Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-28-21 Zoning Commission Agenda & Packet MaterialsA.Call meeting to order B.Disclosures C.Approval of Minutes C.1 Minutes Approval for 05-24-21(Scott) D.Public Comment Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of the Committee. There will also be an opportunity in conjunction with each action item for comments pertaining to that item. Please THE ZONING COMMISSION OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA ZC AGENDA Monday, June 28, 2021 WebEx Meeting Information Via Webex: https://cityofbozeman.webex.com/cityofbozeman/onstage/g.php? MTID=e541fe9d2c31d7d839b6b15b661124370 Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream or channel 190 • Call-in toll number (US/Canada ): 1-650-479-3208 • Access code: 182 044 5572 Public Comment: If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda, please send an email to agenda@bozeman.net prior to 4:00pm on Monday, June 28th, 2021. You may also comment by visiting the City's public comment page. You can also comment by joining the Webex meeting. If you do join the Webex meeting, we ask you please be patient in helping us work through this online meeting. If you are not able to join the Webex meeting and would like to provide oral comment you may send a request to agenda@bozeman.net with your phone number, the item(s) you wish to comment on, and someone will call you during the meeting to provide an opportunity to comment. You may also send the above information via text to 406-224-3967. As always, the meeting will be streamed through the City's video page (click the Streaming Live in the drop down menu), and available in the City on cable channel 190. 1 limit your comments to three minutes. E.Special Presentation F.Action Items F.1 Mathew and Morgan Hausauer submitted application to amend the City Zoning Map on approximately 2.002 acres for the establishment of a zoning designation of R-2 in conjunction with an annexation request for a property addressed at 1919 Bridger Drive, Application 21123.(Rogers) F.2 Sunrise Home, LLC submitted application to amend the City Zoning Map on approximately 40 acres for the establishment of a zoning designation of multiple zones including R-1, R-2, R-3, and PLI conjunction with an annexation request for a property addressed at 3849 Staffanson Road, Application 20365.(Rogers) G.FYI/Discussion H.Adjournment For more information please contact Tom Rogers at trogers@bozeman.net. This board generally meets the 2nd and 4th Monday of each month from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301). 2 Memorandum REPORT TO:Zoning Commission FROM:Taylor Chambers SUBJECT:Minutes Approval for 05-24-21 MEETING DATE:June 28, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Minutes RECOMMENDATION:Suggested Motion: I move to approve the meeting minutes from May 24th, 2021 STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the community and stakeholders. BACKGROUND:None UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:1. Approve the meeting minutes with corrections 2. Do not approve the meeting minutes FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: 05-24-21 Zoning Commission Minutes DRAFT.docx Report compiled on: May 25, 2021 3 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, 05-24-21 Page 1 of 3 THE ZONING COMMMISSION MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES Monday, May 24, 2021 00:01:17 WebEx Meeting Information A)00:02:16 Call meeting to order Present:Nicole Olmstead, Mark Genito, George Thompson, Christopher Scott, Jennifer Madgic Absent:Kirsa Shelkey B)00:03:24 Disclosures C)00:03:28 Approval of Minutes C.1 Minutes Approval for 04-12-21 04-12-21 Zoning Commision Minutes DRAFT.pdf 00:04:00 Motion C) Approval of Minutes Nicole Olmstead: Motion Mark Genito: 2nd 00:04:09 Vote on the Motion to approve C) Approval of Minutes. The Motion carried 4 -0 Approve: Nicole Olmstead Mark Genito George Thompson Christopher Scott Disapprove: None D)00:04:18 Public Comment 4 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, 05-24-21 Page 2 of 3 No public comment at this time. F)00:04:56 Action Items F.1 00:04:59 Election of Officers of the Zoning Commission. Rules require the Commission to elect a Chairman and Vice Chair on an annual basis, typically early in a new year. 00:06:01 Motion I hereby move to recommend that Christopher Scott be appointed as Chairman. Nicole Olmstead: Motion Mark Genito: 2nd 00:06:14 Vote on the Motion to approve I hereby move to recommend that Christopher Scott be appointed as Chairman. The Motion carried 4 - 0 Approve: Nicole Olmstead Mark Genito George Thompson Christopher Scott Disapprove: None 00:06:51 Motion I hereby move to recommend that Nicole Olmstead be appointed as Vice Chairman. George Thompson: Motion Mark Genito: 2nd 00:07:01 Vote on the Motion to approve: I hereby move to recommend that Nicole Olmstead be appointed as Vice Chairman.The Motion carried 4 - 0 Approve: Nicole Olmstead Mark Genito George Thompson Christopher Scott Disapprove: None F.2 00:07:29 ongoing zoning training session titled, Bozeman Community Plan 2020. 00:07:50 Staff Presentation 5 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, 05-24-21 Page 3 of 3 Planner Saunders continued the ongoing training session on the Community Plan for the board members. 00:54:57 Board Questions Board members directed questions to Planner Saunders. 00:56:40 Public Comment opportunity No public comment at this time. G)00:57:44 FYI/Discussion Commissioner Madgic informed board members that board member Thompson is seeking to no longer sit on the Zoning Commission board in order to focus on the Planning Board. Planner Saunders informed board members of the City Commission's upcoming discussion on board consolidation. H)01:15:41 Adjournment For more information please contact Tom Rogers at trogers@bozeman.net. This board generally meets the 2nd and 4th Monday of each month from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM 6 Memorandum REPORT TO:Zoning Commission FROM:Tom Rogers, Senior Planner Marty Matsen, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Mathew and Morgan Hausauer submitted application to amend the City Zoning Map on approximately 2.002 acres for the establishment of a zoning designation of R-2 in conjunction with an annexation request for a property addressed at 1919 Bridger Drive, Application 21123. MEETING DATE:June 28, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Ordinance RECOMMENDATION:Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 21123 and move to recommend approval of the 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment, with contingencies required to complete the application processing. STRATEGIC PLAN:4.2 High Quality Urban Approach: Continue to support high-quality planning, ranging from building design to neighborhood layouts, while pursuing urban approaches to issues such as multimodal transportation, infill, density, connected trails and parks, and walkable neighborhoods. BACKGROUND:The applicant, Matt & Morgan Hausauer, seeks to annex three parcels totaling roughly 2.002 acres into the City limits and establish initial zoning of R-2, Residential Moderate Density. The property is currently zoned “Residential Suburban” within the county. Nearby municipal zoning includes Residential Single-Household Low Density (R-1) to the north and Residential Suburban (R-S) to the south. Land to the east and west is unincorporated and zoned “Residential Suburban” within the county. The future land use map in the Bozeman Community Plan designates the property as “Urban Residential” which the R-2 district serves to implement. The adjacent road rights-of-way was annexed with previous annexations. There is an existing home on the parcel. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:1. Recommend denial of the zone map amendment application based on the Zoning Commission’s articulated findings of non-compliance with the applicable criteria contained within the staff report; or 2. Open and continue the public hearing on the application, with specific direction to staff or the applicant to supply additional information or to 7 address specific items. FISCAL EFFECTS:No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by this Annexation or Zone Map Amendment. Future development will incur costs and generate review according to standard City practices. Attachments: ZMA Map_04-22-2021.pdf RC Narrative_04-22-2021.pdf A1_DevelopmentReviewApplication_03-10-2021.pdf N1_Adjoiners List_03-10-21.pdf Annexation Map_03-10-2021.pdf 21123 1919 Bridger Drive ZMA ZC SR.docx Report compiled on: June 24, 2021 8 t 9 4/22/2021  Revision and Correction Narrative  1919 Bridger Drive Annexation and Initial Zoning    Enclosed please find the updated Zone Map Amendment exhibit for the 1919 Bridger Drive Annexation/ZMA. The  ZMA exhibit has been updated to have the R‐2 zoning district cover the entire property instead of the split R‐1/R‐2  zoning previously submitted. The applicant concurs with the City’s analysis that splitting the property into two  zoning districts would likely be considered spot/split zoning.  10 PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name: Project Type(s): Street Address: Legal Description: Description of Project: Current Zoning: Gross Lot Area: Block Frontage(s): Number of Buildings: Type and Number of Dwellings: Building Size(s): Building Height(s): Number of Parking Spaces: Affordable Housing (Y/N): Cash-in-lieu Parkland (Y/N): Departure/Deviation Request (Y/N): A1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION PROJECT IMAGE Community Development Development Review Application Page 1 of 3 Revision Date: June 2020 SPECIAL DISTRICTS Overlay District: Neighborhood Conservation None Urban Renewal District: Downtown North 7th Avenue Northeast North Park None VICINITY MAP 11 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION REPRESENTATIVE Name: Full Address: Email: Phone: APPLICANT Name: Full Address: Email: Phone: PROPERTY OWNER Name: Full Address: Email: Phone: CERTIFICATIONS AND SIGNATURES This application must be signed by both the applicant(s) and the property owner(s) (if different) for all application types before the submittal will be accepted. The only exception to this is an informal review application that may be signed by the applicant(s) only. As indicated by the signature(s) below, the applicant(s) and property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code. It is further indicated that any work undertaken to complete a development approved by the City of Bozeman shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and any special conditions established by the approval authority. I acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project. Further, I agree to grant City personnel and other review agency representative’s access to the subject site during the course of the review process (Section 38.200.050, BMC). I (We) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. Certification of Completion and Compliance – I understand that conditions of approval may be applied to the application and that I will comply with any conditions of approval or make necessary corrections to the application materials in order to comply with municipal code provisions. Statement of Intent to Construct According to the Final Plan – I acknowledge that construction not in compliance with the approved final plan may result in delays of occupancy or costs to correct noncompliance. Applicant Signature: Printed Name: Owner Signature: Printed Name: Representative Signature: Printed Name: Development Review Application Page 2 of 3 Revision Date: June 2020 12 APPLICATION FEE Varies by project type CONTACT US Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street Bozeman, MT 59715 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net/planning Development Review Application Page 3 of 3 Revision Date: June 2020 REQUIRED FORMS Varies by project type DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Check all that apply FORM 1. Administrative Interpretation Appeal AIA 2. Administrative Project Decision Appeal APA 3. Annexation and Initial Zoning ANNX 4. Commercial/Nonresidential COA CCOA 5. Comprehensive Sign Plan CSP 6. Condominium Review CR 7. Conditional Use Permit CUP 8. Extension to Approved Plan EXT 9. Growth Policy Amendment GPA 10. Informal Review INF 11. Master Site Plan MSP 12. Modification/Plan Amendment MOD 13. Neighborhood/Residential COA NCOA 14. Pre-application Consultation None 15. PUD Concept Plan PUDC FORM 16. PUD Preliminary Plan PUDP 17. PUD Final Plan PUDFP 18. Reasonable Accommodation RA 19. Site Plan SP 20. Special Use Permit SUP 21. Special Temporary Use Permit STUP 22. Subdivision Exemption SE 23. Subdivision Pre-Application PA 24. Subdivision Preliminary Plan PP 25. Subdivision Final Plat FP 26. Wetland Review WR 27. Zone Map Amendment ZMA 28. Zone Text Amendment ZTA 29. Zoning/Subdivision Variance Z/SVAR 30. Zoning Deviation/Departure None 31. Other: APPLICATION TYPE 13 CVA Page 1 of 2 4-8-20 Development Review Application COVID-19 Acknowledgment of Application Processing Delays On March 13, 2020, the President of the United States issued a Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak. On March 12, 2020, the Governor of the State of Montana issued Executive Order No. 