HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-16 A1. Lamme ZMAPage 1 of 25
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment
Public Hearing Dates:
Zoning Commission public meeting Tuesday, April 5, 2016
City Commission public hearing Monday, April 11, 2016
City Commission public hearing Monday, April 25, 2016
City Commission public hearing Monday, May 2, 2016
City Commission public hearing Monday, June 27, 2016
Project Description: Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment (ZMA) requesting amendment of
the City Zoning Map for 5.1 acres (including streets and alleys) from R-4 (High Density
Residential) district to R-5 (Residential Mixed-Use High Density) district.
Project Location: The properties are generally bounded by North 11th Avenue on the west,
North 8th Avenue on the east, West Lamme Street to the north, and the B-2M Zoning District on
the south and described as portions of Blocks 5, 6, and 7 Springbrook Addition, situated in the
Northeast One-Quarter (NE ¼) of Section 12, Township Two South (T2S), Range Five East
(R5E), P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. See Section 1 for area map.
Recommendation: Approval
Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public
comment, recommendation of the Zoning Commission, and all the information presented, I
hereby adopt the findings presented in this staff report for the Lamme Street portion of
application 15320 and move to approve the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment, with
contingencies required to complete the application processing.
Report Date: June 23, 2016
Staff Contact: Tom Rogers, AICP; Senior Planner
Agenda Item Type: Action (Legislative) (2/3 majority required)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Unresolved Issues
The determination as to whether or not the submitted protests meet the requirements of 76-2-
305(2), Mont., Code Ann. and Section 38.37.030, BMC and should be counted when
calculating whether owners of 25% or more of the area in the proposed zoning change have
protested rests with the Commission.
186
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 2 of 25
As of June 21, 2016, 26.7 percent of the property within the proposed district has been
protested, if the Commission determines the forms submitted are valid.
Section 38.37.030.D, BMC
D. After the zoning commission has forwarded a recommendation on the amendment to the
zoning district map, a public hearing shall be held by the city commission for the purpose
of acting upon the proposed amendment after public notice.
1. In the case of protest against such changes, signed by the owners of 25 percent or
more of either the area of the lots included in any proposed change or those lots or
condominium units 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change, such
amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of
the present and voting members of the city commission. When considering protests from owners of condominiums the provisions of MCA 76-2-305(3) apply. The
provisions of this subsection D include the ability for an applicant to protest a
possible decision to adopt a zoning less than originally requested when the applicant
meets the same criteria as other affected landowners.
2. If the city commission intends to adopt a zoning designation different than that applied for, the hearing will be continued for a minimum of one week to enable the
applicant to consider their options and whether to protest the possible action. In the
case of protest against a change to the zoning map by the applicant the same
favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and voting members of the city
commission is required as for any other protested zoning action
Project Summary
The Lamme Street zone map amendment (“ZMA”) is a part of the comprehensive evaluation
and update of Chapter 38 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), phase one. The
Bozeman Code Update is a City wide effort to generally revise and update the City’s
development code. In association with the phase one code amendments certain zoning changes were necessary. The Lamme Street ZMA is a part of the Midtown ZMA and text amendments that were finally adopted on April 25, 2016 and became effective on June 8,
2016 after considerable public input. However, based on public comment the Commission
removed three areas within the Midtown ZMA area from the revised and adopted zoning
map. All areas removed from the revised zoning map were proposed to be changed to R-5.
On May 23, 2016 the Commission held a public hearing to reconsider the decision to remove the Lamme Street ZMA area from the revised zoning map. The Commission moved to direct
staff to bring the Lamme Street ZMA back before the Commission for further discussion and
decision on June 27, 2016. To encourage public participation the City hosted a public
information meeting on June 15, 2016 from 6:30 – 9:00 p.m. at Bozeman High School.
Additional background information can be found in Appendix B.
Alternatives
Alternatives for Commission action are:
1. Adopt Staff’s findings and approve the application with contingencies;
187
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 3 of 25
2. Deny the application based on findings of non-compliance with the applicable criteria
contained within the staff report; or
3. Open and continue the public hearing, with specific direction to staff or the applicant
to supply additional information or to address specific items.
Zoning Commission
The Zoning Commission and Planning Board held a joint public workshop on March 22,
2016 and a public hearing on April 5, 2016 as part of the larger Midtown ZMA review.
Public testimony was received at the hearing. At the April 5, 2016 public hearing the Zoning
Commission recommended approval of the zone map amendment including the Lamme Street ZMA area. The written minutes are attached.
The recorded video can be viewed HERE.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment .............................................. 1
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1
Unresolved Issues ....................................................................................................................... 1
Project Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2
Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 2
Zoning Commission .................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 3
section 1 - MAP SERIES ................................................................................................................ 4
Section 3 - RECOMMENDED Contingencies OF ZONE MAP AMENDMENT....................... 10
Section 4 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ................................................. 10
Section 5 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ...................................................................... 11
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria ............................................................................... 11
PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS ............................................................... 18
APPENDIX A –Affected ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY provisions ................................ 19
appendix B – detailed project description and background .......................................................... 23
APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ......................................................... 24
Appendix D - Owner Information and Reviewing Staff ............................................................... 25
Fiscal effects ................................................................................................................................. 25
ATTACHMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 25
188
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 4 of 25
SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES
Staff Proposed Zoning Modifications
189
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 5 of 25
Adopted Zoning Modifications
190
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 6 of 25
M
191
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 7 of 25
192
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 8 of 25
193
Page 9 of 25
Proposed Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Area
194
Page 10 of 25
SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES OF ZONE MAP
AMENDMENT
Please note that these contingencies are necessary for the City to complete the process of the
proposed amendment. As the City is the applicant, the City will be responsible for
completion of contingencies.
Recommended Contingencies of Approval:
1. That all documents and exhibits necessary to establish an initial municipal zoning designation shall be identified as the “Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment.”
2. That the applicant submit a zone amendment map, titled “Lamme Street Zone Map
Amendment,” on a 24” by 36” mylar, an 8 ½” by 11” or 8 ½” by 14” paper exhibit, and a
digital copy of the area to be zoned, acceptable to the Director of Public Works, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the City of Bozeman Zoning Map. Said map shall contain a metes and bounds legal description of the perimeter of
the subject property including adjacent right-of-ways, and total acreage of the property.
Materials shall be returned to the City within 60 days of Commission action on the zone map
amendment.
3. That the Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant provides a metes and bounds legal description prepared by a licensed Montana surveyor and
a map of the area to be rezoned, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to
officially amend the zone map.
SECTION 4 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS
Project Name: Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment
File: 15-320
Having considered the criteria established for a municipal code amendment, the Community
Development Staff recommends the approval of the zone map amendment.
The significance of revision to the City's development code and zoning map warranted
additional evaluation. Therefore, the City convened a 13 member advisory committee
representing a myriad of sectors of our community to consider various alternatives and
provide direction to the consultant team who is assisting the City revise its code. The
Unified Development Code (UDC) Amendment Advisory Committee has met seven times to
discuss, comment, and provide feedback and direction on the process, text, and map. The
advisory committee continues to meet.
The Zoning Commission and Planning Board held a joint public hearing on the proposed
amendments on April 5, 2016.
195
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 11 of 25
The City Commission held a public work session on the text and map March 28, 2016 and a
public hearing on April 11, 2016. The Commission revised the Midtown zoning map as
described in Section 1 – Map Series above. A revised zoning map was brought back before
the Commission for consideration on April 25, 2016. Ordinance 1943 was finally adopted on
April 25, 2016. Ordinance No. 1943 does not include the proposed R-5 areas the
Commission voted to remove the original zone map amendment.
If the Commission approves the Lamme Street ZMA a new ordinance will be created and
brought back before the Commission for consideration and adoption as described in the
contingencies found under Section 3 above.
SECTION 5 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In considering applications for zone map amendment approval under this title, the advisory
boards and City Commission shall consider the criteria listed below (A-K). As an amendment
is a legislative action, the Commission has broad latitude to determine a policy direction. The
burden of proof that the application should be approved lies with the applicant.
In considering the criteria listed below the analysis must show that the amendment
accomplishes criteria A-D or is neutral. Criteria E-K must be considered and may be found to
be affirmative, neutral, or negative. A favorable decision on the proposed application must
find that the application meets or is neutral on all of criteria A-D and that the positive
outcomes of the amendment outweigh negative outcomes for criteria E-K.
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria
A. Be in accordance with a growth policy.
Yes. An underlying principle of the Bozeman Community Plan is that public and quasi-
public infrastructure is necessary to ensure the health, safety and general welfare of our
citizens; and maintain and grow our community. The property is designated as Residential on
the future land use map in the Bozeman Community Plan. Residential zoning districts are
implementing districts for this designation as shown on Table C-16 in the Bozeman
Community Plan. The subject property has been zoned R-4 since 1974. A review of the
goals and objectives shows no conflict
The City of Bozeman continues to grow at above national rates which continue to put
pressure on available housing and is a contributor to rising housing costs in the City.
