HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark land Dedication and Cash in Lieu Discussion_14
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Mitch Overton, Director of Parks and Recreation Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Discussion and direction to staff regarding policy and practices in
determining when park land dedication is required and in accepting, valuing, and expending
cash-in-lieu of park land and potential related municipal code amendment and administrative
documentation related to park land.
MEETING DATE: October 20, 2014
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
Staff is requesting direction from the Commission on six initiatives to address parkland
concerns. Additional information is provided to support understanding of the issues. The
following list is hyperlinked to the location in this memo which addresses each subject.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In response to a request by the City Commission, staff is
seeking direction on the six issues listed below. Based on Commission comments during public
hearings on developer requests to provide cash-in-lieu of park land staff is proposing changes to
the existing parkland dedication program. All proposed changes are consistent with the
requirements of Montana law. This memo is organized to begin with the broadest issue and proceed to the narrowest issue.
In addition to code amendments, Staff proposes the creation and adoption of an administrative
manual that provides clear direction on:
• when park land (recreational mitigation) is required,
• establishes formal criteria for cash in lieu evaluation,
• the land valuation process,
• creates a new option for installation of park improvements in lieu (IIL) of park land,
• clarifies the labeling of park and open space on plans/plats, and
• establishes standards for transfer of park land and improvements to either the City or
another entity.
Contents
Issue One: When Park Land Dedication is Required. ..................................................................... 2
Issue Two: Determination of when cash-in-lieu (CIL) of parkland is acceptable .......................... 5
Issue Three: Valuation/ Appraisal Process ..................................................................................... 6
Issue Four: Improvements-In-Lieu of Park Land ........................................................................... 8
Issue Five: Expenditures of Cash-In-Lieu Funds............................................................................ 9
Issue Six: Administrative Structure for Cash-In-Lieu of Park Land ............................................ 10
190
Page 2 of 21
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 11
Proper Use of Terms for “Park” and “Open Space” and Related Development Standards ...... 11
State Law Requirements ........................................................................................................... 13
On-going Administrative Improvement Initiatives ................................................................... 14
Park Administrative Manual ................................................................................................. 14
Cash-in-lieu tracking improvements ..................................................................................... 15
Multi-phase development park dedication coordination....................................................... 15
Cash-in-lieu user participation in park maintenance ............................................................ 16
Cash-in-lieu Requests 2007-2014 ................................................................................................. 16
Map Series .................................................................................................................................... 17
SUGGESTED MOTION: Recommended motions are located within each Issue section of the memo.
ALTERNATIVES: Staff’s recommendations are described within each issue section of the
memo.
1. Retain program requirements as presently written and applied; or
2. Other actions as directed by the City Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS:
Fiscal effects are variable depending on the Commission’s direction. Future budgets may include
requests for funds to implement the Commission’s direction. In the past ten years, 27 cash-in-lieu
of park land payments have been received. Six expenditures have been made and the fund has a current balance of $284,482.40. Up to 50% of a cash-in-lieu payment may be used for
maintenance purposes.
Attachments: Section 76-3-621, MCA Chapter 8 PROST plan
Article 38.27, BMC
Report compiled on: October 13, 2014
Issue One: When Park Land Dedication is Required.
Problem statement: Presently, all site plans and major subdivisions must provide an evaluation
of recreation impact which may trigger park land or equivalent dedication requirements. The
review process evaluation trigger may not be the best option given recent changes in state law
and development patterns.
191
Page 3 of 21
Staff’s recommended solution: Revise the park land (recreation mitigation) requirement to be
considered based upon the number of homes to be constructed rather than development review process. This is similar to how the City applies CIL for water rights.
Related discussion
State law has required major subdivisions (more than five lots) to address mitigation of
recreational impacts for decades. This mitigation has usually been met by dedicating parks.
During a code review, in June 2003, it was identified that given the development patterns in Bozeman there were significant inequitable consequences from only considering parks during
subdivision development. It was decided at that time to establish several development thresholds
which would require evaluation of recreational impacts whether development was occurring
through subdivision or zoning. The municipal zoning authorization statutes also address
infrastructure such as parks. The City adopted a zoning authority based requirement for recreation mitigation in 2004. Both review processes have the same density caps, development
standards, and CIL options. The present process focus can inadvertently give rise to inequities in
the development process.
Example One: The Unified Development Code sets specific thresholds for when
development of a residential site may be reviewed as a sketch plan. See Section 38.19.070.A.3. These include projects like a single home on a single lot up through a
fourplex structure. If a project does not meet these thresholds it is reviewed as a site plan.
Five or more dwellings are always a site plan. Multiple buildings are always a site plan
even if it is for just two homes. See the Merchant site plan in Appendix A. A sketch plan
does not require any dedication of park land or other mitigation. A site plan does. Therefore, it is possible for a sketch plan to have more impact than a site plan, but no
mitigation.
Example Two: A major subdivision, i.e. six or more lots, is required to provide mitigation
for recreation impacts. It is a default requirement of state law. A minor subdivision, i.e.
five or fewer lots, does not require default mitigation no matter how many homes may be constructed on those lots. This allows a minor subdivision to create five lots which can
each have a fourplex (sketch plan review only) for a total of 20 new homes and not be
evaluated for impacts to recreation in the community. A six lot subdivision would have to
address recreation impact mitigation.
The existing regulations were written to address circumstances and development trends as they were a decade ago. There have been changes to state law authorization and development trends
since that time. The City has in the past five years seen an increase in the number of residential
site plans in the developed core of town. Please see Map 1 and Map 5 in Appendix A.
In 2011, the state law for subdivision review was changed to allow an option for local
governments to require recreation mitigation with minor subdivisions, i.e. five or fewer lots. At the time the present regulations were adopted the minor subdivision number of lots and the site plan number of dwellings were very closely matched. A minor subdivision is defined solely by
the number of lots created, not by the number of homes which will occupy those lots. A
residential site plan is defined both by the number of buildings and the number of dwellings.
New commercial, mixed use, or industrial development always requires a site plan.
The City received applications for 248 site plans and subdivisions since January 1, 2007. In that time frame there were 13 requests for cash-in-lieu of park land. The City received applications
for 87 site plans and subdivisions since January 1, 2013. Nine of those 87 applications included a
192
Page 4 of 21
request for CIL. A map of the projects requesting CIL is attached. A third of the requests for
CIL were for only one or two additional homes.
If the Commission is interested in obtaining mitigation from minor subdivisions the municipal code must be amended. It is appropriate to adjust the thresholds for either subdivision or zoning
based recreation impact mitigation review to match. At this stage of discussion the staff is not
recommending a specific numeric threshold.
Example Three, Staff Recommendation: The Commission amend the regulations to be triggered by number of homes rather than review process. If the Commission kept the present regulations but set the mitigation threshold trigger to five homes then the
following would be exempt from parkland dedication or cash-in-lieu requirements.
• Sketch plans for four or fewer homes in a single building
• Site plans for four or fewer homes even in multiple buildings
• Minor Subdivisions with four or fewer lots.
A trigger level of one additional home would help ensure that the park system remains adequate
to provide services. However, it would add some additional burden to small projects. A high trigger level of five additional homes would transfer some responsibility for providing additional
parkland improvements to the community at large. However, it would make it simpler and less
expensive for small projects such as accessory dwelling units, and small scale site plans such as
the Merchant project.
This issue interacts with any decisions made regarding Issue Two and Issue Three of this memo. If there is a fixed cost per acre for mitigation then the CIL process is less difficult and expensive,
especially for smaller projects. A change to trigger the mitigation evaluation based on the
number of dwellings may require park dedication or alternative mitigation from additional
projects depending on where the threshold of application is set. For example, the current system
does not capture CIL for accessory dwelling units but has required CIL for small site plans adding only one new home.
Options
1) Modify recreation mitigation standards to be based on number of additional dwellings rather
than review process.
2) Modify recreation mitigation standards to require mitigation with minor subdivisions.
3) Modify recreation mitigation standards to be different for defined circumstances reflecting
differences in need for mitigation. This would be coordinated with the CIL review criteria
discussed in Issue Two. This provides a greater degree of fine tuning in the program so that
priorities such as infill can be treated differently than fringe of the community development.
Recommended motions
1) “I move to direct staff to prepare the necessary ordinance amendments to change mitigation
of recreational impact requirements to be based on the number of dwellings rather than review
process.”
2) “I move to direct staff to prepare the necessary ordinance amendments to include mitigation of
recreational impacts in the review of minor subdivisions.”
193
Page 5 of 21
Issue Two: Determination of When Cash-In-Lieu (CIL) of Park
Land is Acceptable
Problem statement: The cash-in-lieu option, outside of the B-3 zoning district, has not been a
preferred option of the community. However, it does have some advantages and can be a
community benefit in some circumstances. Decisions on this issue have been ad-hoc.
Per state law, the applicant has the option to request use of any of the authorized alternatives to satisfy the mitigation of recreation impact requirement, including CIL. The City Commission has
the final determination as to whether the applicant’s request is appropriate. In the past ten years
CIL has been paid 27 times from 17 projects. Some phased projects have made multiple
payments. There have been 13 requests for approval of cash-in-lieu since January 1, 2007.
There have been an increasing number of infill residential developments. Please see Map 1.
Staff’s recommended solution
Develop enhanced written guidelines to evaluate requests for CIL.
The guidelines would provide additional detail to the Park, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan (PROST) plan criteria, which are being used by the Recreation and Parks Subdivision Review Committee, and the Bozeman Community Plan. Formalizing the criteria for adoption by
the Commission would allow applicants to determine if their request aligns with adopted
Commission policy prior to making application for CIL. The purpose of the criteria is to
determine when CIL is a superior option to dedication of park land. The criteria would be incorporated into the proposed park manual described in Appendix A under Administrative Initiatives. Criteria may include:
• Proximity to existing parks – This would evaluate not just distance to nearest park but
existing or anticipated ease of access.
• Type of adjacent park – Some special use parks may not serve the recreational needs of the proposed development.
• Level of service provided by parks in proximity – The city has a diversity of park types.
Some parks are very busy and have less capacity to service additional users. An additional small park may provide a recreational function not presently in the area.
• Size and Location – Very small or awkwardly located parcels may have low value for
provision of recreational benefits.
• Density of proposed development – Dense development has less opportunity for on-site recreation and may utilize public parks more frequently.
• Correspondence with PROST plan – PROST establishes guidelines and data to determine
when park service are deficient and identifies what kind of improvements are needed to
provide service.
• Partnership Opportunities – Participation in maintenance and development
responsibilities of parks serving the development proposing CIL. This prevents unfair
burdens being placed on third parties.
194
Page 6 of 21
• Fiscal Effects on the Parks Department – Some parks require a greater level of commitment of resources compared with the benefits they provide.
Options
The Commission may identify additional criteria or request the removal of some of the proposed
criteria.