2-2020 Declaring a State of Emergency to Exist Within the State of Montana Related to the Communicable Disease COVID-19. The City of Bozeman issued a COVID-19 emergency declaration on March 16, 2020. The City subsequently issued Order ED-05 setting forth public meeting protocols on March 31, 2020 and Order ED-06 closing City facilities to public entry, including the Stiff Professional Building, on March 23, 2020. Order ED-05 states in relevant parts, “In accordance with the Emergency Declaration, public meeting agendas will be limited to only essential matters. . . .” It describes notice requirements, the use of videoconferencing or telephonic technology to hold remote hearings, and providing the public an opportunity to participate remotely. A copy of Order ED-05 is attached to this form. On March 27, 2020 the Attorney General of the State of Montana issued a letter of guidance to local governments recommending public meetings be held only for essential business, and those public meetings be held remotely. Provisions in the emergency declarations and City of Bozeman Orders may restrict or delay the ability of the City to complete the review and finally approve certain development review applications. Acknowledgment and signatures This acknowledgement must be signed by both the applicant(s) and the property owner(s) (if different) for all application types before the submittal will be accepted and processed. As indicated by the signature(s) below, the applicant(s) and property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code the City’s COVID-19 Emergency Declaration and subsequent Orders issued by the City Manager. I acknowledge that the City may be delayed in the processing of my application and may not be able to complete the application review within standard time limits due to the constraints present under the emergency orders. I (We) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. Certification of Acknowledgment – I understand that there may be delays in the processing of my application and that it may reach a point in processing where it may not proceed to final approval and that I will not hold the City responsible for any delays presented under the emergency order. Applicant Signature: Printed Name: Owner Signature: 14 Page 2 of 2 4-8-20 Printed Name: Owner Signature Printed Name: If signing as a corporation or LLC, please provide the title and position of the individual signing on behalf of the corporation/LLC. Attach separate sheets for additional owner signatures. 15 Adjoining Property Owners 1919 Bridger Drive, Bozeman, MT 59715 Owner Name Property Address Owner Mailing Address Contiguous? 1 WEAMER, TIMOTHY Y 1915 Bridger Drive 1915 Bridger Drive YES Bozeman, MT 59715 Bozeman, MT 59715 2 COBALT CAPITAL LLC 1907 Bridger Drive 12834 Topping Manor Drive NO Bozeman, MT 59715 Saint Louis, MO 63131‐1815 3 GHICADUS, SARAH & DAVID 1901 Bridger Drive 1901 Bridger Drive NO Bozeman, MT 59715 Bozeman, MT 59715 4 HOLLIER, DAVID 2420 Atsina Lane 2420 Atsina Lane NO MCCULLOUGH, ASHLEY Bozeman, MT 59715 Bozeman, MT 59715 5 STERL, MICHAEL & MEGAN 2440 Atsina Lane 2440 Atsina Lane NO  Bozeman, MT 59715 Bozeman, MT 59715 6 MIREMONT, KRISTINA 2460 Atsina Lane 6595 Goodwood Ave. NO Bozeman, MT 59715 Baton Rouge, LA 70806‐7408 7 KUJAWA, THOMAS & KALLIE 2463 Blackfeet Lane 2463 Blackfeet Lane NO Bozeman, MT 59715 Bozeman, MT 59715 8 WEBB, MOLLY 2443 Blackfeet Lane 2443 Blackfeet Lane NO Bozeman, MT 59715 Bozeman, MT 59715 9 RAMSAY, LAWRENCE SCOTT 2423 Blackfeet Lane 285 Snowline Road NO RAMSAY, MARCY LYNN Bozeman, MT 59715 Bozeman, MT 59715 10 COPPOLILLO, PETER 2468 Blackfeet Lane 2468 Blackfeet Lane NO Bozeman, MT 59715 Bozeman, MT 59715 11 SCHERER, TROY & JENNIFER 2448 Blackfeet Lane 2448 Blackfeet Lane NO Bozeman, MT 59715 Bozeman, MT 59715 12 MVJ & LLJ LLC 2428 Blackfeet Lane 413 Fleeton Point Circle NO ATTN: LINDA JAMISON Bozeman, MT 59715 Reedville, VA 22539‐4220 13 TEITELBAUM, BRUCE 1925 Bridger Drive 517 N. Rouse Ave. YES C/O CHARLES MCDONALD Bozeman, MT 59715 Bozeman, MT 59715 14 HAIN LEE F TRUSTEE 2003 Bridger Drive 2003 Bridger Drive NO Bozeman, MT 59715 Bozeman, MT 59715 15 HEBERT, THOMAS P SR 2011 Bridger Drive 2011 Bridger Drive NO Bozeman, MT 59715 Bozeman, MT 59715 16 FINCH, CATHERINE 2200 Powder Park CT 2200 Powder Park CT NO RINELLA, STEVEN Bozeman, MT 59715 Bozeman, MT 59715 17 HEADLANDS SUB PARK AREA General Delivery General Delivery NO Bozeman, MT 59718‐9999 Bozeman, MT 59718‐9999 16 t 17 Page 1 of 24 21123 Staff Report for the 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Public Hearings: Zoning Commission (map amendment only) June 28, 2021 City Commission (Annexation and map amendment) July 20, 2021 Project Description: Annexation of 2.002 acres and amendment of the City Zoning Map for the establishment of a zoning designation of R-2. Project Location:1919 Bridger Drive and more accurately described as Lots 34, 35, and 36, Ed Vogel Subdivision No. 1, Located in the Southeast One-Quarter (SE ¼) of Section 32, Township One South (T1S), Range Six East (R6E), P.M.M., Gallatin County, MT. The annexation and zone map amendment would also apply to the streets adjacent to the property. Recommendation: Meets standards for approval with contingencies. Recommended Zoning Commission Motion: Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 21123 and move to recommend approval of the 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment, with contingencies required to complete the application processing. Report:June 24, 2021 Staff Contact:Tom Rogers, Senior Planner Agenda Item Type:Action –Legislative EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is based on the application materials submitted and public comment received to date.This report only addresses the zoning amendment as the Zoning Commission only considers the zone map amendment. A revised report addressing both the annexation and the zoning amendment will be made available prior to the City Commission hearing on the application. Unresolved Issues There are no identified conflicts between the City and Applicant regarding the zoning at this time. 18 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 2 of 24 Project Summary The applicant, Matt & Morgan Hausauer, seeks to annex three parcels totaling roughly 2.002 acres into the City limits and establish initial zoning of R-2, Residential Moderate Density. The property is currently zoned “Residential Suburban” within the county. Nearby municipal zoning includes Residential Single-Household Low Density (R-1) to the north and Residential Suburban (R-S) to the south. Land to the east and west is unincorporated and zoned “Residential Suburban” within the county. The future land use map in the Bozeman Community Plan designates the property as “Urban Residential” which the R-2 district serves to implement. The adjacent road rights-of-way was annexed with previous annexations. There is an existing home on the parcel. The following public adopted planning documents support urban development for the subject area if development is proposed on the site: Bozeman Community Plan 2020 Gallatin County growth policy Gallatin County/Bozeman Area Plan – County neighborhood plan Transportation Master Plan 2017 – City transportation plan Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Master Plan 2007 – Gallatin County Transportation Plan Water Facility Plan 2017 – City’s plan for water system operations and expansion Wastewater Facility Plan 2015 – City’s plan for wastewater system operations and expansion Zoning Commission The Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on June 28, 2021 before making a recommendation on the proposed zoning. Zoning Commission Alternatives 1. Recommend denial of the zone map amendment application based on the Zoning Commission’s articulated findings of non-compliance with the applicable criteria contained within the staff report; or 2. Open and continue the public hearing on the application, with specific direction to staff or the applicant to supply additional information or to address specific items. 19 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 3 of 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 Unresolved Issues............................................................................................................... 1 Project Summary................................................................................................................. 2 Zoning Commission............................................................................................................ 2 Zoning Commission Alternatives....................................................................................... 2 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES.................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 2 - RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES OF ZONE MAP AMENDMENT..... 8 SECTION 3 – ADVISORY COMMENTS .............................................................................. 8 SECTION 4 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ........................................ 9 Annexation.......................................................................................................................... 9 Zone Map Amendment....................................................................................................... 9 SECTION 5 - ZONE MAP AMENDMENT STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS............. 9 Spot Zoning Criteria ......................................................................................................... 20 PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS......................................................... 21 APPENDIX A - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT.................................................... 21 APPENDIX B - PROJECT GROWTH POLICY AND PROPOSED ZONING ................... 22 APPENDIX C - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF............................ 24 FISCAL EFFECTS................................................................................................................. 24 ATTACHMENTS................................................................................................................... 24 20 Page 4 of 24 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES Project Vicinity Map (2018 air photo) 21 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 5 of 24 Project Vicinity Map (2018 air photo) 22 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 6 of 24 Project Vicinity Map Showing the Bozeman Community Plan 2020 Future Land Use Map – Subject property is designated as Urban Residential Urban ResidentialCommunity Commercial Mixed-Use Parks and Open Lands Residential Mixed-Use No City Services Urban Residential 23 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 7 of 24 Project Vicinity Map Showing Near Vicinity Municipal Zoning B-2 R-1 M-1 R-S Not annexed Not annexed Not annexed R-S R-3 R-4 B-2 24 Page 8 of 24 SECTION 2 - RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES OF ZONE MAP AMENDMENT Please note that these contingencies are necessary for the City to complete the process of the proposed amendment. These contingencies only apply in the event that the related annexation request has previously been approved. Recommended Contingencies of Approval: 1. The Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment must not be approved until the Annexation Agreement is signed by the applicant and formally approved by the City Commission. If the Annexation Agreement is not approved, the Zone Map Amendment application is null and void. 2. All documents and exhibits necessary to establish an initial municipal zoning designation must be identified as the “1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment”. 3. The applicant must submit a zone amendment map, titled “1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment.” The map must be supplied as a PDF. This map must be acceptable to the City Engineer's Office and must be submitted within 60 days of the action to approve the zone map amendment. Said map shall contain a metes and bounds legal description of the perimeter of the subject property including adjacent rights-of-way or street easements, and total acreage of the property to be rezoned; unless the property to be rezoned can be entirely described by reference to existing platted properties or certificates of survey. 4. The Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant provides an editable metes and bounds legal description prepared by a licensed Montana surveyor. SECTION 3 – ADVISORY COMMENTS 1. The significant distance between the existing home and the available sewer mains and available elevation drop may require a private pump system to be installed. The City does not maintain or operate private pump systems, the owner of the property will be responsible for any system. 