Numerous overarching goals of the Bozeman Community Plan strive for sustainability, urban
densities, and providing efficient City services. The goals are to preserve the health of our
environment, preserve land for agricultural production, reduce traffic by reducing miles
traveled, and provide a range of housing types to meet the diverse needs of the residence of
the City.
196
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 12 of 25
Chapter 4 – Community Quality
Section 4.3 of the Bozeman Community Plan details six Community Quality Goals and
Objectives. Generally, these Goals are subjective in nature. However, applying sound
planning theory and desired outcomes as listed in the community plan Staff finds that
modifying the zoning designation in this area furthers these goals by providing more housing
opportunities to more diverse economic backgrounds, laying a framework for expanded
economic activity adjacent to residential which in turn furthers the City’s effort to create an
environment where multimodal transportation are viable options, and increasing the quality
of future development by including a modicum of design standards not currently found in the
R-4 District.
Objective C-1.2: Update design objectives to include guidelines for urban spaces and more
dense development.
The R-5 District requires slightly higher minimum densities over the existing R-4. R-4
has a minimum density of 8 dwelling units per NET acre which the R-5 Districts requires
a minimum of 8 dwelling units per Gross acre, illustrated below.
197
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 13 of 25
Objective C-1.3 states a desire to support compatible infill within the existing area of the City
rather than developing land requiring expansion of the City’s area.
This area has been designated for high density residential development for 43 years and is
adjacent to significant and primary commercial nodes of the City. The proximity to Main
Street and the North 7th corridor, educational facilities, recreational opportunities, local
and regional service centers, and economic opportunities support this area and others for
future development.
A zoning designation does not require any immediate change. The City of Bozeman and
the State of Montana follows a strict private property and market based ethos. Any
change to a neighborhood is driven by individual property owners. Evolution of a
neighborhood may take years, decades, or even generations to transform. The City faces
real challenges of providing necessary services to all members of the community and
must plan to accommodate those needs.
The objectives found under Goal C-4: Design Guidelines are largely missing with the
existing zoning classification. The R-5 designation integrates basic design principles that
further these objectives by requiring buildings to be sensitive the existing character of the
community, deemphasizing the impacts of vehicles and promoting human interaction and
pedestrian circulation.
198
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 14 of 25
Chapter 6 – Housing
Goal H-1: Promote an adequate supply of safe, quality housing that is diverse in type,
density, cost, and location with an emphasis on maintaining neighborhood character and
stability.
The subject area is a safe, stable, homogenous housing type of detached single-household
homes, community orientated neighborhood. The current zoning classification allows
many housing types including apartment buildings, townhomes, duplexes, and detached
single-household homes. Although the neighborhood has not changed significantly in
recent memory, any property owner may elect to develop their property in a different
manner. If an individual property owner or owners chose to redevelop their property(s)
the R-5 classification will meet this goal while insuring a more quality streetscape and
building design that is absent from the R-4 designation.
The subject area largely consists of single-household detached single story homes. The
goals and objects of both the R-4 and R-5 designation promote a variety of housing types
to meet the diverse likes and economic backgrounds of Bozeman residence. A variety of
housing types increases the probability of multiple tear housing costs. Detached single-
household homes tend to the most costly type of home.
Section 6.4 The Future of Housing states, “The composition of Bozeman’s citizens and
households is changing. The population is increasing in average age. The size of
individual households has steadily decreased for decades. The expectations for housing
are also changing. A greater percentage of Bozeman’s population lives in attached
housing than ever before. There is an increased interest in less maintenance intensive
housing. At the same time desire for services and amenities in close proximity has
increased. Nationwide, home purchases by single people have greatly increased. Mobility
of jobs and more frequent relocations within communities has changed the financial
consequences of home ownership.”
Chapter 11 – Transportation Facilities
The Intent and Background of the Bozeman Community Plan and the Transportation Plan
have established as a goal and future policy a commitment to providing alternatives to the
individual passenger vehicle. Having commercial activities and residential development
closely clustered together allows for a synergy in which the employees and customers of one
business may easily patronize other complimentary businesses. The close proximity allows
for shorter travel lengths between destinations. This reduces total miles traveled by vehicle
and corresponding discharge of air pollutants, increases the feasibility of travel by foot or
bicycle, creates clusters of travel demand which can be efficiently served by mass
transportation, facilitates car pooling or other shared travel arrangements, reduces time used
for travel, and helps to create a more defined sense of place. Greater transportation efficiency
saves money by reducing the number of miles of streets that must be built and the numbers of
199
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 15 of 25
vehicles that must be accommodated. The reduced costs translate to more affordable homes
and business and lower annual tax burdens. Improvements in transportation efficiency and a
reduction of vehicle trips also affect air quality and other sustainability issues.
B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers.
Yes. The changes in zoning district will not alter development standards adopted to address
this criterion. Emergency services are presently available to the area. Any future
redevelopment of the area will be subject to application of those standards.
C. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare.
Neutral. The proposed amendment does not change the requirements for provision of water
or sewer systems, provision of emergency response capability, or similar existing standards.
In addition, the correlation of the growth policy and zoning map advances the general
welfare by supporting the completion of the community’s goals. Public health and safety will
be neutrally affected, as the change will not alter planned or existing emergency services.
D. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks
and other public requirements.
Yes. Section 38.07.010.C states “Placement of any given zoning district on an area depicted
on the zoning map indicates a judgment on the part of the city that the range of uses allowed
within that district are generally acceptable in that location. It is not a guarantee of approval
for any given use prior to the completion of the appropriate review procedure and compliance
with all of the applicable requirements and development standards of this chapter and other
applicable policies, laws and ordinances. It is also not a guarantee of immediate
infrastructure availability or a commitment on the part of the city to bear the cost of
extending services.”
Future review of redevelopment will provide site specific evaluations of infrastructure needs.
If necessary, additional improvements will be provided to resolve deficiencies. Examples of
such requirements are water rights and park dedication for residential development. These
can be addressed during site development review. The review procedures and standards
adopted by the City ensure this criterion is met.
E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
Neutral. This area of the City is designated for much greater development as illustrated by
the existing R-4 zoning classification. As such, some of the existing views allowed by the
single story homes may be compromised with further development. This can occur with or
without the change in zoning districts. Building height in the R-4 and R-5 districts are limited
to 34 - 44 feet and 44 – 54 feet, depending on roof pitch, respectively.
Analysis of possible sun shadow resulted in the following information. Please note that these
numbers assume right angles and not the precise location of the sun at any given point of the
day. Also, this analysis is an illustration during the winter solstice when the sun will cast the
200
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 16 of 25
longest shadow. During the summer months the shadow is nearly nonexistent at midday and
in fact, for many, is desired. The City standard ROW width is 60 feet. In addition, a 54 foot
tall building requires a steep roof pitch resulting in a recessed roof peak which will decrease
the shadows projection onto adjacent properties. Therefore, shading of properties to north or
south will be limited.
A 54 foot wall would cast a shadow 72 feet
A 40 foot wall would cast a shadow 54 feet
A 30 foot wall would cast a shadow 34 feet
Finally, there are specific standards limiting height, and requiring provision of park and open
space with residential development that apply in all districts. These standards will ensure
reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
F. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.
Neutral. There is a well developed motorized and non-motorized transportation system in the
area. The subject area is bounded by or near Mendehall Street, Main Street, 11th Avenue and
North 7th Avenue. These streets are designated as Arterial streets except 11th which is
designated as a Collector according to the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2007
Update. In addition there is a fully developed sidewalk system connecting roadways and
commercial areas adjacent to the properties.
Any development that occurs in this area will create vehicular efficiencies by increasing
residential and commercial opportunities in close proximity and will create more diverse
multi-modal transportation systems with development. The affected area is near commercial,
employment opportunities, and residential development. Greater density residential will
create an environment for efficient use the transportation system and make non-motorized
transportation systems more viable.
201
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 17 of 25
The change from R-4 to R-5 will not alter the applicable parking requirements. Identical
parking requirements apply to both districts.
G. Promotion of compatible urban growth.
Yes. The proposed map amendment will promote compatible urban growth. See finding A
above for more discussion.
The Growth Policy supports the development of infill and redevelopment of underutilized
properties. The change from R-4 to R-5 will enable additional development in the area while
increasing the probability that the subsequent development will be more compatible than the
R-4 District.