Related discussion
The PROST plan describes and discusses many types and sizes of parks necessary for a healthy
and diverse park system. Dedication of many small parks could create a disproportionate
maintenance liability for the Parks Department and possibly increased legal liability to the City if adequate maintenance is not provided. The ratio of land to dwellings for recreation mitigation is .03 acres (1,307 square feet) per dwelling. It takes the collective dedication of park land by 34
homes to exceed a park one acre in size. A more robust CIL system may reduce maintenance
costs while developing more functional parks. Small parks may provide services not otherwise
available in an area. Adequate maintenance support is required for any park system to work at its best.
The creation of new community scale parks, such as those at Story Mill and the Sports Complex,
requires additional funds to develop. The scale of these parks is such that they will draw users
from throughout the community. Cash-in-lieu is one possible source of those funds. The
willingness of the Commission to approve CIL has varied over time.
The suggested CIL revisions enable staff to address infill projects more effectively and provide additional predictability to the applicants. The CIL program provides an important outlet for
addressing design limitations which may prevent projects which otherwise advance City
priorities, such as infill development, from moving forward. See Merchant site plan Map 2. A
map of the general distribution of site plans and conditional use permits is in Appendix A.
Recommended motion: “I move to direct staff to prepare formal criteria for evaluation of cash-
in-lieu of parkland dedication requests and to return with a resolution including those criteria for
action by the City Commission.”
Issue Three: Valuation/ Appraisal Process
Problem statement: The amount paid as CIL does not actually represent the full value of the
park which has not been provided. This provides an inequitable benefit to the applicant who pays
CIL compared to the applicant who constructs a park. The question of valuation only is relevant after it has been determined that an alternative other than park dedication is acceptable.
Cash-in-lieu amounts are limited by state law to the value of the unsubdivided, unimproved land,
see 76-3-621(10), MCA. Bozeman has adopted a local standard that the land valuation must
include the cost of unsubdivided, unimproved land that has been annexed and zoned as these
public actions add substantial value to property.
195
Page 7 of 21
Currently, the applicant provides the appraisal of the land, which is the basis for CIL. The
Commission has expressed concern that the existing process does not give a fully adequate accounting of the land value. Applicants have expressed the current process adds delay and
expense to projects. Additional discussion of this issue is in Section 8.4 of the PROST, see
attached.
Staff’s recommended solution
Establish a City-managed regularly scheduled appraisal system/program.
The City would be the client and would contract with an appraiser to perform the appraisal. The
applicant would have the choice to use the City’s established land values; or pay for an appraisal
which must meet established standards. The City would establish a standard schedule within
which the appraisals would be updated so that they represent actual land values as closely as reasonable.
Related discussion
The expected advantage of the centralized appraisal approach would be:
• Consistency of costs/value which could be known in advance by Commission, staff, advisory boards, and developers.
• Facilitate development approvals by removing delay due to appraisal preparation time,
which is especially important for small infill development.
A cost of land estimate would be established per time period. The frequency of updates can be established by the City. This approach could be either a uniform average cost per acre for all
residential zoning districts, for groups of zoning districts, or be developed for each district to
reflect differing allowed densities and land values. The option for best outcome for effort and
cost expended has not yet been determined.
The municipal code would continue to offer the option for a project specific, developer-paid, appraisal as a relief tool against claims of the City unfairly weighting the costs in its favor.
The disadvantage is the land value may be less closely matched to specific project needs.
The present state law limitations do not account for the value of the park improvements required
to be installed when a park is developed. If this value of foregone improvements could be included as part of a CIL evaluation the cost paid would be a closer match to the real costs to develop parks. The minimum standards required for park development are established in
ordinance and are common items which could be readily determined in value. This process could
be readily included in the administrative manual discussed in Appendix A.
Options
The City has already established that it intends to receive the maximum value possible by law
from CIL, see Section 38.27.030, BMC. The Commission could direct staff to pursue a change in
the state law to enable the capture of the value of the forgone improvements so that CIL is a
more accurate representation of the land value. Active Commission support and engagement in this effort would increase its likelihood of success.
196
Page 8 of 21
Recommended motions
1) “I move to direct staff to draft the necessary code amendments and documents to establish a City managed cash-in-lieu of parkland appraisal system and to return with such ordinance and/or
resolution as is required for action by the City Commission.”
2) “I move to direct staff to work with local state legislators to amend Section 76-3-621(10),
MCA to allow the value of adopted minimum development standards as part of the cash-in-lieu
process.”
Issue Four: Improvements-In-Lieu of Park Land
Problem Statement: The City has accepted cash or land with basic improvements, but has not
previously recognized physical improvements within parks as a form of cash-in-lieu payment.
The question of improvements-in-lieu (IIL) of park land is only relevant after it has been determined that an alternative other than dedication of land is acceptable.
Staff’s recommended solution
Develop an improvements-in-lieu of park land dedication option. Under this approach an
applicant can directly make improvements to a specific park rather than paying cash-in-lieu and then having to go through a budget process to allocate the money back to a park improvement.
There are some similarities in this idea with the Park Improvement Grants (PIG) process now in
place; and to the impact fee program and other development standards which require installation
of infrastructure. The City Commission can control the use of the program by establishing a list
of qualifying projects for which IIL can be applied.
Related discussion
An Improvements-in-lieu program has several advantages.
• A more timely installation of park improvements so that the residents of development receive higher quality of service from parks.
• More visible connection between approval of development and improvement to parks.
• Less administrative burden for tracking of cash donations, budget and processing.
• Less expensive for the City since it will not have the contract administration burden for park improvements.
• Private sector cost efficiencies for obtaining equipment and site improvements.
• Functional parks rather than partially finished parks.
Procedural Implementation Recommendations:
• The basic improvement valuation process and establishing the minimum amount to be
provided through the IIL work. The City would control this by listing and ranking certain projects, similar to the impact fee CIP. If a project isn’t on the list then it does not
qualify. Examples of possible projects could be installation of play equipment or
construction of a restroom.
197
Page 9 of 21
• The applicant would provide a cost estimate, subject to staff review and approval. This approach is consistent with the existing adopted regulations regarding installation of park improvements.
• The City would require completion of proposed IIL prior to any final plat or building
occupancy. The City can determine what work must be completed and what may be financially guaranteed before final plat or site plan. It is proposed to require completion of any IIL proposed and not allow use of an improvements agreement for this work.
• The Commission will set thresholds for when a proposed improvements-in-lieu would
require staff approval or Commission approval.
• The proposed administrative manual discussed Appendix A would contain the necessary procedures and standards to ensure that any IIL process would conform to the purchasing
and other requirements of the City.
Options
The Commission could specify that improvements-in-lieu only apply to existing parks in certain circumstances rather than allowing an applicant to propose a smaller park with improvements.
Recommended motion “I move to direct staff to prepare the necessary municipal code
amendments and other documents to develop an Improvements-in-lieu of parkland option and to bring them to the Commission for consideration through the appropriate amendment process.”
Issue Five: Expenditures of Cash-In-Lieu Funds
Problem statement: The use of cash-in-lieu funds is not readily apparent to the average citizen.
Cash-in-lieu funds may be held for several years before a large enough balance is accrued to support a park acquisition or development project. State law requires that “…governing body
shall use the dedicated money or land for development, acquisition, or maintenance of parks to
serve the subdivision.”
Staff’s recommended solution
Staff proposes several actions to address this issue.
1) The Department of Parks, Recreation, and Cemetery will provide to the Commission during
the budget process a report on the location, amount, and purpose of CIL received or expended
during the prior year.
2) The Department of Parks, Recreation, and Cemetery will specifically identify any proposed projects to be funded with CIL during the upcoming budget cycle.
3) The Department of Parks, Recreation, and Cemetery will work with the Finance and Public
Works departments to develop a CIL map to show developments which have paid CIL. The map
will also enable identification of potential expenditure locations within the service areas
identified in the PROST plan for different types of parks.
4) The Department of Parks, Recreation, and Cemetery will document these procedures as part of
the CIL manual discussed under the administrative initiatives section of Appendix A.
198
Page 10 of 21
Related discussion
Few people see the process by which CIL moves from the developer to projects on the ground
and that benefit the public. Therefore, CIL is considered “lost funds” with little value. By
improving the transparency and more actively managing the program the public will have a
better understanding and be able to more actively participate in identifying priority projects to
benefit the public.
Improved procedures will make it easier for the City to demonstrate that it is using the funds
properly. The staff has already begun improving the CIL tracking process.
The average CIL payment in the last ten years has been $35,867. The average CIL expenditure
between 2001 to date was $161,401.78. Since 2001, there have been three expenditures of CIL
funds to purchase park land and one expenditure to purchase park improvements. The use of CIL has enabled several important park land acquisitions, such as the purchase of Burke Park.
To meet the statutory requirement of CIL funds being used to benefit the development providing
them the City has used CIL funds to make purchases classed as “community parks”. These large
parks have a city-wide service area as described in the PROST plan. A CIL map and IIL program
options could make it easier for expenditure of CIL funds to occur at neighborhood or mini parks. This would bring benefits from CIL closer to those who paid it. The service areas for
different scale of parks are described in Section 3.1 of the PROST plan.
Options
The Commission may provide direction for additional information they wish to see.
Recommended motion “I move to direct staff to implement recommended actions 1-4.”
Issue Six: Administrative Structure for Cash-In-Lieu of Park
Land
Problem statement: Section 76-3-621, MCA (see attached) requires the Commission to
determine when CIL is appropriate. The Commission has determined through the municipal code
that CIL is the primary option within the B-3 district, see Section 38.27.030, BMC. In all other
areas dedication of land remains the preferred option. Any alternative has been an application specific ad-hoc decision. This has created significant uncertainty for both staff and applicants and can have substantial effects on subdivision or site development design.
Staff’s recommended solution
Staff suggests adding flexibility by amending the municipal code to allow the Commission to adopt a Resolution specifying circumstances under which CIL/IIL may be the preferred option. This would enable more nimble coordination of CIL/IIL practice and policy with other
Commission priorities and initiatives. This is similar to the Commission’s previous decision to
identify the B-3 district as an area where cash-in-lieu is a default option.
199
Page 11 of 21
Related discussion
With solid adopted policy guidance the appropriate use of CIL/IIL could be applied in defined circumstances. This would be informed by the service standards of the PROST plan, as well as
the fiscal realities of park maintenance and practical realities of small dedications. For example,
there could be a threshold for duplication of services, proximity to existing parks, or other
triggers, where CIL is the default option, with an option for the City to require land instead if the
possible park area is a key asset to complete or enhance an area. The factors applied to this decision making should be laid out in the criteria discussed under Issue Three. Staff believes this
is an adequate option to balance the procedural requirements for CIL.
The standard pattern is for the City Commission to establish policy and the staff to execute it.
The proposal is consistent with that pattern. The Commission could specifically exercise its
responsibility to determine when CIL is appropriate by the adoption of the criteria used to evaluate CIL proposals.
The CIL evaluation against those criteria would then be integrated into the decision making
responsibilities assigned in Section 38.34.010, BMC. Under this structure subdivision approvals
are heard by the City Commission, as are conditional use permits, planned unit developments, or
site reviews involving a variance or some deviations. A CIL request associated with one of these projects would be one more component of the development review and would always be acted upon by the Commission.
