R ATRIUM416 SFUNIT (3/2) R ATRIUMUNIT (2/2)RATRIUMBUILDING TYPE 2MirroredBUILDING TYPE 3COMMONFACILITIESBUILDING 3ABUILDING 3B(Unconditioned space)COVERED OUTDOOR SPACEROWHOUSEROWHOUSEROWHOUSEROWHOUSEUNIT (3/2) F. ExtUNIT (2/1)F. Ext.DNDN-Architect:STUDIO CO+HAB, LLC914 W Babcock StBOZEMAN, MT 59715651.336.0394erik.bonnett@gmail.comSheet Title:DateDrawn ByProject NumberRevisions:M.B & E.BCivil:MADISON ENGINEERING895 Technology Blvd #203BOZEMAN, MT 59718406.586.0262chris@mad-eng.com Landscape Architect:WGM GROUP.109 E Main St suite bBOZEMAN, MT 59715406.728.4611lracow@wgmgroup.com 7/24/2020 10:45:54 AMA3.3Buidings -Type 3BozemanCohousingBozeman Coho, LLC7/28/20201904BOZ3120 Wagonwheel Rd.Bozeman, MT, 597157/28/2020 Schematic Design1/8" = 1'-0"Building type 3 - 1st floor11/8" = 1'-0"Building type 3 - 2nd floor2
REF.REF.REF.REF.40' - 6"26' - 9 1/2"32' - 4"26' - 9 1/2"A5.41A5.42A5.430' 5' 10' 20'UNIT (3/2)R.ROWHOUSEFLATUNIT (2/1)F.Int.SAME AS TYPE 1 BUILDINGUNIT (3/2)R.ROWHOUSE6' - 6"5' - 6"A5.41A5.42A5.43SAME AS TYPE 1 BUILDINGUNIT (3/2)R.ROWHOUSEFLATUNIT (2/1)F.Int.UNIT (3/2)R.ROWHOUSEArchitect:STUDIO CO+HAB, LLC914 W Babcock StBOZEMAN, MT 59715651.336.0394erik.bonnett@gmail.comSheet Title:DateDrawn ByProject NumberRevisions:M.B & E.BCivil:MADISON ENGINEERING895 Technology Blvd #203BOZEMAN, MT 59718406.586.0262chris@mad-eng.com Landscape Architect:WGM GROUP.109 E Main St suite bBOZEMAN, MT 59715406.728.4611lracow@wgmgroup.com 7/24/2020 10:45:58 AMA3.4Buidings -Type 4BozemanCohousingBozeman Coho, LLC7/28/20201904BOZ3120 Wagonwheel Rd.Bozeman, MT, 597157/28/2020 Schematic Design1/8" = 1'-0"Building type 4 - 1st floor11/8" = 1'-0"Building type 4 - 2nd floor2Unit types - Area ScheduleName Level AreaUNIT (1/1) R ATRIUM 2nd floor 383 SFUNIT (1/1) R ATRIUM 1st floor 398 SF780 SFUNIT (2/1)F. Ext. 1st floor 977 SFUNIT (2/1)F. Ext. 2nd floor 977 SF1955 SFUNIT (2/1)F. Int. 1st floor 895 SFUNIT (2/1)F. Int. 2nd floor 977 SF1873 SFUNIT (2/2)R 1st floor 569 SFUNIT (2/2)R 2nd floor 569 SF1139 SFUNIT (3/2) F. Ext 2nd floor 1340 SFUNIT (3/2) F. Ext 1st floor 1347 SF2686 SFUNIT (3/2) R ATRIUM 2nd floor 416 SFUNIT (3/2) R ATRIUM 1st floor 654 SF1070 SFUNIT (3/2)b R ATRIUM 1st floor 638 SFUNIT (3/2)b R ATRIUM 2nd floor 712 SF1350 SFUNIT (3/2)R. 2nd floor 539 SFUNIT (3/2)R. 1st floor 927 SF1466 SF
W/DW/DW/DDNUPA5.3a1COMMON TERRACESHOES & COATSCOVERED LAUNDRY LINESDRYING RACKSFOOD PREP+ MESSY CRAFTMIXERDISHWASHERPRIVATE HOUSEPANTRYWALLOVENSSHOES COATSSTORAGEARTS & CRAFTS910 SFDINING232 SFKITCHEN62 SFMUDROOM291 SFKIDS122 SFGUEST56 SFBATH200 SFLAUNDRY94 SFMAILPRIVATE HOUSEGARAGEOPENTOBELOWOPENTOBELOWA5.3a2A5.3a3TEMPORARY STAGECAFE BAR / COWORKINGSCREENSHOES & COATS-MAIL BOXESArchitect:STUDIO CO+HAB, LLC914 W Babcock StBOZEMAN, MT 59715651.336.0394erik.bonnett@gmail.comSheet Title:DateDrawn ByProject NumberRevisions:M.B & E.BCivil:MADISON ENGINEERING895 Technology Blvd #203BOZEMAN, MT 59718406.586.0262chris@mad-eng.com Landscape Architect:WGM GROUP.109 E Main St suite bBOZEMAN, MT 59715406.728.4611lracow@wgmgroup.com 7/24/2020 11:40:09 AMA4.3Common House -First Floor plansBozemanCohousingBozeman Coho, LLC7/28/20201904BOZ3120 Wagonwheel Rd.Bozeman, MT, 597157/28/2020 Schematic Design3/16" = 1'-0"First floor - Common House1Common House - AreaScheduleName AreaFinishedCH - First Floor 2894 SFCH - 2nd Floor 715 SF3610 SFUnfinishedCH - Basement 876 SF876 SFGrand total 4485 SF