H. Character of the district.
Neutral. As noted above there is an established neighborhood within this area. The area is
zoned R-4. Although very little development has occurred, small incremental improvement
to individual properties has occurred over time. Further development in the area will most
likely alter the character of the neighborhood. The City has no financial interest in any of the
properties subject to the zoning change. However, the City has a mandate to provide services
to promote the health, safety, and general welfare for all residence. Any development is
solely the responsibility of the private property owners.
The intent of the R-4 district is to provide for high-density residential development through a
variety of housing types within the city with associated service functions. This will provide
for a variety of compatible housing types to serve the varying needs of the community's
residents. Although some office use is permitted, it shall remain as a secondary use to
residential development. Secondary status shall be as measured by percentage of total
building area.
The intent of the R-5 district is to provide for high-density residential development through a
variety of compatible housing types and residentially supportive commercial uses in a
geographically compact, walkable area to serve the varying needs of the community's
residents. Offices and small scale retail and restaurants are allowed as secondary uses
provided special standards are met.
I. Peculiar suitability for particular uses.
Neutral. The proposed amendment makes changes to land uses. Existing zoning is R-4. The
permitted uses for these districts are listed under Section 38.08.020. Although the R-5 is
more permissive in permitted uses than R-4, the dominant character of the district is
residential.
202
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 18 of 25
Further, the area in question is bounded on the south and east by B-2M which allows on
premise consumption of alcohol. The R-5 district does not, with or without a conditional use
permit. Offices and small scale retail and restaurants are allowed as secondary uses provided
special standards are met. These standards are designed to insure development within an R-5
district conforms to the existing character of a neighborhood. Permitted uses for the
proposed text amendment are listed in Table 38.08.020.
J. Conserving the value of buildings.
Yes. The intent of the R-5 district and the associated design requirements are to insure
quality developments are built that respect the existing fabric of a neighborhood. As such,
investment in buildings tends to add value to surrounding buildings. According to
Zillow.com market prices for homes in this area range from $242,000 - $282,000. This area
has been zoned for high density residential development for 43 years. A change to R-5 does
not require any redevelopment to occur. The result will be clear and concise design
requirements for any repurposed and new buildings. Requiring a modicum of design
standards for all construction will conserve and improve the value of buildings in and around
the district.
K. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area.
Yes. The proposed amendments do not make material changes to land uses. The community
has expressed a strong desire to require greater density and more diverse uses. The proposed
amendment creates the regulatory framework to achieve that goal by increasing building
heights, nudging minimum densities higher, and allowing mixed use buildings.
PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS
IN THE CASE OF WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST SUCH CHANGES SIGNED BY THE
OWNERS OF 25% OR MORE OF EITHER THE AREA OF THE LOTS WITHIN THE
AMENDMENT AREA OR THOSE LOTS OR UNITS WITHIN 150 FEET FROM A LOT
INCLUDED IN A PROPOSED CHANGE, THE AMENDMENT SHALL NOT BECOME
EFFECTIVE EXCEPT BY THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRESENT
AND VOTING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION.
Letters of protest have been received on this zone map amendment. As of the production of this
report written protests found to meet statutory requirements account for 26.7 percent of the area
within the proposed district. In addition, the City received one protest which was not signed by
all property owners according to County property tax records. If this protest is included, the
protest area increases to 32%. A final determination as to whether or not these protests are valid
rests with the Commission.
203
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 19 of 25
The Bozeman GIS Department calculated there are 23 properties totaling 145,743 square feet of
area being proposed to be rezoned.
76-2-305(2), Mont., Code Ann.
(1) A regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed,
modified, or repealed. The provisions of 76-2-303 relative to public hearings and official notice apply equally to all changes or amendments.
(2) An amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of
the present and voting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the
municipality if a protest against a change pursuant to subsection (1) is signed by the
owners of 25% or more of:
a) the area of the lots included in any proposed change; or
b) those lots or units, as defined in 70-23-102, 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed
change.
(3) (a) For purposes of subsection (2), each unit owner is entitled to have the percentage of
the unit owner's undivided interest in the common elements of the condominium, as expressed in the declaration, included in the calculation of the protest. If the property, as defined in 70-23-102, spans more than one lot, the percentage of the unit owner's
undivided interest in the common elements must be multiplied by the total number of lots
upon which the property is located.
b. The percentage of the unit owner's undivided interest must be certified as correct by the unit owner seeking to protest a change pursuant to subsection (2) or by the presiding officer of the association of unit owners.
APPENDIX A –AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY
PROVISIONS
Adopted Growth Policy Designation:
The property is designated as Residential in the Bozeman Community Plan as shown in
Section of this report.
“Residential - This category designates places where the primary activity is urban density
dwellings. Other uses which complement residences are also acceptable such as parks,
low intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches, and schools. High density
residential areas should be established in close proximity to commercial centers to
facilitate the provision of services and employment opportunities to persons without
requiring the use of an automobile. Implementation of this category by residential zoning
should provide for and coordinate intensive residential uses in proximity to commercial
centers. The residential designation indicates that it is expected that development will
occur within municipal boundaries, which may require annexation prior to development.
The dwelling unit density expected within this classification varies between 6 and 32
dwellings per net acre. A higher density may be considered in some locations and
204
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 20 of 25
circumstances. A variety of housing types can be blended to achieve the desired density.
Large areas of single type housing are discouraged. In limited instances the strong
presence of constraints and natural features such as floodplains may cause an area to be
designated for development at a lower density than normally expected within this
category. All residential housing should be arranged with consideration of compatibility
with adjacent development, natural constraints such as watercourses or steep slopes, and
in a fashion which advances the overall goals of the Bozeman Growth Policy. The
residential designation is intended to provide the primary locations for additional housing
within the planning area.”
Proposed Zoning Designation and Land Uses
The City is proposing a designation of R-5 (Residential Mixed-Use High Density District).
The intent of the R-5 district is to provide for high-density residential development through a
variety of compatible housing types and residentially supportive commercial uses in a
geographically compact, walkable area to serve the varying needs of the community's
residents. Offices and small scale retail and restaurants are allowed as secondary uses
provided special standards are met.
Table 38.08.020 establishes the uses that are allowed in residential zoning districts.
Table 38.08.020: Residential Uses
Authorized Uses
R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O RMH
Accessory dwelling units8, 9 C C P P P P P —
Agricultural uses on 2.5 acres or more2 P — — — — — — —
Agricultural uses on less than 2.5 acres2 C — — — — — — —
Apartments/apartment building, as defined in
article 42 of this chapter — — — — P P P —
Bed and breakfast C C C C P P P —
Commercial stable C — — — — — — —
Community centers C C C C C C P C
Community residential facilities with eight or
fewer residents P P P P P P P P
Community residential facilities serving nine
or more residents — — — C P P P —
Cooperative housing C C C P P P P C
Day care centers C C C P P P P C
205
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 21 of 25
Table 38.08.020: Residential Uses
Authorized Uses
R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O RMH
Essential services Type I A A A A A A A A
Essential services Type II P P P P P P P P
Essential services Type III C10 C10 C10 C10 C10 C10 C10 C10
Extended stay lodgings C C C P P P P —
Family day care home P P P P P P P P
Fences A A A A A A A A
Fraternity and sorority houses — — — C P — P —
Golf courses C C C — — — — C
Greenhouses A A A A A A A —
Group day care home P P P P P P P P
Group living P P P P P P P P
Guesthouses A A A A A A A —
Home-based businesses5 A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C
Lodging houses — — — C P P P —
Offices — — — — C3 C3 P —
Other buildings and structures typically
accessory to authorized uses A A A A A A A A
Private garages A A A A A A A A
Private or jointly owned recreational facilities A A A A A A A A
Private stormwater control facilities A A A A A A A A
Private vehicle and boat storage A A A A A A A A/C
4
Public and private parks P P P P P P P P
Manufactured homes on permanent
foundations1 P P P P P P P P
Manufactured home communities — — — — — — — P
Medical offices, clinics, and centers — — — — C C3 P —
Recreational vehicle parks C — — — — — — P
206
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 22 of 25
Table 38.08.020: Residential Uses
Authorized Uses
R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O RMH
Restaurant — — — — — P11 — —
Retail — — — — — P11 — —
Signs, subject to article 28 of this chapter A A A A A A A A
Single-household dwelling P P P P P P P P
Temporary buildings and yards incidental to
construction work A A A A A A A A
Temporary sales and office buildings A A A A A A A A
Three- or four-household dwelling — — — P P P P —
Two-household dwelling — — P P P P P —
Townhouses (two attached units) P7 P7 P P P P P P7
Townhouses (five attached units or less) — — — P6 P P P —
Townhouses (more than five attached units) — — — — P P P —
Tool sheds for storage of domestic supplies A A A A A A A A
Uses approved as part of a PUD per article 20
of this chapter C C C C C C C C
Veterinary uses C — — — — — — —
Notes:
1 Manufactured homes are subject to the standards of section 38.22.130.
2 Agricultural uses include barns and animal shelters, and the keeping of animals and fowl, together with their dependent young, as hereinafter set forth per 2.5 acres: one horse or one cow; two sheep or two goats; ten rabbits; 36 fowl (chickens, pheasants, pigeons, etc.) or six larger fowl
(ducks, geese, turkeys, etc.). For larger parcels the review authority may determine that a larger number of livestock is consistent with the requirements of this section.