A CIL proposal in association with a site plan not requiring Commission review could be acted
upon by the Director of Community Development but only if the Commission chose to delegate
that responsibility. This is similar to how the Commission has created an ordinance structure which enables the activation or deactivation of a Board of Adjustment. When, in the City Commission’s judgment, a BOA is advantageous it can be activated by a resolution. This is
much more responsive to the Commission’s decision than having to adopt an ordinance. Section
38.34.010, BMC establishes responsible parties for certain actions in the land development
process. The section allows the City Commission to reclaim any application for review.
Options
Leave the program as presently configured.
Suggested motion “I move to direct staff to prepare the necessary ordinance amendments and review criteria to enable Commission adoption of a Resolution to establish criteria for review of
proposed cash-in-lieu of parkland and to configure the municipal code to allow delegation by
resolution of cash-in-lieu application processing consistent with Section 38.34.010, BMC.”
Appendix A
Proper Use of Terms for “Park” and “Open Space” and Related Development
Standards
Problem statement: Often the terms “Park” and “Open Space” are used interchangeably despite having distinct meanings and related development standards.
200
Page 12 of 21
Staff recommended solution
1) Provide improved documentation of evaluation criteria for park versus. open space provision.
2) Development and implementation of the park administrative manual to provide guidance on
use of terms and labeling of land on submitted plans/plats.
3) Prepare a workshop for developers to help them understand how different undeveloped lands
should be labeled in applications, addressed in covenants, and transferred to owners at the end of the development process.
Related discussion
By definition in the municipal code the term “open space” applies to land used for recreation and
is the more broad definition. A “park” is an open space owned or controlled by the public. Therefore, all parks are open spaces but not all open spaces are parks.
Stormwater facilities, setbacks, wetlands or other things which require an absence of buildings
do not meet the definition of “open space”. Left over scraps of property not suitable for inclusion
in building lots are likewise not within the definition of “open space.”
There are three definitions from the municipal code which give direction to this discussion.
Sec. 38.42.2230. Park. For the purposes of this chapter only, park means an open space,
as defined in this chapter, under the ownership or other legal control of the city which
provides area for active and passive recreational purposes.
Sec. 38.42.2180. Open space. A land or water area devoid of buildings and other
physical structures except where accessory to the provision of recreation, including but not limited to benches, picnic tables and interpretive signage.
Sec. 38.42.2190. Open space, usable. That space which is capable of being used by the
public for recreation, relaxation and social purposes. Parking lots and perimeter
landscaping are specifically excluded from this definition of usable open space, except as
allowed by section 38.20.090.
There are two types of open space as defined above discussed in the BMC:
1. Private land for the use of residents within a development.
2. Land set aside for recreational purposes to mitigate the impacts of the development, per
MCA and BMC.
The City policy for many years has been that public access to recreational lands is an important part of mitigating the recreational impact of development. Therefore, it has limited the use of the
alternative approaches to meeting recreational mitigation requirements. A ‘park’ space may be
located outside of the development so long as it meets the need of the development which
provided it.
There is a minimum amount of park land or its equivalent which must be provided with a development. However, there is no limit to the amount of park or open space a development may
provide above the minimum requirement. The City Commission has authority to determine if an
offered park location is an appropriate mitigation of recreational impacts by a development.
201
Page 13 of 21
The City requires submittal of a park master plan with each development proposing dedication of
park land. The park master plan describes the proposed use and function of the property; and enables the Commission to determine if the property will function in such a way as to mitigate
the recreational impacts of the development. In addition, the City has established certain
development standards for parks such as street frontage, minimum landscaping, and sidewalks.
These are described in Sections 38.27.050 through 38.27.080, BMC. Open space which is not a
park is NOT subject to those requirements even though the Commission might accept that open space as mitigation of recreational impacts.
Therefore, the use of the alternatives to park dedication influences public access to open space,
expenses for development and maintenance, and functional performance. Certain parcels may
not be good public parks but may be good open spaces kept in private hands to protect water
quality, provide visual amenities, or provide other benefits. Alternative lands must be considered at a ratio of 1:1 to publicly dedicated parks if those lands are used to meet mitigation of
recreational impact requirements.
In the case of watercourse setbacks, the distance from the stream is established for water quality,
flooding, and other non-recreational purposes. Therefore, those areas are not counted towards
meeting parkland requirements. See Section 8.3 of the PROST plan. This does not prevent the watercourse setback area from being included within a larger park dedication. See Map 3.
In some circumstances, staff may recommend that small areas which could be dedicated as
public parks are more advantageous for both public and private interests when combined with
non-public open spaces to enable better land stewardship and reduce public costs. If a developer
offers, the City can accept additional open space which would itself be acceptable as a park. This may be along a watercourse corridor, to be integrated into a larger area to be dedicated as a park.
This may enable better land stewardship and management of a single area rather than several
smaller adjacent ownerships. See Map 4.
Meeting the recreational needs of the dedicating development is the key factor in considering
what types of land can be considered for mitigation of recreation impacts. There is no automatic restriction on the type of land to be considered. Not every park can serve every purpose.
Therefore, the PROST provides inventory information on what types of recreational functions
are available. Sections 8.1 and 8.2 of the PROST provide a good discussion of when the City
might properly consider wetlands or ponds as part of a proposed park.
Options
If the Commission decides to change the existing policy described above they can direct staff
who will prepare such documents as may be necessary to implement the Commission’s direction.
The option to consider alternatives to standard park dedications is already included within the
municipal code.
Suggested motion As determined by the City Commission.
State Law Requirements
Section 73-3-621, MCA states “…a subdivider shall dedicate to the governing body a cash or land donation equal to…” The purpose of this requirement is to mitigate the recreational impacts
of additional residential development on the community. State law and City ordinances provide
nine means by which this requirement may be met. These range from dedication of land for
202
Page 14 of 21
public parks to setting aside private land for protection of archeological resources to payment of
cash.
The City requires mitigation of recreational impact from development equally whether the
development is being processed by subdivision or zoning review authority. The purpose of this
requirement is to mitigate the impacts the new residents will have on the community’s park
system. All acceptance and use of land or cash dedications is oriented to this purpose. The
Recreation and Parks Advisory Board Subdivision Review Committee considers all proposed park land dedications and requests for CIL as part of the review process. They have been
consulted in the development of the changes recommended in this memo. They were involved in
the development of the current standards in 2003-2004.
The City implements the mandate for park land acquisition through Article 38.27, BMC. Section
38.27.020, BMC describes how the amount of land is calculated. Section 38.27.100 describes how alternatives to public park dedication are addressed. Section 38.27.030 discusses cash-in-
lieu. The City has adopted various development standards regarding how the land should be
located and improved. The standards ensure the purpose of providing mitigation of recreational
impacts and service to new residents is met.
The mitigation requirements are capped at a maximum amount which varies by zoning district. This reflects the City’s determination that once a basic land base is secured it is possible to
absorb additional users with less difficulty. This also financially benefits more dense
development and is considered as support for housing affordability. The maximum land
dedication is capped at eight dwellings per acre with an additional requirement for cash-in-lieu of
park land for density of 9-12 dwellings per acre. Use of CIL is directed for density above eight dwellings per net acre.
The City has identified parks as a community priority for many years. The Bozeman Community
Plan, Chapter 10 addresses parks and notes that they are a key component of the quality of life in
Bozeman. The City also prepares detailed park system specific plans. Most recently, the PROST
plan was adopted on December 17, 2007. Section 8 discusses a range of policy issues including cash-in-lieu dedication and parkland dedication requirements. Discussion of the potential
revisions suggested in this memo is guided by these documents and a continuing priority for
parks as an essential element of community.
Section 76-2-304, MCA includes the provision of public infrastructure, including parks, among
the purposes of municipal zoning. For consistency, the City has used the same standards for development of park spaces under either subdivision or zoning review authority.
On-going Administrative Improvement Initiatives The staff has been considering possible process improvements for the cash-in-lieu and park
acquisition program for several years. These deliberations have resulted in specific actions as
well as the recommended changes described in this memo.
Park Administrative Manual
Regardless of any other change, the City needs to develop a formal procedures manual for park
development, including CIL. The present practices are less well known than would be desirable
and there is not a single source for staff or the public to reference if there are questions. The recent development of the CIL for water rights manual provides a useful model to guide
development of a new park CIL manual.
The new manual would include:
203
Page 15 of 21
• the timing of valuation establishment,
• who and when updates to valuation are required,
• selection of an appraiser,
• who evaluates and accepts the appraisal,
• custodianship of data,
• tracking of payments (use of GIS map and attributes to enable rapid identification of
source and need relationships and link with SunGard),
• set and describe minimum thresholds/conditions when CIL is always approved,
• delegation of authority to review and accept CIL proposals,
• the relationship of proximity of existing park and park class to a CIL dedicating development, and
• the option for an individual project to prepare an individualized appraisal.
Additional sections on purchasing practices, warranties, licensed contractors, and other related
park development subjects should also be included. Due to the diversity of options allowed under
state law for satisfying required mitigation of recreational impacts it is awkward and inefficient to put all the material in ordinance. Therefore, it is anticipated that adoption by administrative order or Commission resolution would be more appropriate.
It is suggested that this CIL manual could be the first part of a more comprehensive Park
management manual. The Department of Parks, Recreation, and Cemetery has been developing
standard design practices and specifications which could also be integrated into this larger manual. Adoption by the Commission by Resolution similar to how the Public Works Design and Specification Manual is done is recommended.
Cash-in-lieu tracking improvements There have been several administrative efforts in the past two years to improve the overall
mitigation of recreation impact process. Others are in development at this time and are expected
to be implemented soon. Completed and expected improvements include:
• better connections in the finance system to tie individual CIL payments to the file
numbers in the development review process to enable better reporting and tracking of
payments;
• development of an annual report to the Commission on the intake and use of CIL as part of the budget process; and
• GIS integration with record of payment and development review to enable ready mapping
of developments which provided CIL.
Multi-phase development park dedication coordination
The City experienced several large multi-phase developments which financially collapsed during the recent recession. This resulted in breakup of ownership and loss of coordination among phases. This negatively affected the ability to follow through on planned park developments
within those subdivisions.
The existing land development regulations provide methods to “park bank” so that early phases
of a development set aside key park elements which serve to offset future mitigation requirements for subsequent phases. The requirement for development of park master plans enables overall consideration of proposed mitigation with the initial phase of development so
that coordination between phases is possible. The staff has established a practice and
standardized conditions to require the overall provision of mitigation land to be set aside by
easement with the initial phase of development. Doing so establishes the legal restriction to the
204
Page 16 of 21
land ensuring that even if the development breaks apart to separate owners the City may preserve
its interest in the land.
As part of the intended Park Administrative Manual it is intended to document standard practices
for these kinds of coordination options. This would be an enhancement to the general policy
direction provided in Section 8.10 of the PROST plan.
Cash-in-lieu user participation in park maintenance
It is recognized that developments contributing CIL/IIL may not be participating in park
maintenance in an equal manner with other developments developing park spaces. The participation or lack thereof is a proposed criterion for the evaluation of CIL. The staff has
established a practice to require the participation of a development proposing CIL in the
maintenance of parks being provided by a home owner association. The proposed Park
Administrative Manual is intended to document standard practices for these kinds of
coordination options. Lack of participation could weigh against the approval of a CIL request.