2. Future Impact Fees - Please note that future building permit applications will require payment of the required transportation, water, sewer and fire impact fees according to the City of Bozeman adopted impact fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. If you desire an estimate of the required impact fees according to current rates please contact the Department of Community Development and/or visit www.bozeman.net. 25 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 9 of 24 3. Upon future development of the parcel, the transfer of water rights or the payment of cash-in-lieu (CIL) of water rights must be provided per Bozeman Municipal Code 38.410.130. SECTION 4 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS Annexation The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the amendment. The DRC identified infrastructure deficiencies that must be addressed with terms of annexation. The City Commission will address these issues during their public hearing. The Applicant has been informed what considerations need attention. The City Commission will hold a public meeting on the annexation on July 20, 2021. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. The meeting will conducted through WebEx. Instructions on joining the meeting will be included on the meeting agenda. Zone Map Amendment Having considered the criteria established for a zone map amendment, the Staff finds the application meets criteria for approval as submitted. The 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment (ZMA) is in conjunction with an annexation request. Staff’s recommendation and staff responses are predicated on approval of the annexation, application 21123. The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the amendment. The DRC identified did not identify any infrastructure or regulatory constraints that would impede the approval of the Zone Map Amendment application. The Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on this ZMA on June 28, 2021 and will forward a recommendation to the Commission on the Zone Map amendment. The City Commission will hold a public hearing on the zone map amendment on July 20, 2021. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. The meeting will conducted through WebEx. Instructions on joining the meeting will be included on the meeting agenda. SECTION 5 - ZONE MAP AMENDMENT STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS In considering applications for approval under this title, the advisory boards and City Commission must consider the following criteria (letters A-K). As an amendment is a legislative action, the Commission has discretion to determine a policy direction. The burden 26 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 10 of 24 of proof that the application should be approved lies with the Applicant. See the application materials for the Applicant’s response to the criteria. A zone map amendment must be in accordance with the growth policy (criteria A) and be designed to secure safety from fire and other dangers (criteria B), promote public health, public safety, and general welfare (criteria C), and facilitate the provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements (criteria D). Therefore, to approve a zone map amendment the Commission must find Criteria A-D are met. In addition, the Commission must also consider criteria E-K, and may find the zone map amendment to be positive, neutral, or negative with regards to these criteria. To approve the zone map amendment, the Commission must find the positive outcomes of the amendment outweigh negative outcomes for criteria E-K. In determining whether the criteria are met, Staff considers the entire body of regulations for land development. Standards which prevent or mitigated negative impacts are incorporated throughout the entire municipal code but are principally in Chapter 38, Unified Development Code. Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria A. Be in accordance with a growth policy. Yes. The application was initially submitted on October 16, 2021. Additional information was requested from the applicant to complete required submittal requirements and detail proposed infrastructure connections. Information was submitted on December 7, 2021. The BCP 2020, Chapter 5, p. 73, in the section titled Review Criteria for Zoning Amendments and Their Application, discusses how the various criteria in 76-2-304 MCA are applied locally. Application of the criteria varies depending on whether an amendment is for the zoning map or for the text of Chapter 38, BMC. The first criterion for a zoning amendment is accordance with a growth policy. Future Land Use Map The proposed amendment is a change to the zoning map. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze compliance with the future land use map. Chapter 3 of the BCP 2020 addresses the future land use map. The introduction to that chapter discusses the importance of the chapter. Following are some excerpts. “Future land use is the community’s fundamental building block. It is an illustration of the City’s desired outcome to accommodate the complex and diverse needs of its residents.” 27 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 11 of 24 “The land use map sets generalized expectations for what goes where in the community. Each category has its own descriptions. Understanding the future land use map is not possible without understanding the category descriptions.” The area of this application has been within in the anticipated growth area of the City. As shown on the maps in Section 1, on the excerpt of the current future land use map, the property is designated as Urban Residential. The Urban Residential designation description reads: “This category primarily includes urban density homes in a variety of types, shapes, sizes, and intensities. Large areas of any single type of housing are discouraged. In limited instances, an area may develop at a lower gross density due to site constraints and/or natural features such as floodplains or steep slopes. Complementary uses such as parks, home-based occupations, fire stations, churches, schools, and some neighborhood-serving commerce provide activity centers for community gathering and services. The Urban Neighborhood designation indicates that development is expected to occur within municipal boundaries. This may require annexation prior to development. Applying a zoning district to specific parcels sets the required and allowed density. Higher density residential areas are encouraged to be, but are not required or restricted to, proximity to commercial mixed use areas to facilitate the provision of services and employment opportunities without requiring the use of a car.” The correlation between the future land use map of the growth policy and the zoning districts is presented in Table 4 of the Bozeman Community Plan 2020. As shown in the following excerpt from Table 4, the R-2 district is an implementing district of the Urban Residential category. 28 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 12 of 24 Goals and Policies A zoning amendment is also evaluated against the goals and policies of the BCP 2020. Most of the goals and policies are not applicable to this application. Relevant goals and objectives have been identified by staff. Conflict with the text of the growth policy hasn’t been identified. The Short Term Action list on page 63 of the BCP 2020 describes 14 items to implement the growth policy. The first two relate to direct changes to the zoning map in support of listed 29 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 13 of 24 goals and objectives. These include increasing the intensity of zoning districts in already developed areas. Beginning on page 71 of the BCP 2020 in the section titled Zoning Amendment Review, the document discusses how the City implements zoning for new areas, amendments to areas, and revisions to existing text. This section includes a discussion of when the City may initiate a zoning change to a more intensive district to increase development opportunities. This section demonstrates that the City, as a matter of policy, is supportive of more intensive zoning districts and development, even within already developed areas. It is inconsistent with this approach to zone at annexation for lower intensities than what infrastructure and planning documents will support. This policy approach does not specify any individual district but does lean towards the more intensive portion of the zoning district spectrum. The Applicant argues the proposed zone change in accordance with the Growth Policy by stating, “The proposed zoning is consistent with the recently adopted growth policy plan. The future land use map from the growth policy designates this property as Urban Neighborhood. The Urban Neighborhood designation supports the R-2 zoning proposed with this application. The proposed zoning meets several of the goals and policies identified in the growth policy plan including: • Basic Planning Precepts – Principles Applied in this [Growth Policy] Plan -“Infill development and redevelopment should be prioritized.” The proposed application represents an infill development as it is surrounded by City limits/developments. • Goals, Objectives, and Actions – DCD-1.5. “Identify underutilized sites, vacant, and undeveloped sites for possible development or redevelopment.” The property currently has one dwelling unit on over 0.5 acres of land which is well below the residential density objectives identified throughout the Plan. • Page 13 – “Municipal development enables use of highly effective centralized water and sewer systems. Such centralized systems are more protective of water quality both at the surface and underground.” The proposed annexation and zoning will abandon the existing on-site septic and water systems by connecting to the existing municipal water and sanitary sewer system.” Goal DCD-1: Support urban development within the City. The proposed zoning is occurring in conjunction with an annexation. Any future development will be required to occur at urban densities and will be within the City. If the City Commission declines the annexation then the requested R-2 zoning will not occur. DCD-1.11 Pursue annexations consistent with the future land use map and adopted facility plans for development at urban intensity. 30 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 14 of 24 The proposed zoning is consistent with the future land use map and is within the current facilities plans. Although limited infrastructure is currently installed near the subject property this action is the first step in correcting this deficiency. Goal RC-3: Collaborate with Gallatin County regarding annexation and development patterns adjacent to the City to provide certainty for landowners and taxpayers. RC-3.3 Prioritize annexations that enable the incremental expansion of the City and its utilities. The zone map amendment is proposed in association with an annexation. The area to be annexed, for all intent and purpose, wholly surrounded by the City boundary and eliminates one of a number of isolated inholding with the City service area and street network. RC-3.4 Encourage annexation of land adjacent to the City prior to development and encourage annexation of wholly surrounded areas. The property, for all intent and purpose, is wholly surrounded by the City. The property is seeking annexation and municipal zoning for the purpose of maintaining and possibly expanding the use and intensity of the site. The application is in accordance with the growth policy. B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers. Yes. The existing building is constructed of unknown quality, fire, and safety measures. Any renovations, expansions, or removal and replacement must meet the development standards of the City and, in some cases, might require retrofitting to ensure the building is safe for occupants and neighboring properties. The 2017 Fire and EMS Master Plan shows this property within the acceptable response reach of the Fire Department. Fire protection water supply will be provided by the City of Bozeman water system. The property is not within any delineated floodplain. Upon annexation the subject property will be provided with City emergency services including police, fire and ambulance. The initial zoning of R-2 is not likely to adversely impact safety from fire and other dangers. The property will be required to conform to all City of Bozeman public safety, building and land use requirements. The City provides emergency services to adjacent properties and there will be no difficulty extending service to this parcel. C.Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare. Yes. The proposed zoning designation will promote general welfare by implementing the future land use map in the Bozeman Community Plan. Public health and safety will be positively affected as the proposed annexation will allow the existing structure to connect to the City sewer system, thereby removing a septic system and lessening resulting groundwater discharge. 