3 Only when in conjunction with dwellings.
4 Storage for more than three recreational vehicles or boats.
5 Home-based businesses are subject to the terms and thresholds of section 38.22.110.
6 In the R-3 district, townhouse groups shall not exceed 120 feet in total width.
7 In the R-S, R-1, and RMH district townhomes are only allowed when utilized to satisfy the requirements of chapter 38, article 43, Affordable Housing. May only be utilized in
developments subject to chapter 38, article 43.
8 Not permitted on reduced size lots for work force housing as described in chapter 38, article 43.
9 Accessory dwelling units in the RS and R1 districts shall be permitted to be placed above garages
only in subdivisions receiving preliminary plat approval after January 1, 1997.
207
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 23 of 25
10 Only allowed when service may not be provided from an alternative site or a less intensive
installation or set of installations.
11 Subject uses are limited to 2,500 square feet of gross floor area and only allowed on street corner sites within a mixed-use building featuring residential units next to and/or above subject uses.
APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND
BACKGROUND
Project Description
The Lamme Street ZMA is a part of the comprehensive evaluation and update of Chapter 38
of the Unified Development Code (UDC), phase one. The Bozeman Code Update is a City
wide effort to generally revise and update the City’s development code. In association with
the phase one code amendments certain zoning changes were necessary. The Lamme Street
ZMA is a part of the Midtown ZMA and text amendments that were finally adopted on April
25, 2016 and became effective on June 8, 2016 after considerable public input. However,
based on public comment the Commission removed three areas within the Midtown ZMA
area from the revised and adopted zoning map. All areas removed from the zoning map were
designated as R-5 districts.
On May 23, 2016 the Commission held a public hearing to reconsider the decision to remove
the Lamme Street ZMA area. The Commission moved to direct staff to bring the Lamme
Street ZMA back before the Commission for discussion and decision on June 27, 2016. To
insure thorough public participation the City hosted a public information meeting on June 15,
2016 from 6:30 – 9:00 p.m. at Bozeman High School.
Additional background
The purpose of this project is to review and update as needed the Unified Development Code
(UDC) for the City of Bozeman in two related steps. With the adoption of the City’s
Community Plan in 2009, the existence of numerous adopted neighborhood and special area
plans, and rapid growth (infill and edge), the City recognizes the need to update its land
development regulations and standards. Bozeman initially adopted zoning in 1934.
Bozeman’s current UDC structure which includes zoning, subdivision, and infrastructure
standards was established in 2004. Many older elements and standards were carried forward
in 2004. The present text therefore does not always reflect current best practices for zoning,
planning and infrastructure practices. Incremental modifications and updates are ongoing
resulting in a less efficient code to administer, unnecessary complexity, leading to
questionable effectiveness in implementing the land use and design recommendations in
Bozeman’s adopted plans. Large areas of Bozeman’s older neighborhoods are
nonconforming. This has led to frequent variance requests and incremental amendments to
the UDC. The older areas of town have experienced substantial reinvestment in the past 20
years and there is a growing interest in increased development in the historic core of the
208
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 24 of 25
community. The additional intensity of use has created conflicts between new and existing
users
The City seeks to revise the development code in a two-step process. Phase one is focused
on the North Seventh Avenue corridor and urban renewal/tax increment district (TIF). The
purpose is to implement the North 7th Design and Connectivity Plan and the 2015 Urban
Renewal Plan (Ordinance 1925). As the TIF matures, broader design guidelines are needed
in order to address the goal of district revitalization. The key to altering the suburban
development patterns of the area that seem to be devaluing property – large, barren and
numerous parking lots, wasted space, and outdated site design – is to create a design plan that
can guide the Board and the Commission in the allocation of limited funds to create the
greatest impact to revitalize the district. Developing a vision and plan for the district will
assist property owners in seeing the unrealized value in their property. Retrofitting is
incremental and adaptive, but needs to be guided by an overall vision for the district.
A new design plan with implementing zone district will help the NSURB to create
implementing policies for funding infrastructure, façade and site improvements that
maximize market forces to encourage diversification and redevelopment. Recommendations
to address key design challenges to altering the suburban development pattern to create
internal and external integration of the parts over time and over multiple parcels is a critical
policy that is needed to move the district to the next stage. Innovative ideas to address
zoning and subdivision regulations to overcome the existing fragmentation are needed. It is
anticipated that this will be a mixed use corridor rehabilitation oriented district.
APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Table 38.40.040, BMC lists notice requirements for all types of applications.
The original comprehensive zone map amendment notice was submitted Thursday, March
17, 2016 for publication as a legal ad on Sunday, March 20 and 27, 2016. Notice of the
public workshops and hearings were posted City’s website.
Notice was provided at least 15 and not more than 45 days prior to the Zoning Commission
on Tuesday, April 5, 2016 and City Commission public hearing on Monday, April 11, 2016.
There is no requirement for posting specific properties. In addition, Zone Map Amendments
resulting from text amendments are not required to post notice on site. However, the City
determined that exceeding minimum standards was prudent at this juncture. Therefore,
notice of all workshops and hearings was mailed to all property owners and businesses within
the boundaries of the proposed district and within 500 feet of the exterior boundary of the
district on Friday, March 18, 2016 via first class US mail.
The Commission voted to further evaluate the area included in the Lamme Street ZMA. As a
result notice was submitted Tuesday, June 7, 2016 for publication as a legal ad on Sunday,
209
15-320, Staff Report for the Lamme Street Zone Map Amendment Page 25 of 25
June 12 and 19, 2016. Notice of June 14, 2016 neighborhood information meeting and
hearings was mailed to all property owners and businesses within the boundaries of the
proposed district and within 500 feet of the exterior boundary of the district on Thursday,
June 9, 2016 via first class US mail.
Public comment in the form of protest forms has been received as of the writing of this
report. All comment has been posted to the City’s public web site and are attached to this
report.
The City hosted a public information meeting to listen to comment and concerns relating to
this action on June 15, 2016 from 6:30 – 8:00 p.m. in the Bozeman High School S Cafeteria,
205 North 11th Avenue, Bozeman, Montana. Twelve individuals signed the sign in sheet.
The meeting closed at approximately 9:00 p.m. Comment revolved around a number of core
subjects including but not limited to:
Property value
Neighborhood character
Parking concerns
Negative impacts caused by a bar (please note: staff erroneously stated the serving of
alcohol within a restaurant is allowed in the R-5 District. R-5 does not allow on
premise consumption of alcohol. Bars are prohibited in the R-5 District.)
Noise generated by outside music
Loss of a sense of community
The general feeling that this community has been singled out as a guinea pig by the
City
APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF
Applicant: City of Bozeman, PO Box 1230, Bozeman MT 59771
Representative: Department of Community Development
Report By: Tom Rogers, AICP; Senior Planner
FISCAL EFFECTS
No fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by this text
amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development
Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
210
SPECIAL Joint Planning/Zoning Meeting
Tuesday, April 05, 2016 6:00 PM
City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Ave.
A. 06:02:34 PM Call meeting to order – Zoning Commission and
Planning Board
Dan Stevenson – Present
Brianne Dugan – Present
Laura Waterton – Present
Paul Spitler – Present
Julien Morice – Present – Zoning Commission
Jordan Zignego – Present
Paul Neubauer – Present
Erik Garberg – Present – Zoning Commission
George Thompson – Present – Planning Board
Henry Happel – Present – Planning Board
Chris Mehl – Present – Commission Liaison
B. 06:03:10 PM Changes to the Agenda – no changes to the agenda.
C. Public Comment
06:03:29 PM Blake Maxwell – 516 W. Lamme Street – with regards to the zone map change for Midtown
– states that his home and many others have been there before the rise and fall of North 7th. He states
that rezoning it will take away from the workforce housing in that area.
06:05:50 PM – Vikki – 601 N. Willson – She wanted to reiterate what the previous commenter stated.
She knows she bought in a conservation overlay district, but was not aware of zoning at the time. When
buying her home she bought it for the walk ability to downtown. The area has a mix of single family
homes and duplexes and quads. She does not want to see the density increase, she wants to see the
density decreased. She thinks the board needs to consider the effects of changing the density on the
211
neighborhood.
D. Action Items
1. 06:10:59 PM Text amendments to the Wetlands Review Board and Plan Review
procedures.