Cash-in-lieu Requests 2007-2014
Projects shown in this table either paid or requested Commission approval of CIL after January
1, 2007 for some or all of the dwellings. Map 1 in the map series below locates these projects
geographically in the community.
CIL Paid Project Number Project Name Dwellings Infill Year Requested
Paid Z05162 Mill District 13 Yes 2005
Paid Z06098 Baxter Springs 136 Yes 2006
Paid Z05211 Bronzeleaf Condos 92 No 2007
Paid Z07158 The Links Condos 18 Yes 2007
Paid Z07270 Greekway Apartments 27 Yes 2007
Paid Z12297 Park Place Condos 16 Yes 2012
Paid Z13254 Peach and Black 2 Yes 2013
No Z13116 Merchant 1 Yes 2013
Paid P13032 Block M Townhomes 8 Yes 2013
Paid Z14214 Laurel Park Condos 31 No 2014
Paid Z13273 Dixson Multi-Household 10 Yes 2014
No P14015 Partridge Downs 30 Yes 2014
No Z14036 Media Station 1 Yes 2014
Paid Z14190 The Willson Residences 17 Yes 2014
No P14010 Southbridge Subdivision 75 No 2014
205
Page 17 of 21
Map Series
206
Page 18 of 21
Map 2 – Merchant Site Plan
Proposed new home Existing home
207
Page 19 of 21
208
Page 20 of 21
209
Page 21 of 21
210
Page 1 of 2
76-3-621. Park dedication requirement. [State law regarding subdivision park dedication]
(1) Except as provided in 76-3-509 or subsections (2), (3), and (6) through (9) of this section, a
subdivider shall dedicate to the governing body a cash or land donation equal to:
(a) 11% of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into parcels of one-half acre or smaller;
(b) 7.5% of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into parcels larger than one-half
acre and not larger than 1 acre;
(c) 5% of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into parcels larger than 1 acre and
not larger than 3 acres; and (d) 2.5% of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into parcels larger than 3 acres
and not larger than 5 acres.
(2) When a subdivision is located totally within an area for which density requirements have
been adopted pursuant to a growth policy under chapter 1 or pursuant to zoning regulations
under chapter 2, the governing body may establish park dedication requirements based on the community need for parks and the development densities identified in the growth policy or
regulations. Park dedication requirements established under this subsection are in lieu of those
provided in subsection and may not exceed 0.03 acres per dwelling unit.
(3) A park dedication may not be required for:
(a) land proposed for subdivision into parcels larger than 5 acres;
(b) subdivision into parcels that are all nonresidential;
(c) a subdivision in which parcels are not created, except when that subdivision provides
permanent multiple spaces for recreational camping vehicles, mobile homes, or
condominiums;
(d) a subdivision in which only one additional parcel is created; or
(e) except as provided in subsection (8), a first minor subdivision from a tract of record as
described in 76-3-609(2).
(4) The governing body, in consultation with the subdivider and the planning board or park board
that has jurisdiction, may determine suitable locations for parks and playgrounds and, giving
due weight and consideration to the expressed preference of the subdivider, may determine whether the park dedication must be a land donation, cash donation, or a combination of both.
When a combination of land donation and cash donation is required, the cash donation may
not exceed the proportional amount not covered by the land donation.
(5) (a) In accordance with the provisions of subsections (5)(b) and (5)(c), the governing body
shall use the dedicated money or land for development, acquisition, or maintenance of parks to serve the subdivision.
(b) The governing body may use the dedicated money to acquire, develop, or maintain,
within its jurisdiction, parks or recreational areas or for the purchase of public open space
or conservation easements only if:
(i) the park, recreational area, open space, or conservation easement is within a reasonably close proximity to the proposed subdivision; and
(ii) the governing body has formally adopted a park plan that establishes the needs and
procedures for use of the money.
211
Page 2 of 2
(c) The governing body may not use more than 50% of the dedicated money for park
maintenance.
(6) The local governing body shall waive the park dedication requirement if:
(a) (i) the preliminary plat provides for a planned unit development or other development with land permanently set aside for park and recreational uses sufficient to meet the needs
of the persons who will ultimately reside in the development; and
(ii) the area of the land and any improvements set aside for park and recreational
purposes equals or exceeds the area of the dedication required under subsection (1);
(b) (i) the preliminary plat provides long-term protection of critical wildlife habitat; cultural, historical, or natural resources; agricultural interests; or aesthetic values; and
(ii) the area of the land proposed to be subdivided, by virtue of providing long-term
protection provided for in subsection (6)(b)(i), is reduced by an amount equal to or
exceeding the area of the dedication required under subsection (1);
(7) The local governing body may waive the park dedication requirement if:
(a) the subdivider provides land outside the subdivision that affords long-term protection of
critical wildlife habitat, cultural, historical, or natural resources, agricultural interests, or
aesthetic values; and
(b) the area of the land to be subject to long-term protection, as provided in subsection (7)(a),
equals or exceeds the area of the dedication required under subsection (1).
(8) (a) A local governing body may, at its discretion, require a park dedication for:
(i) a subsequent minor subdivision as described in 76-3-609(3); or
(ii) a first minor subdivision from a tract of record as described in 76-3-609(2) if:
(A) the subdivision plat indicates development of condominiums or other multifamily
housing; (B) zoning regulations permit condominiums or other multifamily housing; or (C) any of the lots are located within the boundaries of a municipality.
(b) A local governing body that chooses to require a park dedication shall specify in
regulations the circumstances under which a park dedication will be required.
(9) Subject to the approval of the local governing body and acceptance by the school district trustees, a subdivider may dedicate a land donation provided in subsection (1) to a school district, adequate to be used for school facilities or buildings.
(10) For the purposes of this section:
(a) "cash donation" is the fair market value of the unsubdivided, unimproved land; and
(b) "dwelling unit" means a residential structure in which a person or persons reside.
(11) A land donation under this section may be inside or outside of the subdivision.
History: En. Sec. 9, Ch. 468, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 27, Ch. 582, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 348, L.
2001; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 469, L. 2003; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 333, L. 2005; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 264, L.
2007; amd. Sec. 21, Ch. 446, L. 2009.
212
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues
Page 8-1
CHAPTER 8
Policy Issues
8.0 INTRODUCTION
One important purpose of this document is to establish City policies regarding parks, recreation, open
spaces, and trails. The policy directives contained herein provide a basis for a variety of actions and
activities, including: evaluation of development proposals; preparation of regulatory requirements;
evaluation and prioritization for the expenditure of public funds for acquisition, development, and
maintenance; preparation of individual park plans; siting of new parks, recreation facilities, open spaces
and/or trails; and decision-making regarding recreation programming.
8.1 WETLANDS
8.1.1 Overview
Wetlands can provide important functions such as flood control and aquifer recharge, as well as
important values such as wildlife habitat and open space. It is also recognized that wetlands can provide
recreational benefits, especially for activities such as hiking, bird-watching and visual enjoyment.
Therefore, the protection and preservation of wetlands is encouraged by the City of Bozeman, and many
wetlands are protected by a myriad of federal, state and local regulations. Any particular wetland’s ability
to provide beneficial functions and values depends largely on the quality of the wetland, with quality
being determined by a variety of factors such as size, location, water source, and degree of disturbance.
Protected wetlands in dedicated parkland in Cattail Creek
213
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 8-2
The City has established the position that inclusion of wetlands within a park may be acceptable, and in
some cases desirable. There are three basic options regarding wetlands and their relationship to parks
and parkland. The first is to waive the parkland land dedication or cash-in-lieu requirements for wetland
areas. State law allows the City Commission to consider waiving land dedication or cash-in-lieu
requirements if “the proposed development provides long-term protection of critical wildlife habitat;
cultural, historical, archeological or natural resources; agricultural interests; or aesthetic values.” With
this waiver, the wetlands area would not be dedicated to the City as parkland but would be owned by the
developer, property owners association, or other entity such as a land trust or conservation organization.
With the second option, the City would actually accept the wetland area as a parkland land dedication to
be owned by the public. The final option is to not grant parkland land dedication or cash-in-lieu waivers
for wetland areas or accept the land as a parkland dedication to the City.
Even though wetlands are left in a natural state, some maintenance (such as weed control) of these areas
will be required. In some instances the City will be willing and able to maintain wetland areas once a
Citywide park maintenance SID, or other similar funding mechanism, is developed. Otherwise, the
property owners association (or other applicable group) would typically be responsible for maintenance
based on an approved maintenance plan.
It would be possible to have a variety of wetland ownership and maintenance arrangements within one
development depending upon the size of the development, and size, location and quality of the wetlands
involved.
8.1.2 Policy Statement
The City will consider granting parkland land dedication or cash-in-lieu waivers for wetland areas or
accepting the land as a parkland dedication to the City on a case-by-case basis. If a wetlands is truly
“critical” in terms of functions and values, the proposal may have merit. The City will also make
decisions regarding maintenance on a case-by-case basis.
If the waiver is granted or a land dedication accepted, it should be subject to the following stipulations:
1. The intent to request the waiver or dedicate land must be stated with the subdivision
preapplication or concept plan.
2. The waiver must be requested with the preliminary plat or plan application, or the preliminary
plat or plan must indicate wetland areas proposed for land dedication.
3. With the preliminary plat or plan, the developer must provide evidence from a qualified person
or agency stating that the area proposed for protection is indeed critical in order for the proposal
to be considered.
4. With the preliminary plat or plan, the developer must provide an evaluation of the future
maintenance requirements for the wetland(s) and a preliminary maintenance plan, both prepared
by a qualified person or agency.
5. The proposal must be reviewed by, and receive a favorable recommendation from, the RPAB
and Bozeman Wetlands Review Board.
6. If City Commission agrees to grant the waiver or accept the land dedication, the Commission
may request that amenities such as benches, trails and interpretive signage be installed. If these
sorts of amenities will be installed, public access must be provided.
7. Others as needed.
214
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues
Page 8-3
These same principles would apply to resources other than wetlands such as: critical wildlife habitat;
cultural, historical or natural resources; agricultural interests; or aesthetic values, as provided for in 76-3-
621, MCA.
8.2 PONDS AND LAKES
8.2.1 Overview
There are several locations in the planning area that contain waterbodies of varying size and quality. It is
recognized that these water features could provide unique water-related recreation opportunities such as
swimming, boating, fishing and beaches. These are the sorts of recreational activities currently provided
at the very popular Bozeman Pond and East Gallatin Recreation Area. The primary issues related to
ponds and lakes are whether parkland land dedication or cash-in-lieu requirements would be waived,
whether the waterbody would be dedicated to the City, and assignment of maintenance responsibility.
8.2.2 Policy Statement
It is the City’s policy that such waterbodies, if they are of a size and quality to provide recreational
opportunities, should be dedicated to the City. As such, the City will be responsible for maintenance
once a Citywide park maintenance SID, or other similar funding mechanism, is developed. Otherwise,
the property owners association (or other applicable group) would typically be responsible for
maintenance based on an approved maintenance plan.