31 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 15 of 24 As noted in criterion B, further development and redevelopment must be in accordance with modern building, access, stormwater, pedestrian circulation, ingress and egress to the site, and full connection to the greater transportation network for users ensuring the promotion of public health, safety and general welfare. Public health and safety will be positively affected by requiring new and redevelopment to connect to municipal sanitary sewer and water systems, which will prevent groundwater pollution and depletion by wells and septic systems. D.Facilitate the provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements. Yes. The BCP 2020, page 74, says regarding evaluation of Criteria B-D for zoning amendments: “For a map amendment, all three of the above elements are addressed primarily by the City’s long range facility Plans, the City’s capital improvements program, and development standards adopted by the City. The standards set minimum sizing and flow requirements, require dedication of parks, provision of right of way for people and vehicles, keep development out of floodplains, and other items to address public safety, etc. It is often difficult to assess these issues in detail on a specific site. For example, at the time of annexation, the final intensity of development is unknown and it may be many years before development occurs and the impacts are experienced. The availability of other planning and development review tools must be considered when deciding the degree of assurance needed to apply an initial zoning at annexation.” The City conducts extensive planning for municipal transportation, water, sewer, parks, and other facilities and services provided by the City. The adopted plans allow the City to consider existing conditions and identify enhancements needed to provide additional service needed by new development. The City implements these plans through its capital improvements program that identifies individual projects, project construction scheduling, and financing of construction. Private development must demonstrate compliance with standards. The application site is located within the City’s land use, transportation, parks, and utility planning areas and those plans show this property as developing within the City when development is proposed. Adequacy of all these public requirements is evaluated during the subdivision and site development process. As stated in 38.300.020.C, the designation of a zoning district does not guarantee approval of new development until the City verifies the availability of needed infrastructure. All zoning districts in Bozeman enable a wide range of uses and intensities. At time of future subdivision or site plan review the need for individual 32 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 16 of 24 services can be more precisely determined. No subdivision or site plan is approved without demonstration of adequate capacity. 38.300.020.C, “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.” The development of public infrastructure improvements to serve the property will be required to conform to the City of Bozeman’s adopted standards which require properties to construct public infrastructure and/or pay impact fees, assessments, and taxes to support transportation, water, sewer, school, parks, and other public requirements. City water and sewer lines are located adjacent to the property to the north (approximately 250-feet from the existing structure) and the terms of annexation require the applicant to connect to municipal services and install any facilities required to provide full municipal services to the property. The property is accessed from Bridger Drive (principal arterial) and the Bridger Creek trail is located across Bridger Drive. Park dedication is not required as there is an existing residence on the property. Any future development of the property will be evaluated for additional required improvements during the plan review process. E.Reasonable provision of adequate light and air. Yes. The R-2 zoning designation has requirements for setbacks, height, and lot coverage, which provide for the reasonable provision of adequate light and air. Any future development of the property will be required to conform to City standards for setbacks, height, lot coverage, and buffering. In addition to the zoning standards, adopted building codes contain more detailed requirements for air circulation, window placement, and building separation that further ensure the intent of this criterion is satisfied. F.The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems. Neutral. The proposed R-2 zoning designation will have a neutral effect on the City’s motorized and non-motorized transportation systems as the property is occupied by an existing residence. As a result, the impact to the motorized and non-motorized transportation systems is not anticipated to change. The terms of annexation require dedication of 30 feet of right-of- way along the rear (north) of the property to allow the future connection of a local street. In the event this local street is built, it would have a positive effect on the motorized and non- 33 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 17 of 24 motorized transportation systems as it would increase street connectivity adjacent to the Legends subdivision and result in the addition of a sidewalk. Further, the small size of the property and the lower-intensity zoning proposed will not create a measurable effect on transportation systems The recommended terms of annexation and City’s development approval processes, for example requirements for easements, the waiver of the right to protect special improvement districts related to transportation, and construction of future roads are expected to sufficiently address impacted transportation systems as a result of the map amendment. On page 74-75 of the BCP 2020 in the discussion of application of the zoning criteria it says: “Development creates or funds many of the City’s local streets, intersection upgrades, and trails. Therefore, although a text or map amendment may allow more intense development than before, compliance with the adopted Plans and standards will provide adequate capacity to offset that increase.” As the zoning designation itself does not change traffic flow or transportation demand, and the compliance of future development with adopted standards will offset impacts from development. G.Promotion of compatible urban growth. Yes. Individuals may have widely varying opinions about what constitutes compatibility. Compatible development and Compatible land use are defined in Article 38.7 BMCto establish a common reference for consideration of this criterion and application of development standards. They are defined as: “Compatible development. The use of land and the construction and use of structures which is in harmony with adjoining development, existing neighborhoods, and the goals and objectives of the city's adopted growth policy. Elements of compatible development include, but are not limited to, variety of architectural design; rhythm of architectural elements; scale; intensity; materials; building siting; lot and building size; hours of operation; and integration with existing community systems including water and sewer services, natural elements in the area, motorized and non-motorized transportation, and open spaces and parks. Compatible development does not require uniformity or monotony of architectural or site design, density or use. Compatible land use. A land use which may by virtue of the characteristics of its discernible outward effects exist in harmony with an adjoining land use of differing character. Effects often measured to determine compatibility include, but are not limited to, noise, odor, light and the presence of physical hazards such as combustible or explosive materials.” As noted in the definition of Compatible development, there are many elements that contributed to compatibility. The final sentence of the definition deserves emphasis “Compatible development does not require uniformity or monotony of architectural or site 34 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 18 of 24 design, density or use.” Compatible development can be different than what is already in place. The City has adopted a variety of standards to implement compatibility. The proposed R-2 district is a predominantly residential district. The allowed uses for residential districts are set in section 38.310.030. The proposed zoning is similar in intensity and character as neighboring properties. The proposed amendment is associated with an annexation creating continuity between the existing and surrounding uses. Staff concludes R- 2 zone is compatible and is urban growth as called for in the growth policy. See also discussion for Criteria A & H. H.Character of the district. Yes. The proposed R-2 zoning promotes the character of the district as the intent of the Residential Moderate Density district is to “… provide for one- and two-household residential development at urban densities within the city in areas that present few or no development constraints.” Surrounding properties are low-density single-household residential. Adjacent properties in the City are zoned R-1 to the north and R-S (Residential Suburban) to the south. Adjacent properties in Gallatin County, to the east and west, are zoned Residential Suburban. The proposed R-2 zoning designation is consistent with the character of the neighborhood as well as existing development on the property. Section 76-2-302, MCA says “…legislative body may divide the municipality into districts of the number, shape, and area as are considered best suited to carry out the purposes [promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community] of this part.” Emphasis added. This proposal amends the zoning map and not the text. Therefore, no element of this amendment modifies the standards of any zoning district. The character of the districts as created by those standards remains intact. As noted above, the City Commission has latitude in considering the geographical extents of a zoning district. It is not expected that zoning freeze the character of an area in perpetuity. Rather, it provides a structured method to consider changes to the character. The City has defined compatible development as: “The use of land and the construction and use of structures which is in harmony with adjoining development, existing neighborhoods, and the goals and objectives of the city's adopted growth policy. Elements of compatible development include, but are not limited to, variety of architectural design; rhythm of architectural elements; scale; intensity; materials; building siting; lot and building size; hours of operation; and integration with existing community systems including water and sewer services, natural elements in the area, motorized and non-motorized transportation, and open spaces and parks. Compatible development does not require uniformity or monotony of architectural or site design, density or use.” 35 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 19 of 24 The City has adopted many standards to identify and avoid or mitigate demonstrable negative impacts of development. These will support the ability of future development in this new area of the R-2 district to be compatible with adjacent development and uphold the character of the area. I. Peculiar suitability for particular uses. Yes. The property is located in an area of single-household residential development which is suitable for uses allowed in the R-2 zoning district. The proposed R-2 zoning designation is suitable for the current use of the property. Staff concurs with the applicants statement that, “The application does not modify the existing standards of the R-2 zoning district. The property is within the City’s planning and utility service boundaries. The property does not have any defining characteristics that would make it suitable for one particular use. In accordance with the future land use map and the existing uses surrounding the property, a residential use (as proposed) is likely the most suitable use for the property. The property does not have any water courses present, is flat, and is nearly fully developable. J. Conserving the value of buildings. Yes. There is an existing single-household residential structure on the property in an area of compatible residential land uses. The proposed R-2 zoning designation will allow for similar land use patterns and will thus conserve the value of buildings in the area. The applicant has not proposed future alteration or development on the property. Any future development on the property will be subject to standards in the R-2 zoning district which will ensure the conservation of adjacent building values including but not limited to standards set forth in the Unified Development Code for fire safety, setbacks, buffers and building heights, which will help alleviate any potential negative impacts to the values of adjacent buildings as a result of future development on the subject property. Therefore, this criterion is met. K.Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. Yes. As discussed in Criteria A above, this property has been planned for residential uses for many years. The proposed R-2 zoning designation will encourage the most appropriate use of land as the property is surrounded by lower density residential development, which is consistent with the R-2 designation. Furthermore, the proposed R-2 zoning designation is consistent with the Bozeman Community Plan’s future land use map designation of “Urban Residential.” 