A text amendment to amend the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) to revise provisions relating to the
Wetlands Review Board and Plan Review procedures.
06:11:38 PM Tom Rogers begins presentation on Action Item #1 – Text amendments to the Wetlands
Review Board and Plan Review procedures.
Mr. Rogers states that this does not change the way development takes place in wetland areas – it
simply changes the way that Wetlands are reviewed.
Mr. Rogers explains the changes being proposed in Plan Review.
06:18:31 PM Mr. Rogers completes his presentation on Action Item #1.
06:18:48 PM – Questions for staff opened.
06:19:02 PM Paul Spitler questions if there is currently a Wetlands Review Board. Mr. Rogers states that
there was, but it has been dissolved. Mr. Spitler questions if there has been any adverse effects to
removing the board. Mr. Rogers explains that since it has been dissolved there have not been any
projects that would have gone to the board. However, if there were, they would have gone to a
consultant for review. Also, any projects that required Wetlands Review are required to include a
Wetland Re
06:21:31 PM Erik Garberg questions if the text being presented tonight is the same as last time or if it
includes suggestions from the last meeting. Mr. Rogers states that it is the same text, and their official
recommendations from tonight will be incorporated.
06:23:03 PM Commissioner Mehl questions whether a Conceptual Review has to happen before an
Informal Review. Mr. Rogers offers clarification.
06:24:09 PM Open for public comment on Action Item #1.
06:24:42 PM Motion by George Thompson – Having reviewed and considered the application
materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented
in the staff report for application 15320 and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1945 to WRB text
amendment
06:25:10 PM Second by Julien Morice
06:25:18 PM Mr. Thompson states he appreciates Paul Spitler’s comments that he is aware that it may
212
be hard to find individuals to staff the Wetlands Review Board, so he supports leaving it to professionals
to review.
06:26:20 PM Julien Morice stated that he thinks the process was redundant and that perhaps the
individuals were not necessarily qualified. This new process will keep individuals more qualified and less
open to opinions from the public for an issue that is more technical and not necessarily something that
should be subjective.
06:26:55 PM Mr. Garberg states that he agrees with Mr. Morice.
06:27:13 PM Board votes unanimously to approve the motion.
06:27:29 PM Motion by Julien Morice – Having reviewed and considered the application materials,
public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff
report for application 15320 and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1944 the Plan Review text
amendment.
06:27:49 PM Second by George Thompson
06:28:00 PM Mr. Garberg states that he received public comment that feedback from staff to applicants
should be directly tied to code, and thinks that it should be included in the motion
06:28:21 PM Mr. Morice agrees that it is a good point.
06:29:07 PM Mr. Garberg moves to amend the motion to include that staff should include language
within the site plan revision process that ties comments back to specific code elements.
Second by Julien Morice
06:29:38 PM Board unanimously approves the amendment.
Clarification by the board on the original motion and the amendment.
Discussion between Erik Garberg and Chris Mehl regarding the amendment to the motion.
06:34:00 PM Board re-votes unanimously to approve the motion.
2. 06:34:43 PM Midtown Text Amendment, Entryway Corridor text amendment, and
Midtown Zone Map Amendment.
A text amendment to amend the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) to create new zoning districts to
implement the Midtown/North 7th Avenue Corridors plans, amend the City zoning map, and modify the
Entryway Corridors. Application 15-320.
Tom Rogers begins presentation on Action Item #2 – Midtown Text Amendment, and Midtown Zone
Map Amendment.
Mr. Rogers discusses the proposed zoning for the North 7th/Midtown area and intersection with the
213
Historic Overlay District.
06:42:25 PM Mr. Rogers discusses the block frontage proposal and the proposed block frontages on a
map. The three block frontages are storefront, landscape and mixed. He provides examples of each.
06:47:26 PM Mr. Rogers discusses parking – location of parking and amount of parking required. He
states the code decreases the required parking in residential and the parking incentives for commercial
properties in the area.
06:48:52 PM Mr. Rogers discusses changes in building height – and that increases in height require step
backs.
06:49:37 PM Mr. Rogers discusses changes to density with the new zoning codes being proposed.
06:50:18 PM Mr. Rogers discusses that block frontages for each block can be changed by suggestion
from the community.
Mr. Pape enters the meeting.
06:51:41 PM Mr. Rogers completes his presentation and opens to questions for staff.
06:52:35 PM Mr. Pape states that the DOP and NCOD will stay in effect until this plan goes into effect.
He questions if this change is approved, will it retire the DOP and NCOD. Mr. Rogers explains in detail.
06:54:21 PM Mr. Spitler questions the pocket of B-3 and why it is there. Mr. Rogers explains in detail
that it is a portion of the downtown area, so they are keeping the zoning consistent.
06:55:39 PM Mr. Thompson questions the landscaped frontages for residential areas. He feels the
landscape frontage is to maintain the character of the residential areas. He is concerned about the roof
height of 45-55’ for the landscaped areas. He questions how this works. Mr. Rogers states that it is a
greater intensification. He responds in detail what the goals of infill is for the City of Bozeman.
06:58:20 PM Mr. Neubauer questions the parking regulations being proposed and whether the parking
regulations will be prohibitive. Mr. Rogers responds in detail about the goals with the new parking
regulations being proposed. There is a community goal to decrease the dependence on the automobile.
Mr. Neubauer states that he thinks the changes are good and that community members should see that
there is a lot of positive investment going into this area.
07:02:28 PM Mr. Zignego recommends that Mr. Rogers presents examples of what the goal of 8 dwelling
units per acre looks like. Mr. Rogers offered more information and states that essentially it looks more
like townhomes. Mr. Zignego states that he feels that perhaps density should be higher than the 8 units
per acres and that the building height limits should be higher.
07:07:06 PM Mr. Spitler questions if the goal of Midtown is make it look more like downtown. Mr.
214
Rogers explains in more detail what the goals are.
07:08:50 PM Mr. Rogers begins presentation on the Action Item #2 - Entryway Corridor.
07:11:36 PM Mr. Rogers completes presentation – No Questions for staff.
07:12:04 PM Public Comment – John How – KLJ – He states that he is working with two property owners
in the area. He feels Tom Rogers has done a good job with Makers and the Economic Development
team. He wanted to raise a few things that may need to be fixed. He feels that Chapter 44 suggests
encouraging more walkability – and that the reductions in parking are not enough yet. He feels there
should be more reduced parking. He feels that there needs to be some clarification on residential on
ground floor. He thinks that there should be an option for cash-in-lieu of parkland in that area. He likes
the step back for commercial store front properties. However, if your building is set back already, there
should not be that step back.
07:16:57 PM Motion by Dan Stevenson having reviewed and considered the application materials,
public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff
report for application 15320 and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1942 to create the R-5
(Residential High Density Mixed District) and B-2M (Community Business Mixed District) text
amendment.
07:18:22 PM Second by George Thompson
07:18:31 PM Mr. Stevenson states that he feels the plan is very well thought out and that there are a
number of opportunities for the community and ability to promote non-vehicular traffic. He feels it will
be beneficial to the surrounding community on property value. He agrees that 55’ is a great height, and
agrees that perhaps we should go a little higher.
07:19:44 PM Mr. Morice states that he agrees that any relaxation to parking would be the biggest
impact on getting commercial in that area. He agrees with the comment about having the option for
cash-in-lieu of parkland. He would like to see a plan for bikes and trails and pedestrian connectivity.
07:22:14 PM Mr. Garberg states that he is torn on the proposal. He’s concerned it does not go far
enough and that we have been tacit on parking. He questions the TIF’s position on the proposal.
David Fine states that the TIF board has not commented on this, but has had an opportunity to
comment along the way in a public form.
Mr. Garberg states that some issues hinge on phase 2. He will probably vote in favor, but hopes to go
further.
07:24:01 PM Mr. Thompson states that with respect to R5 and roof height – with a small low rise
neighborhood abutting. He states that this is a long process. The growth will happen over time and
happen within context. He expresses that the issues with parking for Bozeman is that individuals have
boats and trailers – that perhaps we need to look to store those items in other places. Mr. Thompson
215
questions the park requirements – and thinks we need to look into the affordability of adding the
parkland and that there’s only so much money that can go into the local park.
07:27:13 PM Mr. Pape states that we should interact with the undeveloped properties. Simply creating
policy will not change those undeveloped withholdings. He also feels we need to be proactive about
creating parking in advance.
07:30:34 PM Mr. Garberg adds that one does not necessarily have to come before the other.
07:31:12 PM Zoning Commission votes to approve – 4-1
In favor: Erik Garberg, George Thompson, Jordon Zignego and Dan Stevenson
Against: Julien Morice
07:31:44 PM George Thompson moves: Having reviewed and considered the application materials,
public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff
report for application 15320 and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1943 to Midtown zone map
amendment.