If a waterbody is proposed for dedication to the City, the proposal is subject to the following
stipulations:
1. The intent to dedicate the waterbody must be stated with the subdivision preapplication or
concept plan.
2. The dedication of the waterbody must be shown on the preliminary plat or plan.
3. With the preliminary plat or plan, the applicant shall provide documentation that the lake or
pond is suitable for public recreation. A report by a qualified professional (engineer/hydrologist)
providing assurance that water quality, that is safe for swimming, kayaking, etc., will be
maintained. If mechanical or natural improvements, such as aeration or created wetlands, will be
needed to maintain water quality, details must be provided as to their specifications, cost
estimates, party responsible for installation and maintenance, and time frame for installation.
4. With the preliminary plat or plan, the developer must provide an evaluation of the future
maintenance requirements for the lake or pond and a preliminary maintenance plan, both
prepared by a qualified person or agency.
5. Public access to the entire shore of the lake or pond must be ensured, subject to environmental
constraints. Adequate public parking must be provided.
6. Adequate access and equipment for emergency response will be provided, typically including an
all-weather emergency access road and a parking area of sufficient size to accommodate several
emergency vehicles.
7. Drainage plans must be designed to adequately protect and maintain the water quality of the
pond or lake.
8. Motorized recreation will be prohibited.
9. The area of the waterbody, for parkland dedication purposes, will be measured from the high
water mark.
215
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 8-4
10. The proposal must be reviewed by, and receive a favorable recommendation from, the RPAB.
11. If appropriate, the City Commission may request that amenities such as trails, public restrooms,
boat launches, benches, etc. be installed with public access provided. Public access easements
should be provided if needed.
12. Others as needed.
8.3 WATERCOURSE SETBACKS
8.3.1 Overview
The City of Bozeman requires the provision of watercourse setbacks for all rivers, streams and
stream/ditch combinations in the City. The purpose of the setbacks is bank stabilization; sediment,
nutrient and pollution removal; and flood control. The width of the setback is variable depending upon
the watercourse, the presence of adjacent slopes or wetlands, and the extent of adjoining floodplain.
The watercourse setbacks are, by their very nature, attractive for use for a variety of recreational
activities. However, it is recognized that use of watercourse setbacks for recreational facilities - such as
trails – may not be compatible with the primary function of the setbacks; use of the setbacks could
increase issues of erosion, spread of noxious weeds, destruction of vegetation, and disposition of waste
and garbage. In fact, the City’s development regulations seek to restrict recreational use of the setbacks
by largely limiting trail construction to the 40 percent of the required watercourse setback that is farthest
from the watercourse (please see Section 18.42.100.B.5, Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance).
The City would accept the dedication of watercourse setbacks if part of a larger park area like in Kirk Park
216
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues
Page 8-5
8.3.2 Policy Statement
Due to the inherent conflicts between water quality protection issues and recreation activities, it is
current City policy to not allow watercourse setbacks to be used to satisfy parkland land dedication
requirements. However, the City will allow watercourse setback be dedicated to the City as parkland if
part of a larger park area. The City also does allow a cash donation in-lieu of land dedication credit for
the cost of constructing recreational trails if public access is provided. A public access easement of at
least 25 feet is typically provided. Finally, the City also allows developers to count their watercourse
setbacks as open space to satisfy the performance point requirements for planned unit developments.
It is the City’s intent to continue with the current policy. The Unified Development Ordinance should
be amended to formalize this policy.
8.4 CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND DEDICATION PROPOSALS
8.4.1 Overview
State law requires that developers provide land for parks or a cash equivalent, known as cash-in-lieu of
parkland. In the past, developers have typically provided land with few requests to provide cash-in-lieu.
However, in recent years, the City has been presented with increasingly frequent cash-in-lieu proposals
with no policies or criteria in place to adequately evaluate these proposals. The issues related to cash-in-
lieu proposals are many and varied, and include the following:
8.4.2 Valuation
State law specifies that the value of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication must be based upon the value of
the unsubdivided and unimproved land. Although the City does require that the value be based upon
the annexed and zoned value of the land, the cash-in-lieu amount is never equivalent to the actual value
of the land. Therefore, getting the land instead of money is almost always a better deal.
The issue of avoided costs is also a factor. When a developer dedicates parkland, it must meet the
minimum requirements for improvements contained in the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance
(irrigation system, seeding, sidewalks, street trees, etc.). Cash-in-lieu has no similar expense attached.
This makes cash-in-lieu automatically a better deal for the developer and results in loss of value to the
City.
The larger issue is related to the determination of fair market value. State law does not specify the
procedure for calculating fair market value. Instead, the City has developed its own system whereby the
developer provides an appraisal of the fair market value by a certified real estate appraiser of their
choosing. The current system yields unpredictable and inequitable results with values ranging from
project to project.
Other non-specific factors influence the value of land and hence impact appraisals. For instance,
proximity to existing water and sewer infrastructure would make land more valuable for development
but it is unclear whether it would be considered in determining a cash-in-lieu value. Similarly, are the
cash-in-lieu appraisals based upon the least developable parts of a tract (wetlands, steep slopes, etc.), the
most developable parts of a tract, or an average of the entire property? The current system lacks the
specificity required to ensure that the City is receiving a fair value.
217
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 8-6
Until state law is changed, and/or a better local system of valuing land for cash-in-lieu proposals is
achieved, cash-in-lieu requests will be regarded by the City only as a last resort. This stance limits the
City’s ability to meet the recreational needs of the community, and is also unfair to the development
community as there are often legitimate reasons to propose cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication. A new
system for determining the amount of cash-in-lieu payments should be developed. The new system
should be based on a fixed per acre amount — that is agreeable to both the City and the development
community — to increase the predictability of the process and allow the evaluation of cash-in-lieu
proposals based upon their merits. The per acre amount would be subject to periodic review and
adjustment.
8.4.3 Cash-in-Lieu Criteria
Proximity to Existing Parkland. Arguments for cash-in-lieu proposals often invoke the issue of
proximity to existing parkland; additional parkland is not needed since the subject development is close
to an existing park. In some instances this argument has merit and a cash-in-lieu proposal may make
sense. However, decisions based on proximity arguments must also consider the type of existing park
and the needs of the area, in terms of the type and location for parks, as determined by this plan. For
example, a new development may be near an existing special use skatepark. A park may still be needed
in the new development to satisfy the non-skate recreational needs of its future residents.
In addition, adjacency to existing parks may provide unique opportunities to aggregate and consolidate
parkland into larger and more useful parks.
Size of Land Available for Parkland. When only small pieces of parkland are available it may be
preferable to get the cash-in-lieu. However, these small parcels might make perfect mini parks if need is
demonstrated by this plan. Again, this document will influence not only where parks are needed, but
how parks should be developed (i.e., playground equipment vs ball fields). Cash-in-lieu decisions will
need to consider the size of the land available for a park within the context of whether a park is needed
in the area, and if so what type of park is needed.
Housing Density/Infill Projects. At some point residential dwelling unit density becomes a factor
because a high-density project could have more units, thus more parkland requirement, than land
available to dedicate. This situation occurs frequently with infill projects. Cash-in-lieu may be the only
option in some cases. This must be balanced with the need to provide recreational opportunities for all
residents. Lower-density development is characterized by lots with yards, whereas high-density lots
typically do not have large yards; high-density development may, in fact, have a greater need for
parkland than low-density.
Trail Connections. In some instances a development may not be appropriate for the siting of a new
park, but land in the development could provide a key trail corridor connection. In these situations, the
trail connection should be obtained instead of cash-in-lieu.
Suitability Factors. Occasionally land will simply not be suitable for recreational uses and would
therefore not be appropriate for a park. The suitability may be diminished due to factors such as steep
slopes, extremely high groundwater (surface ponding), etc. In these cases, cash-in-lieu may be the only
viable alternative.
Service Area. State law states that cash-in-lieu funds can be spent only if the “park, recreational area,
open space, or conservation easement is within a reasonably close proximity to the proposed
218
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues
Page 8-7
subdivision.” The RPAB has determined that “reasonably close proximity” will be based upon the
service area of the park classification. For example, the service area of a neighborhood park is a ¼- to
½-mile radius around the park, and the use of cash-in-lieu within this service area would be considered
to be within reasonably close proximity.
8.4.4 Policy Statement
In consideration of the issues outlined above, the City’s policy regarding cash-in-lieu proposals is as
follows: The City will continue to discourage or reject cash-in-lieu proposals until the cash-in-lieu
valuation system is revised, except in situations involving high-density residential projects or
development of lands unsuitable for recreation lands where cash-in-lieu is the only option. Cash-in-lieu
proposals will be evaluated upon their merits with one or more of the following criteria being met:
1. The land is unsuitable for use as recreational lands due to physical constraints or dangerous
circumstances.
2. The subject property is within the service area of an existing park, AND the type, size and
location of the existing park meet the recreational needs of the residents of the subject property.
3. The size of the park parcel would meet only the mini-park standards, AND no mini-park is
needed to meet the recreational needs of the residents of the subject property.
4. The residential dwelling unit density of the project is such that no land is available for parkland.
5. Land in the development is not needed for trail connections.
6. Other special circumstances unique to the subject property as determined by the RPAB.
In addition to these criteria, the potential for aggregating and consolidating parkland and the
opportunities for providing off-site parkland dedication will also be considered when evaluating cash-in-
lieu proposals. All proposals for cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication must be reviewed by, and receive a
favorable recommendation from, the RPAB.
8.5 PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
8.5.1 Overview
In recent years, the City’s development regulations have been revised to require the greatest amount of
parkland dedication, or cash-in-lieu thereof, allowable by state law. The greatest amount allowable is
0.03 acres per dwelling unit where density is known, which generally includes all residential zoning
districts except for R-4 (Residential High Density District) and R-O (Residential Office District). Where
the density is unknown, usually in the R-4 (Residential High Density) and R-O (Residential Office)
districts, the greatest amount allowable by state law is 11 percent of the area of the land proposed to be
subdivided into parcels.
Discussion regarding parkland dedication requirements has focused on whether the amount of parkland
dedication required in Bozeman is greater than needed to meet the needs of the City’s residents now and
into the future.
8.5.2 Analysis
At the end of 2005, Bozeman had approximately 18.7 acres of park for every 1,000 City residents.
According to Table 8-1, Bozeman’s park acres per 1,000 population is the same as the average of 18.7
acres per 1,000 population for 5 of Montana’s largest and fastest growing cities (Billings, Bozeman,
219
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 8-8
Helena, Kalispell and Missoula). Therefore, the amount of parkland in the Bozeman, and the amount of
parkland dedication required in Bozeman, is consistent with other similar cities in Montana.