36 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 20 of 24 Spot Zoning Criteria Rezoning may, in certain factual circumstances, constitute impermissible “spot zoning.” The issue of whether a rezoning constitutes spot zoning was discussed by the Montana Supreme Court in Plains Grains LP v. Board of County Comm’rs of Cascade County and Little v. Bd. Of County Comm’rs, in which the Court determined that the presence of the following three conditions generally will indicate that a given situation constitutes spot zoning, regardless of variations in factual scenarios. 1.Is the proposed use significantly different from the prevailing land uses in the area? No. The R-2 designation already exists in the area, and properties are developed in accordance with the R-2 district. Because this is simply a small expansion of less dense residential district that is not substantially different in terms of allowed land uses in the existing county R-S district (both allow single-detached housing), the land uses allowed on the subject property are not significantly different than those that currently prevail in the area. Therefore, staff finds that this criterion is not met. 2.Is the area requested for the rezone rather small in terms of the number of separate landowners benefited from the proposed change? Yes. The application is submitted by one landowner in conjunction with annexation of the single 2.002 acre property. Although the City supports multiparty annexation applications, landowner annexation of single properties are the most frequent annexations. As described in Criterion A above, the amendment advances the overall policies of the BCP 2020, the City’s adopted growth policy, and the growth policy and neighborhood plans for Gallatin County. As the application advances the growth policies there are benefits to the larger community from the amendment. Although there is generalized benefit to the community, the number of direct beneficiaries is small. 3.Would the change be in the nature of “special legislation” designed to benefit only one or a few landowners at the expense of the surrounding landowners or the general public? No. While the applicant/landowner will directly benefit from the proposed zone map amendment, the proposed amendment is not at the expense of surrounding landowners or the general public. As discussed above in the various review criteriaabove, no substantial negative impacts are identified due to this amendment. As discussed in Criterion A, the application is consistent both the City’s and the County’s growth policy. The growth policy is the overall land use policy for the community. Consistency with the growth policy demonstrates benefit to the general public. As discussed under Criterion D, the City’s development standards will require the applicant to provide the needed 37 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 21 of 24 infrastructure to support any proposed development prior to construction of homes. Concurrency and adequacy of infrastructure remove most potential injury to others. As discussed in Criterion H, the application is similar and consistent with the existing and developing character of the area. Therefore, the amendment does not benefit the landowner at the expense of others. Development of the site in any manner will create additional demand for services and change the character of the site as a large lot single home. A change to an urban district does not inherently injure the surrounding landowners. PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS IN THE CASE OF WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST SUCH CHANGES SIGNED BY THE OWNERS OF 25% OR MORE OF 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. The City will accept written protests from property owners against the proposal described in this report until the close of the public hearing before the City Commission. Pursuant to 76-2-305, MCA, a protest may only be submitted by the owner(s) of real property within the area affected by the proposal or by owner(s) of real property that lie within 150 feet of an area affected by the proposal. The protest must be in writing and must be signed by all owners of the real property. In addition, a sufficient protest must: (i) contain a description of the action protested sufficient to identifythe action against which the protest is lodged; and (ii) contain a statement of the protestor's qualifications (including listing all owners of the property and the physical address), to protest the action against which the protest is lodged, including ownership of property affected by the action. Signers are encouraged to print their names after their signatures. A person may in writing withdraw a previously filed protest at any time prior to final action by the City Commission. Protests must be delivered to the Bozeman City Clerk, 121 North Rouse Avenue, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230. APPENDIX A - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT Notice was published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on June 13 and July 4, 2021. The site was posted on site and notices mailed by the applicant as required by 38.220 and the required confirmation provided to the Planning Office. Notice was or will be provided at least 15 and not more than 45 days prior to any public hearing. 38 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 22 of 24 As of the writing of this report on June 24, 2021, no written comments have been received on this application. APPENDIX B - PROJECT GROWTH POLICY AND PROPOSED ZONING Adopted Growth Policy Designation: The property is designated as “Urban Residential” in the Bozeman Community Plan 2020. 1. URBAN RESIDENTIAL. This category primarily includes urban density homes in a variety of types, shapes, sizes, and intensities. Large areas of any single type of housing are discouraged. In limited instances, an area may develop at a lower gross density due to site constraints and/or natural features such as floodplains or steep slopes. Complementary uses such as parks, home-based occupations, fire stations, churches, schools, and some neighborhood-serving commerce provide activity centers for community gathering and services. The Urban Neighborhood designation indicates that development is expected to occur within municipal boundaries. This may require annexation prior to development. Applying a zoning district to specific parcels sets the required and allowed density. Higher density residential areas are encouraged to be, but are not required or restricted to, proximity to commercial mixed use areas to facilitate the provision of services and employment opportunities without requiring the use of a car. Proposed Zoning Designation and Land Uses: The applicant has requested zoning of R-2, “Residential Moderate Density” in association with the annexation of the property. According to Sec. 38.300.100(C) of the Unified Development Code, “The intent of the R-2 residential moderate density district is to provide for one- and two-household residential development at urban densities within the city in areas that present few or no development constraints.” The Zoning Correlation Table on Page 58 of the Bozeman Community Plan, 2020 correlates zoning districts with the Growth Policy’s land use categories, demonstrating that the proposed zoning designation of R-2 correlates with the Growth Policy’s future land use designation of “Urban Residential”. 39 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 23 of 24 Authorized uses in Residential districts are detailed in section 38.310.030. 40 Staff Report for the 21123; 1919 Bridger Drive Zone Map Amendment Page 24 of 24 APPENDIX C - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF Owner:Mathew and Morgan Hausauer, 3004 Meah Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 Applicant:Mathew and Morgan Hausauer, 3004 Meah Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 Representative:Mathew and Morgan Hausauer, 3004 Meah Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 Report By:Tom Rogers, Senior Planner, Community Development Department FISCAL EFFECTS No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by this Annexation or Zone Map Amendment. Future development will incur costs and generate review according to standard City practices. ATTACHMENTS The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. Application materials 41 Memorandum REPORT TO:Zoning Commission FROM:Tom Rogers, Senior Planner Marty Matsen, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Sunrise Home, LLC submitted application to amend the City Zoning Map on approximately 40 acres for the establishment of a zoning designation of multiple zones including R-1, R-2, R-3, and PLI conjunction with an annexation request for a property addressed at 3849 Staffanson Road, Application 20365. MEETING DATE:June 28, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Ordinance RECOMMENDATION:Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 20365 and move to recommend approval of the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment, with contingencies required to complete the application processing. STRATEGIC PLAN:4.2 High Quality Urban Approach: Continue to support high-quality planning, ranging from building design to neighborhood layouts, while pursuing urban approaches to issues such as multimodal transportation, infill, density, connected trails and parks, and walkable neighborhoods. BACKGROUND:The City received an application to annex and initially zone an existing parcel with an existing home. The landowner submitted an application to annex a single parcel and adjacent right of way for the future extensions of Kagy Boulevard and Laurel Parkway. Annexation of the road is required by state law. There is one existing home on the parcel. The property is located adjacent to the City boundary on the northeast corner of the property touching the Loyal Gardens subdivision. The application proposes a variety of zoning designations to accommodate different densities throughout the property. Zoning designations include R-1 (Residential Low Density), R-2 (Residential Moderate Density), R-3 (Residential Medium Density), and PLI (Public Lands and Institutions). The property is adjacent to the City in one point on the northeast corner of the subject property. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:1. Recommend denial of the zone map amendment application based on the Zoning Commission’s articulated findings of non-compliance with the 42 applicable criteria contained within the staff report; or 2. Open and continue the public hearing on the application, with specific direction to staff or the applicant to supply additional information or to address specific items. FISCAL EFFECTS:No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by this Annexation or Zone Map Amendment. Future development will incur costs and generate review according to standard City practices. Attachments: 1_A1_Development_Review_Application_100920.pdf 7_Zoning_Narrative_100520.pdf 5_Certified_List_of_Adjoiners_100920.pdf ZMA 050721.pdf Schematic Design.pdf Exhibit B_Sewer_Extensions_102720.pdf Exhibit C_Roadway_Extensions_102720.pdf Exhibit A_Water_Extensions_102720.pdf Annexation Map 050721.pdf 20365 Lazarewicz ZMA ZC SR.docx Report compiled on: June 24, 2021 43 44 45 46 ZONE MAP AMENDMENT PROJECT NARRATIVE A) IS THE NEW ZONING DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GROWTH POLICY? The Land Use Plan Element of the 2009 version of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan designates the property as “Present Rural”. The Community Plan is currently undergoing an update to address the evolving needs of the Community. The draft update to the Bozeman Community Plan currently proposes a designation of “Urban Neighborhood”. This application proposes zoning designations of R-1 (Residential Low Density District), R-2 (Residential Moderate Density District), R-3 (Residential Medium Density District) and PLI (Public Lands and Institutions) on the 40.65 acre tract. All proposed zoning designations are listed in Table 4 of the draft Community Plan update as being compatible with the “Urban Neighborhood” designation. R-1 zoning is proposed along the project perimeter where it adjoins with existing rural residential land. The R-1 zoning is proposed to provide a cohesive transition from the existing large lots found along the eastern, southern, and western property boundaries. R- 2 zoning is proposed within the property core providing a transitional zone to the interior R-3 zoning proposed to meet the affordable housing component of this project. The proposed zoning actively complies with the following “Land Use Goals and Objectives” outlined in the Bozeman Community Plan: • Goal LU-1: Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, efficiently provides public and private basic services and facilities in close proximity to where people live and work and minimize sprawl. Annexation of the subject property with the proposed zoning will minimize sprawl by allowing for development at urban density. The subject property is contiguous to City of Bozeman limits allowing for efficient extension of services. The proposed zoning supports a high- density core while respecting the rural residential nature of the existing neighborhoods surrounding the subject property’s perimeter. • Goal LU-2: Designate centers for commercial development rather than corridors to encourage cohesive neighborhood development in conjunction with non-motorized transportation options. This proposal, while