Mr. Pape leaves the meeting.
07:32:05 PM Second by Dan Stevenson
07:32:41 PM Zoning Commission approves the motion – 4-1
In favor: Erik Garberg, George Thompson, Jordon Zignego and Dan Stevenson
Against: Julien Morice
07:32:58 PM Discussion among board regarding whether or not Julien Morice can abstain from voting.
Decision by Julien Morice was to vote nay to the two motions. He expresses concerns with the proposal
for parkland, setbacks, building height, parking, etc. He would like additional discussion on the proposal.
(change in vote has been reflected in the minutes – originally he abstained from voting)
07:38:31 PM Dan Stevenson moves: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public
comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report
for application 15320 and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1946 modifying the N 7th Entryway
Corridor classification.
07:38:54 PM Second by Julien Morice
07:39:17 PM Board unanimously approves
07:39:41 PM E. Close meeting of the Zoning Commission. Planning Board takes a recess.
216
07:47:09 PM Meeting of the Planning Board brought back to order and roll call.
Jerry Pape reenters the meeting.
07:48:09 PM Mr. Thompson calls for any public comment – no public comment.
1. 07:48:35 PM Elect Officers for the Planning Board
07:48:50 PM Mr. Neubaurer states that he would like to be the Board Chair.
07:49:19 PM Mr. Pape states that he appreciates Mr. Thompson being the board chair and that Mr.
Neubauer taking on the role.
07:49:46 PM Mr. Pape moves to elect new officers.
07:49:59 PM Mr. Zignego moves to elect Mr. Neubauer as the board chair.
07:50:07 PM Mr. Happel Seconds.
07:50:15 PM Board Unanimously approves Paul Neubauer as the Board Chair.
07:50:30 PM Mr. Neubauer questions if anyone would like to be the Vice Chair – Mr. Neubauer moves
to elect George Thompson as Vice Chair
07:50:56 PM Mr. Happel seconds.
07:51:25 PM Board unanimously approves George Thompson as the board Vice Chair.
07:52:12 PM Mr. Pape states that he thinks the board should gauge what people from the community
are here for, and to adjust the agenda as they see fit – not just for this meeting, but for future meetings
with a lot of public attendance.
Board discussion over how to itemize the agenda – agreement to keep the agenda as it is for this
meeting.
2. 07:54:20 PM Four Points Phase II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, Application 15526
Four Points Phase II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application to allow the subdivision of two lots of
approximately 36.1 acres into twelve lots for multi-household development, one parkland corridor lot
and associated streets and infrastructure southwest of the intersection of Davis Lane and Cattail Street,
Application 15526
07:54:28 PM Brian Kreuger begins presentation of the Four Points Phase II project.
Presents the layout of the project, discusses wetlands and park space and public comment received. In
addition he discusses the feedback from the Development Review Committee. The staff recommends
217
approval of the project.
08:07:04 PM Open for questions for staff.
08:07:30 PM Mr. Spitler questions how the application got to this stage. Mr. Kreuger explains in detail
the history of this particular area and the proposal for this project and the steps following the approval
of this application.
Further discussion between Mr. Kreuger and Mr. Spitler about what they are voting on within the
context of this application.
08:12:19 PM Mr. Spitler questions on where the Wetlands information came from. Mr. Kreuger
responds in detail.
08:13:33 PM Mr. Spitler questions the deed restrictions placed on the Wetlands. Mr. Kreuger responds.
Mr. Spitler rephrases the question with regards to the Wetlands – he questions the protection of the
wetlands if there is an opportunity for home owners to change them. Conversation between Mr. Spitler
and Mr. Kreuger continue conversation about restrictions on the wetlands.
08:16:45 PM Mr. Thompson questions the lighting requirements. Mr. Kreuger clarifies the lighting
requirements – that currently there is no requirement for LED’s by the city, so it was recommended by
the commission to include that as a condition on all applications.
08:17:54 PM Mr. Thompson questions if there are any other public accesses to the wetlands. Mr.
Kreuger indicates where another shared use path in the area is and possible future access.
08:21:34 PM Mr. Happel questions the R4 zoning and developable land, he questions how many units
they are looking to build. Mr. Kreuger stated he will defer the question to the applicant, but that
typically density is driven by parking.
08:22:36 PM Ms. Dugan requests more information on the Kimberwickee/Davis intersection. Mr.
Kreuger explains that Kimberwickee must be developed before further development can take place.
08:23:38 PM Mr. Budeski begins applicant presentation on the Four Points project. He states that they
agree with the conditions of approval in general.
08:24:55 PM Mr. Budeski opens up to questions from the board. Board chair recommends that he
address the density question previously presented.
08:25:08 PM Mr. Budeski states that it’s hard to determine at this time. He states it is 52 acres (phase 1
and phase 2) and when the project is complete, that there will be a combination of apartments, condos,
etc. There will be a total of about 400 units between the two phases.
08:26:36 PM Mr. Thompson states that there is a lift station being proposed, he questions about the
noise associated with that for adjoining properties. Mr. Budeski states that it is underground and should
218
not
08:27:44 PM Mr. Spitler re-questions the wetlands and whether Mr. Budeski is comfortable putting
more stringent guide lines on what can be done to them.
08:28:42 PM Discussion between Mr. Budeski and Mr. Spitler about what may or may not happen with
regards to wetlands
08:29:18 PM Mr. Pape states that this is an innovative way to use this property with three wetlands.
08:30:07 PM Mr. Budeski questions the impact on the wetlands. He states that was mitigated with the
first Phase.
08:30:38 PM Mr. Mehl questions which conditions Mr. Budeski will contest. Mr. Budeski clarifies his
concerns with regards to trail construction.
08:31:18 PM Mr. Neubauer states that he likes this project and thinks it’s a good place for density and
accommodates the wetlands. He states that infrastructure improvements will rely on SID’s. He thinks
the way that infrastructure improvements are financed is backwards. He is not comfortable with a new
homeowner being hit with an SID within the first few years. He feels that new homeowners should be
immune to SID’s within the first 5 years. New development should not be hit with SID’s. He states that
he will vote against this project simply because he does not agree with the roads being underdeveloped
and then being developed and putting that cost on the home owner.
08:34:16 PM Mr. Budeski states to some extent he agrees. The streets are not being developed with
complete roads – even though they are paying full price for the land
08:36:03 PM Mr. Budeski states there was a questions about street lights – he states that there is only
one additional street light and it will match existing street lights.
08:36:45 PM Public Comment – Rob Pritzborn expresses interest with connecting the trail from this site
to the trails in the Cattail subdivision as well.
Mr. Thompson moves: having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment,
and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application
15526 and move to recommend approval of the preliminary plat with conditions and subject to all
applicable code provisions.
08:38:35 PM Second by Mr. Pape
08:38:41 PM Mr. Thompson states he likes the development of this awkward parcel. He agrees with Mr.
Neubauer’s concerns with the SID’s and things the board should address that in the future.
08:39:53 PM Mr. Pape states that as a realtor, they often try to determine if there will be an SID, but
they are hard to determine the cost of them. It’s important to disclose to the homeowner. He feels that
219
the city should provide
08:41:36 PM Mr. Spitler agrees that the design is great and has interest in preserving the wetlands and
thinks this is being done. He does think there should be tightening up of the deed restrictions. Board
08:43:08 PM Mr. Neubauer states that he does like this project and does not want to derail it for his
reasons – he just has a history of voting against these large projects with possible SID’s and wants to
keep bringing that to attention.
08:43:51 PM Board approves the motion – 8-1
Against – Mr. Neubaurer
In favor – George Thompson, Henry Happel, Jerry Pape, Jordan Zignego, Brianne Dugan, Paul Spitler,
Laura Waterton, Chris Mehl
08:44:33 PM Board Recesses between projects.
08:51:22 PM Meeting brought back to order.
3. 08:51:35 PM Pine Meadow Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application. 16041
A Preliminary Plat Application to subdivide 4.104 acres into 18 single household residential lots, one (1)
common open space lot, and one (1) park with the extension of West Villard Street and improvements
to Valley Drive.
Mr. Rogers begins presentation on the Pine Meadows Major Subdivision. He states he will keep his
comments to the purview of the planning board.
Mr. Rogers states that the property has been annexed and the new owner is looking to develop it.
08:53:28 PM Mr. Rogers discusses access of the property.
Mr. Rogers states that the development is meeting minimum density. Reducing density will not meet
density standards. Mr. Rogers displays the proposed layout of the lots. Mr. Rogers indicates that there is
currently a home on one of the lots that can maintain its large lot.
08:57:08 PM Mr. Rogers displays the park plan. They are just shy of their park land and have proposed
improvements to the park to bring it above city standards.
