HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 Spring Creek Village (2)Bozeman Recreation & Parks Advisory Board
P.O. Box 1230 · Bozeman, MT · 59771
Park Plan Review
PLANNERS: Dave Skelton, Doug Riley
FROM: Subdivision Review Committee
SUBJECT: Spring Creek Village
REVIEWED ON: November 10, 2010
BACKGROUND:
Spring Creek Village is an Urban Mixed Use development (UMU) located on the north side of Huffine Lane between Ferguson and Resort Drive, bounded on the north by Fallon Street. The
concept is for a downtown type commercial development with office and residential units as well. To qualify as UMU it must contain at least 20% residential. Some of the lots will be
sold and some developed and leased. The estimated parkland dedication requirement is 2.4 acres. There is a central park/square that will be maintained as privately owned parkland,
and a miniature golf course with driving range in the northwest corner. Neither of these count toward dedication requirement. The proposal is for a 40’ wide landscaped linear park
running around the entire park perimeter to be dedicated to the city. If accepted, this will satisfy the parkland requirement. There is a ditch that runs North/South about 75 yards
from the west boundary that could also serve as a trail corridor but will not be dedicated so developer can maintain the right to close it as needed.
COMMENTS:
Linear Perimeter Park - As there are no interior streets, but rather, interconnected linear parking lots, the perimeter trail is essential for safe bike travel. Bike travel inside the
development would be dangerous. A perimeter bike/ped sidewalk or trail should be required for reasons of safe transportation.
The Parks Department generally recommends against accepting parkland this narrow for maintenance reasons.
Planning generally recommends accepting linear parks only in instances where it serves to preserve a natural corridor; this does not qualify.
Under the UDO definition the proposed linear park is clearly a transportation pathway and as such may not be used to satisfy the dedication requirement.
Central Park/Square – We recognize the appropriateness of maintaining private ownership of the Square, particularly in a primarily commercial development. This would satisfy the community
center requirement if its permanence was guaranteed, and public access was assured.
Putting Course/Driving Range - A driving range in such a small area seems to be a bad idea. Unless whiffle balls are used, the amount of netting needed to contain the balls safely would
be an eyesore. Perhaps some other green, recreation type commercial enterprise could be developed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Central Park/Square area could serve as a community center. As this is not dedicated parkland, there would have to be some guarantee that this area remains as open space in the
future. The linear park provides for safe bike transportation. However, the park/square is not dedicated parkland and the linear park really is just the curb and sidewalk requirement
with some landscaping. We recommend against accepting the linear perimeter park as dedicated parkland. We recommend that if no dedicated parkland is to be provided, and the linear
park is not acceptable, off-site dedication or cash-in-lieu be accepted to meet the parkland requirement.
FISCAL EFFECTS:
Cash in lieu is always a losing proposition for meeting the park needs of our community, however, enough other park substitutes are in place so that we feel that, with the proper guarantees,
it would be acceptable in this case.
ALTERNATIVES:
If the linear park proposal is accepted, we recommend that the proviso that the city could take over maintenance in the future not be included in the agreement.
If the community center requirement is guaranteed in the central square, 2.4 acres of the golf course area could be developed as park and dedicated.