not commercial in nature, creates the opportunity for a neighborhood of mixed residential housing types in close proximity to 47 existing and future commercial development. The 80-acre parcel located immediately to the north of the subject property is designated as NC (Neighborhood Commercial) in the Bozeman Community Plan Update. This adjacent parcel is conceptually planned to provide the neighborhood center for the surrounding area. Municipal services are readily available for extension to the subject property. Trail connectivity will be provided with nearby developments and transportation facilities. • Goal LU-4: Sustainability, Natural Environment and Aesthetics – Ensure adequate review of individual and cumulative environmental and aesthetic effects of development to preserve the viewsheds, natural functions, and beauty which are a fundamental element of Boseman’s character. Design and development in a quantifiably sustainable manner are desirable. The subject property is primarily composed of relatively flat agricultural fields. The Farmers Canal and one lateral ditch bisects the northern portion of the property along an east-west alignment. The current plan preserves the irrigation facility and its associated natural elements by including these natural areas within the proposed public park. The setback, building height, lot size, lot coverage, and parking requirements contained in the Unified Development Ordinance will prevent overcrowding of the land and protect the viewshed and mountain setting which helps make Bozeman unique. B) WILL THE NEW ZONING SECURE SAFETY FROM FIRE AND OTHER DANGERS? HOW? The regulatory provisions established for the requested zoning designations, in conjunction with provisions for adequate transportation facilities (interior subdivision roads, primary access and secondary/emergency access) should adequately address these concerns with future development of the property. Local emergency service agencies (fire and police) and City of Bozeman regulatory divisions will have the opportunity to weigh in on any further development proposals to ensure protection from fire and other dangers through the implementation of the municipal regulatory standards. The subject property has considered connections to an adjoining parcel with existing municipal services nearby. Existing municipal services can be efficiently extended onto the property to serve future development. 48 C) WILL THE NEW ZONING PROMOTE PUBLIC HEALTH, PUBLIC SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE? HOW? Development of the subject property will require review and approval by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), City Engineer’s Office and Director of Public Service. Given the location of the subject property, annexation of the subject property will allow for the extension of existing municipal infrastructure (i.e., water, and sanitary sewer) and the efficient delivery of public services (i.e., police and fire protection) to the subject property. . Additionally, the new zoning will provide future residents with a variety of for-sale housing types within close proximity to existing commercial and transportation facilities. D) WILL THE NEW ZONING FACILITATE THE ADEQUATE PROVISION OF TRANSPORTATION, WATER, SEWERAGE, SCHOOLS, PARKS, AND OTHER PUBLIC REQUIREMENTS? HOW? An assessment of the impacts to infrastructure, public services, schools, park land, and other public requirements will be evaluated during preliminary subdivision plat and/or site plan review, and said impacts identified with development of the subject property will be mitigated with recommended conditions of approval by the City’s Planning, Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks, Water/Sewer, Sustainability and Sanitation Departments (D.R.C.). If not already addressed, right-of-way for higher order roads that will carry traffic to the subject property will be required with annexation of the subject property to ensure that adequate provisions for transportation needs have been made. E) WILL THE NEW ZONING PROVIDE REASONABLE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR? HOW? The regulatory standards set forth in the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance for the requested zoning districts provides the necessary provisions (i.e., yard setbacks, lot coverage, open space and building heights), which are intended to provide for adequate light and air for any proposed development on the subject property. F) WILL THE NEW ZONING HAVE AN EFFECT ON MOTORIZED AND NON- MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS? HOW? During preliminary subdivision and/or site plan review of any development proposal on the subject property, a Traffic Impact Analysis will be required to be completed by the 49 applicant’s consultant. The City Engineering Department and D.R.C. will review the impact to the area’s transportation network and determine mitigating measures, if required, through recommended conditions of approval. Vehicular access is currently provided to the property from Staffanson Road which facilitates direct connectivity to South Cottonwood Road and Stucky Road. A secondary access can be provided with extension of Loyal Drive located in the Loyal Gardens Subdivision through an existing easement that is contiguous to the northern boundary of the subject property. G) DOES THE NEW ZONING PROMOTE CAMPATIBLE URBAN GROWTH? HOW? The subject property adjoins the City of Bozeman with nearby developments within the City limits containing a mix of R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O, and BP. Adjacent properties to the south and west fall within Gallatin County jurisdiction with county zoning designations of Agricultural Suburban (AS). Properties immediately to the east are developed county residential subdivisions with a zoning designation of Residential Suburban (RS). We believe the proposed zoning is compatible with surrounding urban zones while at the same time addressing compatibility with the adjoining rural residential properties. H) DOES THE NEW ZONING PROMOTE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT? HOW? Any future development of the property will be required to conform to the permitted land uses and densities described in the Unified Development Ordinance. Compliance with the regulatory standards for new development will promote character of the district. I) DOES THE NEW ZONING ADDRESS THE AFFECTED AREA’S PECULIAR SUITABILITY FOR PARICULAR USES? HOW? The subject property being considered with this application is situated in an area that contains a broad cross-section of residential land uses. Properties to the north, located within City of Bozeman limits, are residential in nature with generally increasing densities moving from south to north. Adjoining county properties to the south and west contain a mix of agricultural and residential properties with County zoning of Agricultural Suburban (AS). Adjacent residential properties to the east are designated as Residential Suburban (RS). The zoning proposed for the subject property provides for a 50 variety of residential land uses while at the same time addressing compatibility with adjacent property uses. J) WAS THE NEW ZONING ADOPTED WITH A VIEW TO CONSERVING THE VALUES OF BUILDINGS? HOW? The value of the existing buildings in the area would not depreciate with the proposed zoning designations. The proposed zoning gives particular consideration to compatibility with existing land uses, product types, and surrounding property values. K) DOES THE NEW ZONING ENCOURAGE THE MOST APPROPRIATE USE OF LAND THROUGHOUT THE JURISDICTIONAL AREA? The subject property is contiguous to the City of Bozeman limits. The goals of the City of Bozeman seek to promote compact urban growth. This proposal seeks to extend urban growth and existing City services to an area adjacent to these services while maintaining sensitivity to the adjacent rural residential land uses. 51 52 53 54 W 1/2, NE 1/4, Sec. 16, T2S, R5EExcepting R/W & COS 1456(Kamp Enterprises, LP)PARCEL 6C.O.S. No. 312(Brooks & Jennifer Emeny)PARCEL AC.O.S. No. 1376(Knappenberger)BK 9, Fm 1163E 1/2, W 1/2, SW 1/4, SE 1/4, T2S, R5E(Cody & Brianna Kountz)TRACT B-2C.O.S. No. 672A(Scott & Jennifer Baumgardner)TRACT 12BK 19, Fm 1413(Jay & Linda Caruso)PARCEL BC.O.S. No. 523(Bummer & Zeller)FARMERS CANALARMOUR WAYLOT 1Minor Subdiv. No. 498(Scott Wathen)LOT 2Minor Subdiv. No. 498LOT 1Minor Subdiv. No. 490(Mark & Jennifer Houser)LOT 2C.O.S. No. 523B(Wendell & Judy Morrill)PUBLIC PARKBlock 11Loyal Gardens Subdiv.KAGYLAUREL OPEN SPACE55 56 57 58 59 Page 1 of 41 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Public Hearings:Zoning Commission (zoning map amendment only) June 28, 2021 City Commission (Annexation and zoning map amendment) July 27, 2021 Project Description:Part 46 annexation petition for 40.65-acres with proposed initial zoning of R-1 (Residential Low Density), R-2 (Residential Moderate Density), R-3 (Residential Medium Density), and PLI (Public Lands and Institutions). Project Location:Property is addressed as 3849 Staffanson Road more particularly described as the Remainder Tract of COS 1376, Located in the Southeast One- Quarter (SE ¼) of Section 16, Township Two South (T2S), Range Fie East (R5E), P.M.M., Gallatin County, MT. Recommendation: Meets standards for approval with contingencies. Recommended Zoning Commission Motion: Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 20365 and move to recommend approval of the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment, with contingencies required to complete the application processing. Report:June 24, 2021 Staff Contact:Tom Rogers, Senior Planner Agenda Item Type:Action -Legislative EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is based on the application materials submitted and public comment received to date.This report only addresses the zoning amendment as the Zoning Commission only considers the zone map amendment. A revised report addressing both the annexation and the zoning amendment will be made available prior to the City Commission hearing on the application. Unresolved Issues There are no identified conflicts between the City and Applicant regarding the zoning at this time. 60 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 2 of 41 Project Summary The City reviews applications for annexation and zone map amendments as they are submitted by the landowner. The landowner submitted an application to annex a single parcel and adjacent right of way for the future extensions of Kagy Boulevard and Laurel Parkway. Annexation of the road is required by state law. There is one existing home on the parcel. The property is located adjacent to the City boundary on the northeast corner of the property touching the Loyal Gardens subdivision. The application proposes a variety of zoning designations to accommodate different densities throughout the property. Zoning designations include R-1 (Residential Low Density), R-2 (Residential Moderate Density), R-3 (Residential Medium Density), and PLI (Public Lands and Institutions). This application does not authorize any construction. Prior to any further development of the site a subdivision or site plan review (or both) must be submitted, reviewed, and approved. The following public adopted planning documents support urban development for the subject area if development is proposed on the site: Bozeman Community Plan 2020 Gallatin County growth policy Gallatin County/Bozeman Area Plan – County neighborhood plan Transportation Master Plan 2017 – City transportation plan Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Master Plan 2007 – Gallatin County Transportation Plan Water Facility Plan 2017 – City’s plan for water system operations and expansion Wastewater Facility Plan 2015 – City’s plan for wastewater system operations and expansion Zoning Commission The Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on June 28, 2021 before making a recommendation on the proposed zoning. Zoning Commission Alternatives 1. Recommend denial of the zone map amendment application based on the Zoning Commission’s articulated findings of non-compliance with the applicable criteria contained within the staff report; or 2. Open and continue the public hearing on the application, with specific direction to staff or the applicant to supply additional information or to address specific items. 61 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 3 of 41 Public Comment As the publishing of tis report no public comment has been received. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 Unresolved Issues............................................................................................................... 1 Project Summary................................................................................................................. 2 Zoning Commission............................................................................................................ 2 Zoning Commission Alternatives....................................................................................... 2 Public Comment.................................................................................................................. 3 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES.................