UPDNMECH. / ITEGRESS WINDOWPANTRYROOT CELLARSTORAGE308 SFFOOD STORAGE413 SFACTIVITY ROOMEGRESS WINDOWOPEN TO BELOWHOT TUBHOOKSSUITS + TOWELSSCREENCEILINGPROJECTORFLEXIBLESEATINGPRIVATE HOUSEPRIVATE HOUSEC.LOW BOOKSALCOVE SEATINGFIREPLACE293 SFLIVING ROOM91 SFCIRCULATION51 SFBATH176 SFGUESTArchitect:STUDIO CO+HAB, LLC914 W Babcock StBOZEMAN, MT 59715651.336.0394erik.bonnett@gmail.comSheet Title:DateDrawn ByProject NumberRevisions:M.B & E.BCivil:MADISON ENGINEERING895 Technology Blvd #203BOZEMAN, MT 59718406.586.0262chris@mad-eng.com Landscape Architect:WGM GROUP.109 E Main St suite bBOZEMAN, MT 59715406.728.4611lracow@wgmgroup.com 7/24/2020 11:41:43 AMA4.4Common House -Basement & 2nd FloorplansBozemanCohousingBozeman Coho, LLC7/28/20201904BOZ3120 Wagonwheel Rd.Bozeman, MT, 597157/28/2020 Schematic Design3/16" = 1'-0"Basement- Common House13/16" = 1'-0"2nd floor - Common House2
REF.DN24' - 0"24' - 0"3' - 0"----3' - 0"3' - 0"21' - 0"25' - 0"4' - 0"3' - 0"A6.02A6.08A6.010A6.0745' - 0"20' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"3' - 0"1st floor0' -0"1st floor0' -0"1st floor0' -0"A6.04A6.06BOOKSA6.051st floor0' -0"2nd floor10' -1"Architect:STUDIO CO+HAB, LLC914 W Babcock StBOZEMAN, MT 59715651.336.0394erik.bonnett@gmail.comSheet Title:DateDrawn ByProject NumberRevisions:M.B & E.BCivil:MADISON ENGINEERING895 Technology Blvd #203BOZEMAN, MT 59718406.586.0262chris@mad-eng.com Landscape Architect:WGM GROUP.109 E Main St suite bBOZEMAN, MT 59715406.728.4611lracow@wgmgroup.com 7/24/2020 10:46:28 AMA6.0Outbuilding plans andelevationsBozemanCohousingBozeman Coho, LLC7/28/20201904BOZ3120 Wagonwheel Rd.Bozeman, MT, 597157/28/2020 Schematic Design1/8" = 1'-0"Storage & Garage - Plan11/8" = 1'-0"Workshop & Bikes - Plan91/8" = 1'-0"W&B - South Elevation101/8" = 1'-0"W&B- West Elevation71/8" = 1'-0"W&B - East Elevation81/8" = 1'-0"Garage - West elev. E. Row21/8" = 1'-0"Garage - West elev. W. Row41/8" = 1'-0"ADU - floor plan31/8" = 1'-0"ADU elevation North61/8" = 1'-0"ADU elevation East5
A6.13A6.12A6.14A6.15.32' - 11"36' - 8"24' - 3 1/2"12' - 4 1/2"Architect:STUDIO CO+HAB, LLC914 W Babcock StBOZEMAN, MT 59715651.336.0394erik.bonnett@gmail.comSheet Title:DateDrawn ByProject NumberRevisions:M.B & E.BCivil:MADISON ENGINEERING895 Technology Blvd #203BOZEMAN, MT 59718406.586.0262chris@mad-eng.com Landscape Architect:WGM GROUP.109 E Main St suite bBOZEMAN, MT 59715406.728.4611lracow@wgmgroup.com 7/24/2020 10:46:29 AMA6.1Outbuilding plans andelevationsBozemanCohousingBozeman Coho, LLC7/28/20201904BOZ3120 Wagonwheel Rd.Bozeman, MT, 597157/28/2020 Schematic Design1/8" = 1'-0"Barn- North Elevation21/8" = 1'-0"Barn- South Elevation31/8" = 1'-0"Barn- West Elevation41/8" = 1'-0"Barn- East Elevation51/8" = 1'-0"Barn - Plan1