08:58:42 PM Mr. Rogers discusses the criteria that the project is ranked against.
Mr. Rogers discusses density in surrounding areas to provide context for the proposed density of the
project.
09:03:50 PM Mr. Rogers completes presentation and opens it up to questions for staff.
09:03:57 PM Mr. Spitler questions why it is zoned R1 vs. R3 or R4. Mr. Rogers states that the
220
neighborhood requested a lower zoning classification and the city commission approved that.
09:05:08 PM Mr. Thompson questions how water and sewage will be addressed with the adjacent
county property. Mr. Rogers states that there will be a new water and sewer line developed that will
connect to city services. Mr. Thompson questions if the county properties would be able to connect to
the city services. Mr. Rogers explains that they would have to go through the annexation process, but
yes, it would be an option.
09:06:33 PM Mr. Thompson questions the basketball court and it being a public nuisance – and whether
there will be time limits. Mr. Rogers responds that there will not be lights, so it would be limited to day
light hours by default.
09:07:10 PM Commissioner Mehl questions whether Mr. Rogers agrees with the park proposal. Mr.
Rogers states that he does agree with it. Mr. Mehl questions whether they should instead request cash-
in-lieu and if this is the best thing for the residents. Mr. Rogers responds that the improvements are a
significantly higher than the cost cash-in-lieu value so, it does appear to be the best value for the
residents.
09:09:16 PM Presentation by the applicant – Rob Pertsborn – applicant begins the presentation.
09:10:01 PM Questions for the applicant – Mr. Neubauer indicates that the properties in downtown are
this size, even though people are concerned this will look squished together. He questions an alley
access to access the back of the properties. Applicant responds that that is open ended.
09:11:50 PM Mr Neubauer questions if there is a benefit to putting in water tie ins in advance for county
properties that border the properties. Applicant responds they do plan to put the tie in there for future
possible access.
09:12:43 PM Mr. Thompson questions how the applicant see the homes being constructed on the lot.
Applicant responds that he is not sure how they will develop.
09:13:55 PM Cindy Kindschi – 505 Valley Drive – Ms. Kindschi states that the proposal is not consistent
and harmonious with the existing character of their neighborhood. She thought the covenants would
protect their homes in the future. She is requesting that the developer not be required to develop to the
city minimum and instead go from 18 lots to 12.
09:17:29 PM Carolyn Powel – 315 Valley Drive – She states they built their home in 1984. She said she
bought their homes here because of the covenants – single family homes on ½ acre lots. She feels it is
the boards responsibility to maintain the covenants
09:21:54 PM Gil Stober – 305 Valley Drive – He is opposed to the development that is taking place – they
were aware that development was taking place eventually, but not to this scale. If the development
takes place, then the homeowner will face a lawsuit for breaking the covenants. He is OK with
development taking place, he just feels it should be reduced to be harmonious that is being proposed.
This would also allow for the setbacks required by the covenants to be honored. He expresses his
221
distaste with the way that he was approached by the property owner about his needing to be annexed
into the city.
09:27:03 PM Garrett Smith – 777 East Main – on behalf of William Christian Howard – States that the
City is not accountable for his being satisfied, as he is not a City resident, but they would be held
accountable if they continue to pursue this development against the covenants.
09:29:07 PM Greg Kindschi - 505 Valley Drive – States that his home is directly across the street from the
development. He is not against the development, but is against the 18 homes being across the street
from their 8 homes. The lot sizes does not allow for attractive homes being built. He disapproves of the
unfinished road on the county side which will lead to flooding. The paved road needs to be completed at
the time of development. He suggests 12 acres on this property, not the proposed 18.
09:31:45 PM Eric Staker – 549 Valley Drive – He agrees it’s an overdevelopment for this piece of
property and he disagrees with the unfinished road. He said he has only been in the home for 7 months,
but bought the home for the areas look and feel. He said that there would not be a smooth transition
from one property to another to have one side clustered and the other side more spread out.
09:33:38 PM Rachel Sive – 535 Valley Drive – She requests we grant the developer a variance for larger
lots and that the covenants be respected. She said that she hopes the City recognizes the absurdity of
only installing gutters on one side of the road. She states in terms of annexation that it is simply not
affordable. She also states she was told that the water and sewer tie ins would not be installed in
advance, so there needs to be some clarification there.
09:36:04 PM 301 Valley Drive – States that this is not a meeting about annexation, but that there are
concerns about annexation costs. Their septic is failing and he is aware that they will need to eventually
tie in to city services. He states that the cost for tying in would be too high for it to be affordable. The
City needs to find a way to make it more affordable.
09:37:41 PM Patrice Burr – 301 Valley Drive – She spoke with regards to annexation – the cost is too
high for them to annex and hopes that the City finds a solution for that.
09:39:00 PM Jecyn Bremer - 777 East Main Street – States that the 18 lots are part of the neighborhood,
it would not be a new neighborhood. She states that there would be an issue with the covenants. She
states that the covenants run with the land and developer has proposed more lots than would be
allowed. The neighbors requested to reduce the number of lots. She stated that the city can enforce
covenants if they chose to. The neighbors want assurance that the development won’t impact their
homes.
09:43:11 PM Applicant response – Applicant responds to the comments from the public. He states he
does not plan to pursue a variance and listed reasons why.
09:44:56 PM Matt Meghee from TDH engineering discusses drainage. States that he is aware drainage
could be an issue and they are working on a plan that will work for the site.
222
09:45:31 PM Mr. Pape questions the applicant reducing the number of lots. Applicant responds that the
minimu
09:46:55 PM Mr. Spitler had a question for staff. Will finish with questions for applicant first.
Mr. Happel questions if he can question the attorney for the homeowners. Commissioner Mehl states
that is not permitted.
09:48:14 PM Mr. Neubauer questions why they chose to do parkland as they did. Applicant responds in
detail.
09:49:32 PM Mr. Spitler asks Mr. Rogers to expand on the covenants and the road design. Mr. Rogers
explains that the city does not enforce covenants on private lands. The City is required to meet the
design standards outlined in their design guidelines, anything beyond that is the property owner’s
responsibility. He states that the covenants were designed a long time ago under a different context. He
states also that the city has certain cross sections for road, and that the engineer is working with the City
to ensure that the design has no impact on the current home owners.
09:51:44 PM Mr. Happel questions if Mr. Rogers is familiar with the covenants. Mr. Rogers states that he
has read the covenants. Mr. Happel states that his understanding of the covenants is that there is
nothing limiting them to ½ an acre. Mr. Rogers agrees that there is nothing outright requiring those lot
sizes. Mr. Happel states that the covenants simply state that it needs to be harmonious.
Discussion continues between Mr. Rogers and Mr. Happel regarding what is required by the covenants.
Mr. Rogers states that the discussion is starting to move away from the purview of the Planning Board.
Mr. Happel questions if there was ever a discussion about adding an alley. Mr. Rogers responds that
there was awhile ago, but that would have been a discussion/agreement with the lot behind where the
new sites are (to the east) and that application has already been submitted and the site is being
developed.
09:56:04 PM Laura Waterton questions if there are times where only half a street is developed. Mr
Rogers responds that he is not aware of any examples.
09:57:25 PM Commissioner Mehl states that it is rare, but it has happened.
09:57:38 PM Ms. Waterton questions if the board will see the proposed plan for the road or if that will
be left to the city to review. Mr. Rogers states that it is an engineer’s job to propose a plan, and that
storm water will be managed in some fashion.
09:58:51 PM George Thompson moves – Having reviewed and considered the application materials,
public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff
report for application 16041 and move to approve the Pine Meadows Park Plan, improvements in-lieu
with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions.
223
09:59:50 PM Second by Jerry Pape
09:59:58 PM Mr. Thompson states that having been involved in the development of other properties in
the area, he does not see a problem with the proposal.
10:00:46 PM Mr. Neubauer states there is still a demand for parkland, even though those homes on
Michael Grove have less parkland. That should not be a reason to reduce parkland.
10:01:30 PM Mr. Pape states that he supports improvements in lieu of parkland instead of cash in lieu.
10:02:07 PM Board approves the motion – 8-1
Against – Mr. Neubaurer
In favor – George Thompson, Henry Happel, Jerry Pape, Jordan Zignego, Brianne Dugan, Paul Spitler,
Laura Waterton, Chris Mehl
10:02:34 PM Mr Happel moves – Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public
comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report
for application 16041 and move to approve the Pine Meadows Major Subdivision with conditions and
subject to all applicable code provisions.
Mr. Thompson seconds.
