HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-10 Bozeman Peaks Condominiums Subdivision Review Committee Report
BozemanRecreation&ParksAdvisoryBoard
P.O. Box 1230Bozeman, MT59771
··
Park Plan Review
PLANNER: Brian Krueger
FROM:Subdivision Review Committee
SUBJECT: Bozeman Peaks Condominiums
REVIEWED ON:March 19, 2010
BACKGROUND:
This condominium project at Cottonwood and Fallon has already completed one of the
three planned buildings and is requesting a change to the Final Site Plan (FSP) before
building the second. This change would eliminate 12 units, creating a larger and more
useable open space area (roughly 1 acre). For phase I the developer paid $55,378 cash-
in-lieu, ¼ of the total appraised requirement. The developer is requesting a waiver of
the remaining cash-in-lieu in exchange for the developed public open space. This
waiver is permissible under city code.
The proposed open space would be developed to provide an attractive and useful area
with some play equipment and garden plots.
COMMENTS:
The committee feels that what is being offered is a substitution of developed open
space in lieu of dedicated parkland. The area is too small and lacks necessary parking
and street frontage to be deemed acceptable as dedicated parkland.
As a general rule the committee prefers land to cash, making this proposal more
attractive.
The city may want to require some form of guarantee that the open space is developed
as per the plan.
The exact amount of public open space being offered is not yet known, and will not be
known until the required private open space is calculated and deducted from the total.
It appears that the proposed open area will nearly, if not entirely satisfy the acreage
requirement for the entire project. If not, the remaining obligation can be addressed in
phase III.
RECOMMENDATION:
What the developer is requesting seems quite reasonable and appropriate to the
committee. Useable and onsite recreation area is almost always a preferable choice to
cash or offsite dedication. Since the land in question would not be acceptable as
dedicated parkland, nicely developed open space seems to be a workable alternative.
The only negative side to this request that the committee can see is the city is giving up
cash-in-lieu without receiving any parkland. This situation would be resolved if public
easement were granted, insuring that no future HOA or ownership group could close
off the open space to the public.
The committee encourages the developer to work with the Parks Department to develop
this open space - its irrigation, turf, landscaping, play equipment, etc. - to the
specifications that would be required of dedicated parkland.
FISCAL EFFECTS:
This would cost the city as much as $166134 in lost cash in lieu payments without
increasing the city’s inventory of dedicated parkland.
The 12-unit decrease in size of the project has no effect on the parkland requirement
due to density cap.
ALTERNATIVES:
The obvious alternative would be for the city to demand the balance of cash-in-lieu and
let the residents of this project seek recreation elsewhere. The committee does not see
this as being in anyone’s best interest.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandy Dodge,
RPAB Subdivision Review Committee