Table 8-1: Peer Communities Park Acres per 1,000 Population
City Park Acres Population Estimate Park/1,000 Population
Fort Collins, CO 800 (2006) 118,652 (2004) 6.7
Boulder, CO 1,000 (2006) 94,673 (2004) 10.6
Greeley, CO 647 (2006) 76,930 (2004) 8.4
Loveland, CO 447 (2006) 50,608 (2004) 8.8
Boise, ID 1,930 (2004) 211,672 (2002) 9.1
Coeur D'Alene, ID 409 (2006) 34,514 (2006) 11.9
Billings, MT 2,596 (2006) 96,977 (2004) 26.8
Bozeman, MT 667 (2005) 35,750 (2005) 18.7
Helena, MT 440 (2006) 27,196 (2004) 16.2
Kalispell, MT 336 (2006) 17,000 (2004) 19.8
Missoula, MT 750 (2005) 61,790 (2004) 12.1
Bellevue, WA 650 (2006) 117,000 (2002) 5.6
Olympia, WA 700 (2006) 42,514 (2005) 16.5
Redmond, WA 1,000 (2006) 47,600 (2005) 21.0
Walla Walla, WA 600 (2006) 29,686 (2005) 20.2
Average 864 70,837 14.2
Average of Montana cities 954 47,743 18.7
Source: Official web sites for each city.
Table 8-2 shows the park acres per 1,000 population for some of the largest cities in the US. It is
interesting to note that the average park acres per 1,000 population for these large cities is 6.8, which is
considerably less than the average park acres per 1,000 population of 14.2 for the regional peer
communities shown in Table 8-1. This is likely attributable to the fact the large cities have less
opportunity to urbanize undeveloped land and hence obtain any significant park area. Instead, growth
in these large cities often occurs through infill with the redevelopment of underutilized land.
Table 8-2: Large US Cities Park Acres per 1,000 Population
City Park Acres Population (2000) Park/1,000 Population
Minneapolis, MN 5,694 383,000 14.9
Washington, DC 7,504 572,000 13.1
Oakland, CA 3,712 399,000 9.3
Boston, MA 4,865 589,000 8.3
Los Angeles, CA 29,801 3,695,000 8.1
Baltimore, MD 5,091 651,000 7.8
San Francisco, CA 5,916 777,000 7.6
Philadelphia, PA 10,685 1,518,000 7.0
New York, NY 49,854 8,008,000 6.2
Long Beach, CA 2,887 462,000 6.2
Chicago, IL 11,645 2,896,000 4.0
Miami, FL 1,329 362,000 3.7
Average 11,582 1,692,667 6.8
Source: Harnik, Peter, "Inside City Parks," Washington, D.C, Urban Land Institute, 2001.
220
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues
Page 8-9
Table 8-3: City of Bozeman Parkland Projections - 2005 through 2025
Year Population Dwelling Units1 Park Acres Park Acres/1,000 Pop
2005 35,750 15,336 667 18.7
77 percent at 0.03 325 developed
11,809 SH units 325.5 undeveloped
23 percent at 11%
3,527 MH units
453 acres MH2
Year Population Dwelling Units3 Park Acres Park Acres/1,000 Pop
2010 42,700 18,894 757 17.7
77 percent at 0.03
14,548 SH4
23 percent at 11%
4,346 MH units
521 acres MH5
Year Population Dwelling Units3 Park Acres Park Acres/1,000 Pop
2015 54,500 24,115 889 16.3
77 percent at 0.03
18,569 SH4
23 percent at 11%
5,546 MH units
621 acres MH5
Year Population Dwelling Units3 Park Acres Park Acres/1,000 Pop
2020 69,500 30,752 1,056 15.2
77 percent at 0.03
23,679 SH4
23 percent at 11%
7,073 MH units
748 acres MH5
Year Population Dwelling Units3 Park Acres Park Acres/1,000 Pop
2025 88,700 39,248 1,103 12.4
77 percent at 0.03
30,221 SH4
23 percent at 11%
9,027 MH units
911 acres MH5
1Based on 2000 Census housing unit count of 11,644 plus residential dwelling unit permits issued 2000-2005.
2The City's GIS system indicates that 453 acres were used for MH units in 2005, which translates into 7.8 units per acre.
3Dwelling units is calculated by dividing the population projection by the average household size of 2.26 persons per unit.
4SH = single household. 77 percent is the percentage of residential units permitted since 1990 that are single-household.
5MH = multi-household. 23 percent is the percentage of residential units permitted since 1990 that are MH. 12 units per acre was used to
determine additional MH acres.
221
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 8-10
As shown in Table 8-3, it is estimated that Bozeman will have approximately 1,103 acres of park, or 12.4
acres of park per 1,000 population, by 2025 if the current parkland dedication requirements remain in
place. The 12.4 acres of park per 1,000 population in 2025 is slightly less than the current average park
acres per 1,000 population of 14.2 for all peer communities included in Table 8-1.
It is important to recognize that approximately half of the City’s existing parkland is in a natural state.
Much of this parkland is intended to be natural, such as Burke Park. However, much of this parkland is
intended to be developed, but a lack of funds has resulted in its remaining undeveloped. This
unintentionally natural parkland typically provides few recreation opportunities. If the unintentionally
natural parkland was subtracted from the analysis depicted in Tables 8-1 through 8-3, the results would
be more sobering for Bozeman.
The City of Bozeman has also adopted a Workforce Housing Ordinance to address the shortage of
affordable housing for very low to moderate income households. According to this ordinance, the
parkland requirement for development, not otherwise exempted from dedication requirements, shall be
reduced by a 1:1 ratio based on the required square footage of the lot area necessary to provide
minimum compliance with the ordinance. For example, if 50,000 square feet of lots for workforce
housing units are required then there shall be a reduction in the required parkland area of 50,000 square
feet. This new ordinance will further erode the City’s ability to maintain the current level of service by
relying so heavily on parkland dedication with land development.
8.5.5 Policy Statement
Results of surveys, as well as park and facility usage, indicates that outdoor recreational amenities are
very important to Bozeman’s population. Analysis indicates that Bozeman’s current parkland dedication
requirements, and the amount of parkland currently within the City, are acceptable and are consistent
with the requirements and parkland amounts in other large and growing Montana cities. Further, the
City’s current parkland dedication requirements will yield a sufficient amount of parkland for our
growing community that is consistent in terms of acres per 1,000 population with peer communities in
the region. Therefore, the parkland dedication requirements used by the City should not be revised
downward.
Finally, Table 8-3 indicates that over time Bozeman’s ratio for parkland per 1,000 population will decline
with continued use of the current parkland dedication requirements. Currently, Bozeman has
approximately 18.7 acres of park per 1,000 population. By 2025, this ratio is expected to decrease to
12.4 acres of park per 1,000 population. Therefore, the current parkland dedication is not going to
allow the community’s parkland acres to keep pace with the City’s growing population. Measures to be
used in addition to the development review and parkland dedication requirement will be needed if the
City’s current level of service for parkland will be maintained into the future.
8.6 INCENTIVES FOR HIGH DENSITY AND/OR INFILL PROJECTS
8.6.1 High Density Projects
Density is encouraged in the City of Bozeman. The City’s development regulations are currently
structured in a way that requires parkland dedication for 10 or fewer dwelling units per acre in the R-1,
R-2 and RMH zoning districts, and for 12 or fewer dwelling units per acre in the R-3, R-4 and R-O
zoning districts. Therefore, parkland will not be required in high density residential developments for
any units above and beyond 12 dwelling units per acre. This functions as an incentive for developers to
construct high density residential projects.
222
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues
Page 8-11
8.6.2 Infill Projects
Infill development is encouraged in the City of Bozeman. When a residential infill project is proposed,
the developer can get parkland dedication credits for any residential units removed for the infill
development. For example, if 3 single-household residential units are removed for construction of a 12-
unit condo development, the developer would get credit for the 3 removed single-household units and
would only have to provide parkland for the 9 additional units. This results in an incentive for the
development of residential infill projects.
8.6.2 Policy Statement
These existing incentives for high density and/or infill residential projects represent an effective and
equitable tool for encouraging the densification of the City and the construction of infill developments.
The current policy should be retained and applied wherever appropriate.
8.7 PARKLAND DEDICATION CRITERIA
Parkland dedication through the development review process has historically been the predominant
method of land acquisition for parks. While parkland dedication through the development review
process has generally been effective for acquiring land, the current parkland dedication requirements, as
stipulated in state law, will result in fewer and fewer park acres per resident over time as shown in Table
8-3. Also, relying solely on parkland dedication through the development review process provides the
City with very little control over when, where and how parks are developed. Therefore, in addition to
development review a more reliable and nimble means of acquisition of land for parks is needed in to
augment the parkland dedication requirement and allow for the acquisition of critical areas as they
become available.
The goal of parkland dedication through the development review process should be to create parks
which provide recreational opportunities, protect or preserve unique natural features, or provide
linkages to existing or prospective facilities. As stated previously, land will generally be deemed more
valuable than cash-in-lieu until the cash-in-lieu system is revamped. When accepting a parkland
dedication, the dedication will be reviewed in relation to the qualitative merits of a specific proposal,
with a focus on the following criteria:
1. Compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of Bozeman’s growth policy and this
document.
2. Parkland dedications, with the possible exception of a natural amenity or linear parks, should
have excellent visible access and be easily identifiable and recognizable as a public space where
everyone is welcome.
3. Wherever possible, parkland dedications should implement recommended projects outlined in
this document. Any physical feature which is the focus of a corridor, such as a stream corridor,
railbed or ridgeline, shall be included in the dedication.
4. The size and shape, and/or purpose of the parkland proposed for dedication is appropriate for
the location; the topography is appropriate for the size and shape, or purposes of the proposed
dedication.
5. The dedication is situated and designed to ensure excellent physical accessibility from all
directions for the public and for reasonable maintenance purposes.
223
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 8-12
6. Wherever possible, parkland dedications should be contiguous to any existing parks.
Dedications from a multi-phased subdivision should normally be contiguous to one another.
7. The parkland dedication should be designed so that it may be adequately maintained.
8. Infrastructure and utility accesses which are located within park boundaries, such as stormwater
retention or detention ponds, will not be counted towards the minimum amount of parkland
required for dedication.
9. Consideration should be given to any other programmatic or physical concerns of the proposed
dedication, and significant and/or unique natural features.
10. Land dedication for linear parks should comply with the adopted PROST Plan Trail Map.
Any variation from these criteria must be found to produce a net result which exceeds existing
standards, or which will preserve and enhance significant natural qualities and amenities.
8.8 STREET FRONTAGE
8.8.1 Overview
For many years the City’s regulations required street frontage along at least 50 percent of a park’s
perimeter. In 2005, the City’s regulations were amended to require street frontage along 100 percent of
a park’s perimeter, with exceptions related to topography, critical lands, pedestrian access and off-street
parking. There are many reasons to require the provision of street frontage along City parks, including:
· Accessibility – To ensure that public parks are easily accessible from all directions.
· Safety – Having a high level of visibility, or “eyes on the park,” increases safety for park visitors.
· Crime Prevention – Similar to safety, having a high degree of park visibility decreases the
incidents of crime such as graffiti.
· Parking – Having street frontage and on-street parking can provide a tremendous amount of
parking for park visitors.
· Boundaries – In places where private backyards back up to public parks there is a tendency for
the private backyards, and related items such as sheds and personal storage, to encroach onto
the public land.