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 2 - RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES OF ZONE MAP AMENDMENT... 12 SECTION 3 – ADVISORY COMMENTS ............................................................................ 12 SECTION 4 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ...................................... 13 Annexation........................................................................................................................ 13 Zone Map Amendment..................................................................................................... 13 SECTION 5 - ZONE MAP AMENDMENT STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS........... 13 Spot Zoning Criteria ......................................................................................................... 31 PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS......................................................... 33 APPENDIX A - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT.................................................... 34 APPENDIX B - PROJECT GROWTH POLICY AND PROPOSED ZONING ................... 34 APPENDIX C - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF............................ 41 FISCAL EFFECTS................................................................................................................. 41 ATTACHMENTS................................................................................................................... 41 62 Page 4 of 41 SECTION 1 -MAP SERIES Project Vicinity City Wide Map (2018 air photo) LEGEND: Subject Area 63 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 5 of 41 Project Vicinity Area Map (2018 air photo) 64 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 6 of 41 Project Vicinity Map Showing the Bozeman Community Plan 2020 Future Land Use Map – Subject property is designated as Urban Neighborhood 65 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 7 of 41 Project City Wide Map Showing Municipal Zoning 66 Page 8 of 41 Project Vicinity Map Showing the Bozeman Community Plan 2020 Future Land Use Map – Subject property is designated as Urban Neighborhood 67 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 9 of 41 Project Vicinity Map Showing Near Vicinity Municipal Zoning 68 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 10 of 41 Project Vicinity Map Showing Adjacent County and Municipal Zoning. Zoning district established by Gallatin County within the GallatinCounty/Bozeman Area Zonng District: Light grn. = AS (Agricultural Subusrban) Peach = RS (Residnetial Suburban) Blue = RX-HD (Residential Existing High-Density) 69 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 11 of 41 Proposed Zoning 70 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 12 of 41 SECTION 2 - RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES OF ZONE MAP AMENDMENT Please note that these contingencies are necessary for the City to complete the process of the proposed amendment. These contingencies only apply in the event that the related annexation request has previously been approved. Recommended Contingencies of Approval: 1. The Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment must not be approved until the Annexation Agreement is signed by the applicant and formally approved by the City Commission. If the Annexation Agreement is not approved, the Zone Map Amendment application is null and void. 2. All documents and exhibits necessary to establish an initial municipal zoning designation must be identified as the “Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment”. 3. The applicant must submit a zone amendment map, titled "Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment." The map must be supplied as a PDF. This map must be acceptable to the City Engineer's Office and must be submitted within 60 days of the action to approve the zone map amendment. Said map shall contain a metes and bounds legal description of the perimeter of the subject property including adjacent rights-of-way or street easements, and total acreage of the property to be rezoned; unless the property to be rezoned can be entirely described by reference to existing platted properties or certificates of survey. 4. The Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant provides an editable metes and bounds legal description prepared by a licensed Montana surveyor. SECTION 3 – ADVISORY COMMENTS 1. Future Impact Fees -Please note that future building permit applications will require payment of the required transportation, water, sewer and fire impact fees according to the City of Bozeman adopted impact fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. If you desire an estimate of the required impact fees according to current rates please contact the Department of Community Development and/or visit www.bozeman.net. 2. Upon future development of the parcel, the transfer of water rights or the payment of cash-in-lieu (CIL) of water rights must be provided per Bozeman Municipal Code 38.23.180. 3. Secondary access is required with development. Staff strongly encourages to provide documentation and, preferably, recorded easements showing full ingress, egress, and utilities through any private property being utilized for this purpose and connecting to Staffanson Road. The Annexation Goals and Policies set forth in Resolution No. 71 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 13 of 41 5076 are strongly contingent on meeting ingress and egress and providing full City services to the entire site. SECTION 4 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS Annexation The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the amendment. The DRC did not identify any infrastructure or regulatory constraints after installation of sewer, water, street infrastructure that would impede the approval of the application. The City Commission will hold a public meeting on the annexation on July 27, 2021. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. The meeting will conducted through WebEx. Instructions on joining the meeting will be included on the meeting agenda. Zone Map Amendment Having considered the criteria established for a zone map amendment, the Staff finds the application meets criteria for approval as submitted. The Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment (ZMA) is in conjunction with an annexation request. Staff’s recommendation and staff responses are predicated on approval of the annexation, application 20365. The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the amendment. The DRC did not identify any infrastructure or regulatory constraints that would impede the approval of the application. The Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on this ZMA on June 28, 2021 and will forward a recommendation to the Commission on the Zone Map amendment. The City Commission will hold a public hearing on the zone map amendment on July 27, 2021. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. The meeting will conducted through WebEx. Instructions on joining the meeting will be included on the meeting agenda. SECTION 5 - ZONE MAP AMENDMENT STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS In considering applications for approval under this title, the advisory boards and City Commission must consider the following criteria (letters A-K). As an amendment is a legislative action, the Commission has discretion to determine a policy direction. The burden of proof that the application should be approved lies with the Applicant. See the application materials for the Applicant’s response to the criteria. A zone map amendment must be in accordance with the growth policy (criteria A) and be designed to secure safety from fire and other dangers (criteria B), promote public health, public safety, and general welfare (criteria C), and facilitate the provision of transportation, water, 72 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 14 of 41 sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements (criteria D). Therefore, to approve a zone map amendment the Commission must find Criteria A-D are met. In addition, the Commission must also consider criteria E-K, and may find the zone map amendment to be positive, neutral, or negative with regards to these criteria. To approve the zone map amendment, the Commission must find the positive outcomes of the amendment outweigh negative outcomes for criteria E-K. In determining whether the criteria are met, Staff considers the entire body of regulations for land development. Standards which prevent or mitigated negative impacts are incorporated throughout the entire municipal code but are principally in Chapter 38, Unified Development Code. Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria A. Be in accordance with a growth policy. Yes. The application was initially submitted on December, 2020. Revised application materials were submitted refining the requested zoning map. Information was submitted on December 9, 2020, February 3, 2021, and June 5, 2021. The revisions were the result of comments received from the City on a subdivision pre-application review and related infrastructure planning documentation. The BCP 2020, Chapter 5, p. 73, in the section titled Review Criteria for Zoning Amendments andTheir Application, discusses how the various criteria in 76-2-304 MCA are applied locally. Application of the criteria varies depending on whether an amendment is for the zoning map or for the text of Chapter 38, BMC. The first criterion for a zoning amendment is accordance with a growth policy. Future Land Use Map The proposed amendment is a change to the zoning map. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze compliance with the future land use map. Chapter 3 of the BCP 2020 addresses the future land use map. The introduction to that chapter discusses the importance of the chapter. Following are some excerpts. “Future land use is the community’s fundamental building block. It is an illustration of the City’s desired outcome to accommodate the complex and diverse needs of its residents.” “The land use map sets generalized expectations for what goes where in the community. Each category has its own descriptions. Understanding the future land use map is not possible without understanding the category descriptions.” The area of this application has been included as an urban expansion area in the City’s adopted land use plan since 2001. As shown on the maps in Section 1, on the excerpt of the current future land use map, the property is designated as Urban Neighborhood. The adjacent unannexed property is designated Urban Neighborhood and Maker Space Mixed Use. 73 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 15 of 41 The Urban Neighborhood designation description reads: “This category primarily includes urban density homes in a variety of types, shapes, sizes, and intensities. Large areas of any single type of housing are discouraged. In limited instances, an area may develop at a lower gross density due to site constraints and/or natural features such as floodplains or steep slopes. Complementary uses such as parks, home-based occupations, fire stations, churches, schools, and some neighborhood-serving commerce provide activity centers for community gathering and services. The Urban Neighborhood designation indicates that development is expected to occur within municipal boundaries. This may require annexation prior to development. Applying a zoning district to specific parcels sets the required and allowed density. Higher density residential areas are encouraged to be, but are not required or restricted to, proximity to commercial mixed use areas to facilitate the provision of services and employment opportunities without requiring the use of a car.” The Maker Space Mixed Use description reads: “This classification provides areas for dynamic mixed uses including technology industries, manufacturing, research and development, offices, and supportive uses to provide employment and services to the community. Opportunity for live/work may be provided or housing elements integrated on upper floors of mixed use buildings. Careful consideration is given to public policies supporting compatibility to enable mixed uses to coexist in harmony. Development within these areas is often intensive and the area is connected to significant transportation corridors. Although use in these areas may be intense, they are part of the larger community and standards for architecture and site design apply.” The correlation between the future land use map of the growth policy and the zoning districts is presented in Table 4 of the Bozeman Community Plan 2020. As shown in the following excerpt from Table 4, R-1, R-2, R-3, and PLI districts are implementing district of the Urban Neighborhood category. 