Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Udc Changes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bozeman staff propose UDC changes to parkland dedication and density cap to account for higher‑density development
Summary
City planners told the Urban Parks and Forestry Board they are drafting Unified Development Code updates to change how parkland dedication and cash‑in‑lieu are calculated, to better capture impacts from higher‑density infill projects and to qualify natural resource areas as parkland.
At the May 22 Urban Parks and Forestry Board meeting, staff outlined proposed updates to the Unified Development Code (UDC) that would change how the city calculates parkland dedication and cash‑in‑lieu for new development. Ross Snapper said the existing net residential density cap (12 units per acre) and the current parkland calculation can fail to capture the park‑impact of higher‑density projects.
Snapper described the current parkland calculation as based on net residential density multiplied by net residential land area and a land factor (0.03 acres per unit), with adjustments and cash‑in‑lieu options. He said infill and higher‑density developments sometimes yield actual densities well above 12 units per acre but pay only up to the 12‑unit cap in the parkland calculation, creating a gap between increased population and park mitigation.
Staff proposed several directions for UDC revision: reassess the density cap and cash‑in‑lieu calculation so additional units beyond the cap contribute to park mitigation; qualify certain natural resources and critical lands as acceptable parkland dedication (with stewardship approaches such as boardwalks and preservation rather than turf); consider minimum park sizes and standardized baseline park amenities; and simplify the calculation and increase transparency for developers. Staff noted these changes would require careful balancing to avoid taking high‑quality natural wetlands that the city would not want to manage, while still allowing the city to accept and steward valuable natural areas in urban contexts.
Board members asked about how private HOA common areas differ from public parkland and whether the city maintains association property (staff said it does not). Staff said they are working with a consultant, Susan Riggs, to research other jurisdictions and will bring specific code amendments for future board review.