· Recognition – It is important the public lands that are provided to meet the recreational needs of
the community be easily identifiable and recognizable as public spaces where everyone is
welcome.
However, the RPAB has identified many reasons why having a significant amount of street frontage may
not be feasible and/or desirable, including:
· Safety – Vehicle traffic associated with street adjacency may present a hazard to children and
pets playing in parks.
· Resource Impacts - Vehicle use, and related impacts such as leaking oil or the transport of
noxious weed seed, can negatively impact resource- or critical land-based parks.
· Noise Impacts – Vehicle noise can be detrimental to a park experience, especially if parks are
used as an escape and an opportunity to enjoy nature.
224
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues
Page 8-13
· Visual impacts – The sight of vehicles can negatively impact the aesthetic qualities of a park, and
therefore diminish the enjoyment of the park.
· Visibility – Some park users may feel safer when private backyards back up to the park rather
than parked cars.
· Size – Some parks, especially mini parks, will simply be too small to allow for the provision of
significant street frontage.
Cooper Park is an example of a park with 100 percent street frontage which is the City’s standard for street frontage
Street frontage requirements are also an issue in regards to private open space, where the pros and cons
of street frontage are similar to those of parks. However, open spaces are typically designed to provide
a natural landscape to protect natural resources, critical lands and aesthetic resources. Therefore, it is
possible that street frontage would be especially detrimental to some open spaces.
8.8.2 Policy Statement
The City’s current requirement of street frontage along 100 percent of its perimeter on public or private
streets of roads should remain in effect. The City may consider and approve a park with less than 100
percent, but not less than 50 percent, of the perimeter when it is necessary due to topography, the
presence of critical lands, or similar site constraints. If less than 100 percent perimeter frontage is
provided, the following additional requirements should be considered:
1. Additional land should be provided in the park to provide the parking not being provided on
street. This may necessitate the development of park parking requirements. Land used for a park
parking lot should not count towards the parkland dedication requirement.
225
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 8-14
2. If private yards will be adjacent to a park, the boundary must be delineated by a RPAB-approved
natural or artificial barrier such as fencing, berming, landscaping, etc. The fencing allowed along
these boundaries should not exceed 4 feet in height, should be see-through and must be installed
by the developer to ensure the coordination of fence style, height and materials.
3. Direct pedestrian access should be provided to the park perimeters that lack street frontage.
4. Small signs should be installed at all public entrances to a City park, with a larger park
identification sign being placed at the primary access to the park. All signage must comply with
Parks Division specifications.
Street frontage for private open space should be provided as follows:
1. No requirement for open spaces where no PUD performance points were granted for public
access.
2. For open spaces where PUD performance points were granted for public access, there should be
at least one 25-foot wide access with signage indicating that public access to the open space is
allowed.
8.9 SHARED USE PATHS
8.9.1 Overview
There is a desire to provide a shared use path system to provide recreation and transportation
opportunities through and around the City. Shared use paths, which are classified as Class I trails,
provide a unique opportunity for people to travel on bike, foot, skateboard, etc. on a facility that is
separated from adjacent streets. Shared use paths are available for users such as adults on bikes,
skateboarders who are generally restricted from standard sidewalks, and for children and beginner
bicyclists who may not feel comfortable using a bike lane. Finally, shared use paths can provide
important east-west connectivity for our trail system which is composed primarily of north-south trails
following stream corridors.
Because shared use paths require ample street right-of-way, and due to development constraints
throughout the City, the system of shared use paths is recommend for a select few street corridors as
depicted on the PROST Trail Plan Map. When identifying which corridors were most suitable for
shared use paths, emphasis was placed on the following:
· Availability of street right-of-way;
· Feasibility of development of the facility, most often in undeveloped or underdeveloped areas;
· Proximity to community facilities such as schools, parks and the public library;
· Speed and traffic volume on the adjacent street.
In addition to the location of the shared use path system, there were many other issues that were
discussed and debated related to share use paths. These issues include the following:
· Surface – Some preferred an asphalt surface, especially for runners/joggers, the use of inline
skates, and the fact that snow and ice melt faster on asphalt. However, the City Engineering and
Street Departments preferred concrete, especially if the shared use paths are installed in-lieu of a
City standard sidewalk, due to superior longevity and ease of maintenance. The design life for
asphalt is 20 years while concrete is 8 to 80 years.
226
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues
Page 8-15
· Direction – There was some debate about whether shared use paths should be installed on both
sides of the street in all corridors identified to have shared use paths. There was some concern
that it would be difficult to successfully install paths on both sides of a street. However, safety
concerns dictate that shared use paths should be installed on both side of the street wherever
possible.
· Design – It is desirable to have some meander in the shared use paths. However, the width of
available right-of-way, especially on collector streets, makes it difficult to design a meandering
path. Therefore, if a shared use path is designed to meander, some additional easement may be
required from the adjacent property owner.
· Aesthetics – There was general consensus that concrete shared use paths are not particularly
attractive. Therefore, there is a desire to use colored concrete to increase the attractiveness of
the paths.
Shared use path along North 19th Avenue
8.9.2 Policy Statement
1. Shared use paths in the City of Bozeman are meant to accommodate a range of non-motorized
users, including: bicyclists (children and adults), pedestrians, skateboards, inline skates, etc. The
only acceptable motorized users are powered wheelchairs/scooters used by disabled citizens.
2. Shared use paths should be installed in the locations depicted on the PROST Trail Plan Map.
3. Shared use paths should be installed on both sides of the street, with the users of the shared use
path moving in the same direction as adjacent traffic.
227
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 8-16
4. Crossings of shared use paths and streets should be signed and marked, or otherwise
demarcated, in compliance with guidelines and recommendations included in the Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan.
5. Shared use paths should be constructed of concrete whenever provided in-lieu of a City standard
sidewalk. Shared use paths may be constructed of asphalt in other locations to be determined on
a case-by-case basis. All shared use paths, whether concrete or asphalt, shall be constructed in
compliance with the City’s Design Guidelines contained in Appendix C.
6. If a shared use path is designed to meander and adequate right-of-way is not available to
accommodate the meander, additional trail easement should be obtained from the adjacent
property owner.
7. Colored or dyed concrete should be used for shared use paths to enhance the attractiveness of
the facility.
8. In locations where a natural fines trail and a City-standard sidewalk converge, the facilities
should be combined into one larger shared use path.
8.10 PHASED DEVELOPMENTS
8.10.1 Overview
The City has had difficulties with multi-phased project (especially subdivisions) where the planned park
and/or recreation facilities are located in later phases. This situation creates many difficulties, including
the issues associated with people living in the earlier phases of the development who have a delay
(sometimes sizable) before recreation facilities are available to them. The City has also had situations
where later phases are never developed, leaving the residents of earlier completed phases entirely
without recreational facilities within their neighborhood.
8.10.2 Policy Statement
1. The location for all park and recreational facilities must be identified with the initial phase of a
multi-phased development.
2. Wherever possible, areas identified for park and recreation uses should be dedicated to the City
with the initial phase of the development. If dedication is not possible, easements should be
obtained with the initial phase for all lands identified for park and recreation uses, with the land
being dedicated incrementally and proportionally with each phase.
3. Wherever possible, areas identified for park and recreation uses should be improved in
compliance with City standards with the initial phase of the development. Incremental and
proportional improvement of park and recreation areas can be considered on a case-by-case
basis.
8.11 FINANCIAL GUARANTEES FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS
8.11.1 Overview
State law and the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance allow developers to financially guarantee
some development-related improvements. For subdivisions, developers can financially guarantee
infrastructure and other improvements, including park improvements, in order to file a final plat. The
228
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues
Page 8-17
City of Bozeman’s Planning Department charges a fee for financial guarantees of $400 or 1 percent of
the face value, which ever is greater.
In some instances, developers have been required to financially guarantee and pay the financial
guarantee fee for park improvements above and beyond the basic park improvement requirements of
leveling any park areas, amending the soil, seeding disturbed areas to allow mowing, and installing an
underground irrigation system. In other words, the developers have been required to financially
guarantee park improvements that they are volunteering to install in addition to the basic requirements
of the City.
This circumstance results in a financial disincentive for developers volunteering to install additional park
improvements at their own expense. Over time, this could result in fewer park improvements being
installed by developers.
8.11.2 Policy Statement
The City of Bozeman will only collect a financial guarantee and charge the financial guarantee fee for
required park improvements. Required park improvements would include the basic improvement
requirements of leveling any park areas, amending the soil, seeding disturbed areas to allow mowing, and
installing an underground irrigation system. Required improvements could also include improvements
required by the City Commission as a condition of approval.
A new playground in the Valley West Development
229
Page 1 of 11
ARTICLE 27. - PARK AND RECREATION REQUIREMENTS
State Law reference— Park dedication requirement, MCA 76-3-621.
Sec. 38.27.010. - General.
Except as provided in 38.27.020.B, all subdivisions and residential developments subject to
article 19 of this chapter, shall comply with the provisions of this article. The purpose of this article is to comply with sections 76-2-304 and 76-3-621 MCA; to advance the city's adopted plans for parks, trails and open space; to provide equal protection and treatment for different
housing types and review processes with similar impacts on demand for service; to advance
public health by encouraging and facilitating physical activity; and address housing affordability.
Sec. 38.27.020. - Park area and open space requirements.
A. The area required by this subsection shall be provided. 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. When the net residential density of development is known at the time of preliminary
plat and 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 at full buildout can be
reasonably determined.
d. 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.
e. The required area dedication or its equivalent shall not be required for any residential
density 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 per acre.
(2) For development within the R-3, R-4, R-O, and REMU zoning districts, the
maximum net residential density shall be 12 dwellings per acre.
230
Page 2 of 11
(3) For development within other zoning districts not previously specified and
developed for residential uses, the maximum net residential density shall be 12
dwellings per acre; or
2. If net residential density of development is unknown, 0.03 acres per dwelling of land dedication or its equivalent shall be provided as follows:
a. For initial subdivision or other development:
(1) For development within the R-1, R-2, and R-MH zoning districts an area equal to
that required for six dwellings per net acre.
(2) For development within the R-3, R-4, unless legally restricted from residential uses R-O zoning districts, and REMU, an area equal to that required for eight
dwellings per net acre.
(3) For development within other zoning districts not previously specified and which
are intended for residential development, the equivalent to an area dedication for
six dwellings 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 shall be rounded to the nearest whole number and applied
as follows:
(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.
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 10, article 8, to encourage the provision and
development of affordable housing.
231
Page 3 of 11
a. The minimum number of workforce housing units required to comply with chapter 10,
article 8, 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 10, article 8. 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 10, article 8, may not
reduce the development's park land requirements below the minimum established by
MCA 76-3-621.
B. Exceptions. Land dedication or cash donation in-lieu of land dedication shall not be required
for:
1. A minor subdivision.
2. Land proposed for subdivision into parcels larger than five acres.
3. Subdivision into parcels which are all nonresidential.
4. A subdivision in which parcels are not created, except when that subdivision provides
permanent multiple spaces for recreational camping vehicles or manufactured homes.