10:03:07 PM Mr. Happel states that he appreciates the property owners coming in and expressing their
views. His personal view is that they will find the development a lot less aversive than they think. He
states a lot of properties down near the university have different development across the street and he
doesn’t feel it adversely affects the homes on the other side of the street. He feels it is consistent with
the city growth plan and with the development surrounding. He is optimistic that what develops there
will be favorable.
10:05:19 PM Mr. Thompson states he understands the concerns presented. He states that the home
owners’ current street is inadequate and will benefit from the street improvements that have been
proposed. He states that the cost of annexation and tying in to city services is something that
homeowners have always had to absorb – as discussed previously with regards to the SID’s.
10:07:21 PM Mr. Neubaurer extends the meeting to 10:30
10:07:40 PM Mr Neubauer questions what the side boundary setbacks would be if they had to build to
city standards. Mr. Rogers responds it is 5’. Mr. Neubauer speaks to the public that these could be nice
homes on nice lots. He also states that if they get the road built to city standards, then it could work out
favorably for them.
10:10:12 PM Commissioner Mehl states that the city changed the zoning to R-1 by their request. In
theory, it is being built to their requested density – while still building to city requirements. With regards
to street design, it is required for the applicant to propose a plan and it needs to be approved by a city
224
engineer. He states that if the homeowners are interested in installing gutters, that the homeowners
can do that. He states that historically, roads are being developed at the expense of homeowners. He
states that he will not require them to install gutters, because they are not city residents, but if they
want it they can install them. Otherwise, the City will address flooding when developing.
10:14:36 PM Mr. Pape states that this neighborhood has felt the press from the City from some time
now. He said that the neighbors are requesting relief from an institution does not represent them. As a
board member, they are expected to act on behalf of the city – his role as county representative is to
acknowledge the interface between county and City. He states he has encouraged the homeowners to
form a Neighborhood Association and they could have made annexation more affordable so that they
would have an equal voice with the people across the street. Mr. Pape states that could have formed a
HOA and annexed together with an immediate SID to cover annexation costs. He states that the
property owner has the right to develop his property. Mr. Pape said that he has driven own Valley Drive
and seen the muddy mess it can be. He states that he feels a reserve should be kept on behalf of the
builder that if the development affects the water quality, etc. that the City could remedy the situation.
He also states that there could be an increase in property value if the site was developed on larger lots.
He suggests that the City Commission should heavily consider larger lots – 12 lots vs the 18 lots
proposed.
Mr. Neubauer requests that Jerry Pape state his unfriendly amendment.
10:21:03 PM Mr. Pape moves that the city commission seriously consider reducing the density in this
area by reducing the number of lots from 18 to 12.
Ms. Waterton seconds
Jerry Pape speaks to his amendment – he feels that the board needs to adhere to the code, but that the
City Commission can stray from the code and he feels this may be a time when the commission should
consider straying from the code.
Ms. Dugan clarifies what the amendment would imply.
10:24:43 PM Mr. Spitler states that he is sensitive to the requests of the public, but that he doesn’t feel
that the density proposed would not be harmonious to the neighborhood. He supports the reasons the
City is encouraging higher density. He also doesn’t think the applicant wants to reduce the number of
lots.
10:25:43 PM Ms. Waterton states that the infill developments are different from expansion, but that the
code does not differentiate them. She is sympathetic to the requests of the public as the City has grown
out to them. She states that the applicant did not request a variance, so she doesn’t support sending
that to the commission.
10:27:21 PM Mr. Thompson states that he agrees with Ms. Waterton, as it’s not something the applicant
has explored. He encourages the homeowners to get together and form an HOA as suggested by Mr.
225
Pape.
10:28:51 PM Board votes against the motion – 8-1
Against – Mr. Neubaurer, George Thompson, Henry Happel, Jordan Zignego, Brianne Dugan, Paul
Spitler, Laura Waterton, Chris Mehl
In favor –Jerry Pape
10:29:13 PM Mr. Pape retracts his second amendment.
Board discusses further the water quality and flooding issues.
Board goes back to the original motion to approve the application.
10:32:16 PM Mr. Spitler states he is concerned about the runoff, but is comforted that the street design
would not allow any additional runoff.
10:32:56 PM Board approves the original motion – 8-1
In favor – Mr. Neubaurer, George Thompson, Henry Happel, Jordan Zignego, Brianne Dugan, Paul
Spitler, Laura Waterton, Chris Mehl
Against –Jerry Pape
E. 10:33:22 PM FYI/Discussion – Commissioner Mehl states that the City, county and
Belgrade have agreed to create a joint board and that this board needs to appoint someone.
F. 10:34:08 PM Adjournment
For more information please contact Alicia Kennedy at akennedy@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require
assistance, please contact our Interim ADA coordinator, Chuck Winn at 582-2307 (TDD 582-2301).
226
Dear Bozeman City Commission Members at Wednesday 5/18/16 meeting or thereafter:
I hope the City Commission will take up the following suggestion soon, because the R-5
High Density Residential Zone is not OK for the areas you have approved it for, nor in my
opinion in any other place anywhere. Future 4-storey densely located single family homes will ruin one of America's best small
city mountain views, now viewable by MANY using cars and bicycles, also pedestrians, bus line
users, park areas, senior retirement housing and a few other homes.
View corridors/view sheds are stated in several places in the Bozeman Community Plan as
something the people of the Bozeman community (and the City) wish to protect. We need the City to respect and work with this now, because ruining it is simply an affront to prior planning
and the facts of life in this beautiful scenic location in the state of Montana.
None of the R-5 areas remaining in the North 7th Avenue/Midtown Plan at this time are
appropriate. The open space to the west and east of the north end of North 7th need to be
retained, as I say above. The piece on North 5th that remains is across from a church, on a short block, would be replacing a nursing home and an apartment building. It is in a quiet, not very
dense, single family area other than these and the nearby elementary school on North 5th. The
other remaining piece, on North 6th, would end up being ON North 7th Avenue, replacing the
grave stone store and the old oil change service business. Worse than this, it would be next to an
elementary school recess yard, and the school building. Whatever you need to do, please rescind the creation of a new residential zone for Bozeman
- R-5. Frankly, from a quick check of the Internet, it looks like this kind of density has
previously been considered unacceptable, unhealthy, for children and other living things.
I should write for you a report about my other concern - that telebehavioral control support,
electro hydro dynamic generation of power, various other things private investors can do with the power of the Internet,all for financial profit, are part of the reason this dense zone has been
proposed. I think the following statement Bozeman Community Plan, on page 13-3, could be
considered at this time, and we could do a special planning study on concerns about secondary
markets in utilities:
Goal D2: Recognize and strive to address both chronic as well
as acute hazards and the effect of cumulative actions on increasing
and decreasing hazards. Some can be inconspicuous and ...recognized
only after longer term evaluation
Sincerely, Erica A. Skinger
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
254
255
256
109 N 8TH AVE
122 N 9TH AVE
116 N 9TH AVE
112 N 9TH AVE
115 N 8TH AVE
119 N 8TH AVE
109 N 9TH AVE
115 N 9TH AVE
119 N 9TH AVE
810 W LAMME ST
816 W LAMME ST
116 N 11TH AVE
904 W LAMME ST910 W LAMME ST918 W LAMME ST120 N 10TH AVE
116 N 10TH AVE
112 N 10TH AVE
105 N 10TH AVE
109 N 10TH AVE
115 N 10TH AVE
119 N 10TH AVE
123 N 10TH AVE1016 W LAMME ST 122 N 8TH AVE
110 N 8TH AVE
205 N 8TH AVE
105 N 8TH AVE
101 N 9TH AVE
105 N 9TH AVE
207 N 9TH AVE
719 W LAMME ST717 W LAMME ST809 W LAMME ST823 W LAMME ST815 W LAMME ST
208 N 11TH AVE
204 N 11TH AVE 909 W LAMME ST901 W LAMME ST203 N 10TH AVE
206 N 10TH AVE
919 W LAMME ST
101 N 10TH AVE
209 1/2 N 8TH AVE
821 W MENDENHALL ST 719 W MENDENHALL ST
811 W MENDENHALL ST
921 W MENDENHALL ST
108 N 11TH AVE UNIT 4108 N 11TH AVE UNIT 2108 N 11TH AVE UNIT 1108 N 11TH AVE UNIT 3
W BEALL ST
W LAMME ST N 9TH AVE N 7TH AVE N 11TH AVE N 10TH AVE N 8TH AVE W MENDENHALL ST N 7TH AVE Legend
Properties Within 150 FeetProperties Inside Lamme St AmendmentDissolved PropertiesMidtown Zone Buffers (150 ft)
Midtown Boundary Lines
0 250 500125Feet
Lamme Street Map Amendment
Revised: 6/14/2016
This map was created by theCity of BozemanGIS Department
Intended for Planning purposes only.
$5 . 1 A c r e s5 . 1 A c r e s
257