5. A subdivision in which only one additional parcel is being created.
6. An application reviewed under section 38.19.070
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.
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
232
Page 4 of 11
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 open space requirement. Site plans containing five or more dwelling units 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. Open space shall be provided at a rate of 150 square feet per dwelling unit for
dwellings with two or more bedrooms, and 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 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 unit; 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 ration 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:
233
Page 5 of 11
(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 ration of 1:3; and
b. Be surrounded by minimum 18 inch masonry screen 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.
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. When making this determination, the review authority shall consider the 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.
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 cash donation may not exceed the proportional amount not covered by the land dedication.
C. Cash donation in-lieu of land dedication shall be equal to the fair market value of the amount
of land that would have been dedicated. For the purpose of these regulations, the fair market
value is the value of the unsubdivided, unimproved land after it has been annexed and given
an urban zoning designation. The city intends to obtain the highest value for cash-in-lieu of
park land that is allowable under state law.
234
Page 6 of 11
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.
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 can not 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.
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 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.
Sec. 38.27.040. - Park use.
As part of an individual park master plan, the developer shall indicate the proposed use of the
park as active, passive, playground, ballfield, etc. However, the final use of the park shall be determined by the review authority.
Sec. 38.27.050. - Location.
A. General. The review authority, in consultation with the developer, recreation and parks
advisory board, and the planning board if applicable, may determine suitable locations for
parks and playgrounds. Park land must be located on land suitable to and supportive of the activities and functions depicted in the relevant park plan, and unless the park plan indicates
a requirement for another configuration, should be kept in a large block.
235
Page 7 of 11
B. Subarea or neighborhood plans. If a subarea or neighborhood plan has been adopted for the
area, the subdivision shall comply with the subarea or neighborhood plan for the location of
parks.
Sec. 38.27.060. - Frontage.
A. Park land, excluding linear trail corridors, shall have frontage along 100 percent of its perimeter on public or private streets or roads. The city may consider and approve the
installation of streets along less than 100 percent, but not less than 50 percent, of the
perimeter when:
1. Necessary due to topography, the presence of critical lands, or similar site constraints; and
2. a. When direct pedestrian access is provided to the perimeters without street frontage; and
b. When additional land area is provided in the park to accommodate the off-street
parking which would have otherwise been provided by the additional length of
perimeter streets and the additional land is developed as a parking area; or
c. When additional land area is provided in the park to accommodate the off-street parking which would have been provided by the additional length of perimeter streets
and, in lieu of the constructed parking area, an equivalent dollar value of nonparking
improvements within the park are provided according to the individual park plan.
Sec. 38.27.070. - Linear parks.
A. General. If consistent with the growth policy or citywide park plan, and if reviewed and approved by the review authority, linear parks shall be dedicated to the city to provide
corridors for recreation pathways as defined in 38.27.110
1. Pathway corridors within required watercourse setbacks shall not be dedicated to the city
as linear parks and such land may not be used to satisfy park land dedication
requirements. Instead, cash donation in-lieu of land dedication credit shall be granted only for the cost of constructing Class II or III recreational trails if public access is
provided. The developer shall provide a detailed cost estimate for installation of the trail,
for review and acceptance by the city, to determine the cash donation credit.
a. Within required watercourse setbacks, a public access easement that is at least 25 feet
in width shall be provided to ensure adequate room for the construction, maintenance and use of the trail.
B. Width. To ensure adequate room for pathway construction, maintenance and use, linear parks
shall be at least 25 feet in width.
C. Maintenance. These areas shall be maintained in accordance with section 38.27.110.E until an
alternative method (e.g., a citywide parks maintenance district) of funding and maintaining
the linear park is established.
Sec. 38.27.080. - Park development.
236
Page 8 of 11
A. General. Developers shall consult any adopted citywide park plan, and with the recreation and
parks advisory board which implements the plan, to determine the types of parks needed for
the proposed development and surrounding area. Parks shall be developed in accordance with
the citywide park plan and any approved park master plan. At a minimum, all parks shall be improved to the following standards by the developer, prior to final plat or final occupancy
approval as appropriate:
1. Minimum required improvements land dedications. The subdivider shall be responsible for
leveling any park area, amending the soil, seeding disturbed areas to allow mowing with
turf type mowers, and installing an underground irrigation system in compliance with city standards and specifications.
a. Parks shall be seeded with drought tolerant grass seed unless approved otherwise in
writing by the park superintendent.
2. Irrigation. The developer shall be responsible for irrigating the park area until 50 percent
of the subdivision lots or condominium units are sold. Thereafter, the property owners association shall be responsible for park irrigation. The property owners' association
could establish an improvement district to collect assessments to pay for irrigation.
a. Wells shall be used to irrigate park land.
B. Boundaries. The park boundary bordering all private lots shall be delineated at the common
private/public corner pins, with flat, flexible fiberglass posts, a minimum of six feet in length with no less than two feet driven into the ground. Each post must be labeled, with a
permanent glue on sign, stating "Park Boundary" or "Property Boundary." Other forms of
boundary marking may be approved by the planning or other appropriate department.
C. Sidewalks. Sidewalks, when required within the development, shall be installed by the
developer at points where the park borders or crosses public or private streets.
D. Stormwater detention/retention ponds. Stormwater retention or detention ponds may be
located within public park land, but such areas shall not count towards the park land
dedication requirement. Any stormwater ponds located on park land shall be designed,
constructed and/or added to so as to be conducive to the normal use and maintenance of the
park. Stormwater ponds shall not be located on private lots. Stormwater retention or detention ponds shall be maintained by the property owners association.
E. Clean up required. The park area must have all fencing material, construction debris and other
trash removed.
Sec. 38.27.090. - Waiver of park maintenance district.
When required, the developer shall sign, and file at the county clerk and recorder's office, a waiver of right to protest the creation of park maintenance district. The waiver shall be filed with
the final subdivision plat, or recorded at the time of other final approval.
Sec. 38.27.100. - Waiver of required park dedication.
237
Page 9 of 11
A. The review authority shall waive the park dedication or cash donation in-lieu of land
dedication requirement if land equal to or exceeding the area of the dedication otherwise
required by this article is set aside by one of the following means:
1. The proposed development provides long-term protection of critical wildlife habitat; cultural, historical, archaeological or natural resources; agricultural interests; or aesthetic
values.
2. The proposed development provides for a planned unit development or other development
with land permanently set aside for park and recreational uses sufficient to meet the needs
of the persons who will ultimately reside in the development.
3. The development is a land subdivision created by rent or lease (i.e., manufactured housing
communities and recreational vehicle parks) with land permanently set aside for parks or
playgrounds within the subdivision for rent or lease for the common use of the residents
of the development.
a. These park or playground areas shall be maintained by the property owners association.
4. The developer provides for land outside of the subdivision to be set aside for park and
recreational uses sufficient to meet the needs of the persons who will ultimately reside in
the subdivision.
a. The land being developed shall be within the service area, as designated by an adopted
citywide park plan, of the dedicated park land; and
b. The developer must dedicate the off-site park land to the city; or
c. The developer must execute the appropriate public access easements on privately-
owned 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.
5. The developer provides land outside the development that affords long-term protection of
critical wildlife habitat; cultural, historical, archaeological or natural resources;
agricultural interests; or aesthetic values; and the area of the land to be subject to long-
term protection equals or exceeds the area of the dedication otherwise required by this
article.
6. A subdivider may dedicate land to School District 7 to provide some or all of the land area
required by 38.27.020. The area dedicated to the school district may be used for school
facilities or buildings, including but not limited to play grounds or other recreational
facility. Any dedication to the school district shall be subject to the approval of the review authority and acceptance by the board of trustees of School District 7.
a. In approving a dedication of land to the school district the review authority shall make
affirmative findings that:
238
Page 10 of 11
(1) Adequate public park land already exists within the vicinity of the dedicating
subdivision to meet service standards established by the city's parks master plan;
(2) The land is located within the city limits or within one mile of city limits;
(3) The school district has established a facility plan to demonstrate how the
dedicated property will be utilized;
(4) The school district's facility plan shall describe any coordination intended for joint
use of the property by the school district and the city; and
(5) The option for cash-in-lieu of land described in 38.27.030 shall not be used in
place of a land dedication to the school district.
b. It shall be noted in a certificate on the plat and in any deed to the land that if School District 7 later chooses to dispose of the property, it shall revert to the city to be used
for park purposes. The land shall be transferred to the city from School District 7 with
clear title and in a condition meeting the minimum development standards for parks
established in 38.27.080
7. If a tract of land is being developed under single ownership as a part of an overall plan,
and part of the tract has previously been subdivided or developed, and sufficient park
land dedication or cash donation in-lieu of land dedication has been provided from the
area that has been previously subdivided or developed to meet the requirements of this
section for the entire tract being developed, the city commission shall issue an order waiving the land dedication and cash donation requirements for the subsequently
developed area.
Sec. 38.27.110. - Recreation pathways.
A. General. Developers shall install pathways in accordance with this chapter, the growth policy,
the most recently adopted long-range transportation plan, any adopted citywide park plan, and any adopted individual park master plan, and shall comply with City of Bozeman Design
Specifications.
B. Pathway categories. The development review committee (DRC) shall be responsible for
determining whether a pathway is a transportation pathway or a recreation pathway. For
subdivision proposals, this determination shall be made during the preapplication process.
1. Recreation pathways. The review authority may require developers to install recreation
pathways, to provide recreational and physical fitness opportunities within the
development, as part of the required development improvements. Recreation pathways
include the following facilities:
a. Pathways that do not connect major residential, employment, educational or service nodes;
b. Pathways that connect parks, but do not connect major residential, employment,
educational or service nodes;
239
Page 11 of 11
c. Pathways that are not ADA accessible due to topography;
d. Pathways located within parks; and
e. Class II and III trails.
2. Transportation pathways. For the definition of transportation pathways, please see section
38.24.110
C. Related facilities. If pathways are proposed or required, stream crossings and other similar
improvements, where necessary, shall be installed. Bridge design and construction shall
comply with city specifications and standards, and shall be submitted to the planning
department for review and approval. Any necessary permits for bridges shall be obtained by the developer from the appropriate agency prior to installation of the stream crossings.
D. Trail requirements. The class of the trail shall be determined by the review authority and the
trail shall be designed and constructed according to any adopted park or recreation plan or
other city specifications and standards. Trails and bridges must meet Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) specifications for recreational facilities and maintain a natural appearance. Trail plans and specifications shall be submitted to the planning and parks departments for review and approval prior to installation.
E. Pathway maintenance. Recreation pathways within the proposed development shall be
maintained, in conformance with an approved maintenance plan, by the developer until 50
percent of the lots or condominium units are sold. Thereafter the property owners association shall be responsible for maintenance. The property owners association could establish an
improvement district to collect assessments to pay for the maintenance.
F. Pathway easements. Where pathways cross private land or common open space, the proper
public access easements shall be provided. Public access easements for pathways shall be at
least 25 feet wide.
G. Linear parks. Corridors for recreation pathways may be dedicated to the city in accordance
with section 38.27.070
240