74 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 16 of 41 75 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 17 of 41 The future land use map excerpt included in Section 1 shows locations for light manufacturing development to the north described as Maker Pace Mixed Use. The area is south of Huffine Lane extending to the northern edge of the subject property. Goals and Policies A zoning amendment is also evaluated against the goals and policies of the BCP 2020. Most of the goals and policies are not applicable to this application. Relevant goals and objectives have been identified by staff. Conflict with the text of the growth policy hasn’t been identified. The Short Term Action list on page 63 of the BCP 2020 describes 14 items to implement the growth policy. The first two relate to direct changes to the zoning map in support of listed goals and objectives. These include increasing the intensity of zoning districts in already developed areas. Beginning on page 71 of the BCP 2020 in the section titled Zoning Amendment Review, the document discusses how the City implements zoning for new areas, amendments to areas, and revisions to existing text. This section includes a discussion of when the City may initiate a zoning change to a more intensive district to increase development opportunities. This section demonstrates that the City, as a matter of policy, is supportive of more intensive zoning districts and development, even within already developed areas. It is inconsistent with this approach to zone at annexation for lower intensities than what infrastructure and planning documents will support. This policy approach does not specify any individual district but does lean towards the more intensive portion of the zoning district spectrum. “Goal N-3: Promote a diverse supply of quality housing units.” The R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts allows construction of a range of residential buildings in the City. However, on the range of residential districts the City allows, these fall in the less intensive residential zoning districts compare to R-4 and R-4 zoning districts. Permitted structures include detached single households through five attached rowhouse or townhouses in the R-3 district. Apartments, defined as five or more horizontally confirmed structures, are not permitted in any of the prosed districts. Never-the-less, this supports the opportunity for diversity of supply. Quality of housing cannot be assessed at this time but will be reviewed with subsequent development review for compliance with adopted standards. The City’s Community Housing Needs Assessment documented a shortage of housing within the City and encourages additional housing construction. “Goal DCD-1: Support urban development within the City.” The proposed zoning is occurring in conjunction with an annexation. Any future development will be required to occur at urban densities and will be within the City. If the City Commission declines the annexation then the requested zoning will not occur. 76 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 18 of 41 “DCD-2.2 Support higher density development along main corridors and at high visibility street corners to accommodate population growth and support businesses.” Kagy Boulevard is a planned arterial street and Laurel Parkway is a planned collector street as shown in the last three long range transportation plans including the current Transportation Master Plan adopted in 2017. Arterial streets are the most intensive category of streets while collectors provide equal priority to the movement of traffic and access to residential, business, and industrial areas. Kagy Boulevard is planned to extend past Cottonwood to Gooch Hill Road and beyond in the future. This street will develop to be a main corridor. Luarel Parkway will develop and a main north/south connection for the west side of town. Therefore, development with access to Kagy Boulevard and Laurel Parkway is consistent with this objective. Evaluation of the degree of required road improvements will occur with formal development review. “RC-3.2 Work with Gallatin County to keep rural areas rural and maintain a clear edge to urban development that evolves as the City expands outwards.” Gallatin County adopted the Gallatin County/Bozeman Area Plan (GCBA Plan), a neighborhood plan under their growth policy, to identify County priorities for this area of the county. Implementing zoning was updated for the new neighborhood plan and is now in place. “The purposes of the [County] Growth Policy and the 2005 Bozeman Area Plan are to provide comprehensive, long-range guidance relative to the growth and development…” The GCBA Plan recognizes the area is in transition. On page 1 of the GCBA Plan it says, “It is not the intent of this Plan to prematurely discourage existing agricultural operations; rather it is the intent to accommodate the needs of present agriculture while recognizing an inevitable transition to a more urban landscape.” The GCBA Plan future land use map designates this property and the surrounding unannexed area as Moderate-intensity development. This is described as “Development of additional medium-density residential, conservation subdivisions, neighborhood commercial, office, and public uses. Development of additional appropriate high-density residential, community commercial, office park, and public uses.” The proposed R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones provides for uses consistent with this description. The GCBA Plan includes various goals and policies. Several are provided here as examples of the correlation between RC-3.2, the GCBA Plan, and the application under review. “GOAL 1: Encourage Residential Development. Residential development at appropriate densities is generally encouraged within the Plan area. The identification of areas suitable for near-term residential development is a location-specific goal. Medium to high-density development, or urban-scale development, is encouraged to annex to the City of Bozeman. It is recognized that the County is ill equipped to deal with urban-scale development which would be better managed through provision of municipal services.” 77 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 19 of 41 Policy “4. Promote residential development adjacent to existing developed land and infill development, and that does not foster sprawl development or development which is located far from services. • Support development within or adjacent to existing developed areas, including infill development. • Promote development that is compact and makes efficient use of land. • Encourage development within close proximity to city limits to pursue annexation opportunities with City of Bozeman.” Gallatin County has zoned the adjacent area as AS, Agricultural Suburban and RS, Residential Suburban. The AS designation supports continued agriculture and very low density residential development while RS supports low density large lot residential development. Both AS and RS districts are very low density in an urban context designed to keep the rural areas as rural until such time as municipal services can be made available and annexation and development are achievable. Thus, the BCP 2020 objective is met. “RC-3.3 Prioritize annexations that enable the incremental expansion of the City and its utilities.” The zone map amendment is proposed in association with an annexation. The area to be annexed is adjacent to the City boundary. It does create a 40 acre peninsula with county property on four sides at this time. It is expected that additional annexations in the future will make the City boundary more regular. The property is located within the service area of the municipal utilities and can be served with existing mains and incremental extensions. While the City would welcome simultaneous annexation of the properties to the north and south as well as the applicant’s property, a single, albeit rather large at 20-acres, parcel annexation is the application that has been submitted. “RC-3.4 Encourage annexation of land adjacent to the City prior to development and encourage annexation of wholly surrounded areas.” The property is adjacent to the City and does not create any new unannexed areas surrounded by City limits. The property is seeking annexation and municipal zoning for the purpose of residential development. Annexation is happening before development. The application is in accordance with the growth policy. B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers. Yes. The application of the development standards of the City will provide for safe construction, fire protection water supply through water main extensions, and police response will be provided after annexation. The 2017 Fire Master Plan of the City evaluated ability to serve this area as the City builds out its fire response facilities. The City’s development 78 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 20 of 41 standards will require adequate emergency response access, addressing for rapid response, and the site is outside of any known flood hazards. C.Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare. Yes. See comments in Criteria B and D. City development standards included in Chapter 38, Unified Development Code, building codes, and engineering standards all ensure that this criterion is met. Adequate water and sewer supply and conveyance provide for public health through clean water. Rapid and effective emergency response provides for public safety. General welfare has been evaluated during the adoption of Chapter 38 and found to be advanced. Provision of parks, control of storm water, and other features of the City’s development standards advance the general welfare. D.Facilitate the provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements. Yes. The BCP 2020, page 74, says regarding evaluation of Criteria B-D for zoning amendments: “For a map amendment, all three of the above elements are addressed primarily by the City’s long range facility Plans, the City’s capital improvements program, and development standards adopted by the City. The standards set minimum sizing and flow requirements, require dedication of parks, provision of right of way for people and vehicles, keep development out of floodplains, and other items to address public safety, etc. It is often difficult to assess these issues in detail on a specific site. For example, at the time of annexation, the final intensity of development is unknown and it may be many years before development occurs and the impacts are experienced. The availability of other planning and development review tools must be considered when deciding the degree of assurance needed to apply an initial zoning at annexation.” The City conducts extensive planning for municipal transportation, water, sewer, parks, and other facilities and services provided by the City. The adopted plans allow the City to consider existing conditions and identify enhancements needed to provide additional service needed by new development. The City implements these plans through its capital improvements program that identifies individual projects, project construction scheduling, and financing of construction. Private development must demonstrate compliance with standards. Dedication of school facilities is not required by municipal zoning standards. However, School District 7 will have opportunity to review and comment on future development. The application site is located within the City’s land use, transportation, parks, and utility planning areas and those plans show this property as developing within the City when development is proposed. Adequacy of all these public requirements is evaluated during the 79 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 21 of 41 subdivision and site development process. As stated in 38.300.020.C, the designation of a zoning district does not guarantee approval of new development until the City verifies the availability of needed infrastructure. All zoning districts in Bozeman enable a wide range of uses and intensities. At time of future subdivision or site plan review the need for individual services can be more precisely determined. No subdivision or site plan is approved without demonstration of adequate capacity. 38.300.020.C, “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 development of the area will require dedication and construction of streets, provision of parks, extension of water and sewer services, and placement of easements for telecommunication, electricity and similar dry utilities. As noted in Criterion A, the Kagy Boulevard and Laurel Parkway alignments have been designated in multiple City and joint City/County transportation plans as an arterial/collector streets. Although sections are not constructed, Laurel Parkway is a substantial north-south link in the long range transportation network with a long term width of 90 feet planned for the right of way. Similarly, Kagy Boulevard is a primary east/west corridor. With or without this proposed zoning amendment the street will change to an urban paved street. Development of any urban zoning or more intensive County zoning district will require changes to the street to the degree demonstrated as necessary during review of the development. As noted above, the placement of a zoning district does not grant entitlement to construct. The site is located within the Aajker Creek Drainage Basin. Water mains are located in Loyal Driveand crossing Cottonwood Road and can be extended to provide the required looped water service. Responsibility to make those connections lies with the developer. The site is isolated and will require full infrastructure installation to serve the site. Preliminary data suggests adequate capacity in water, sewer, and major transportation services to support the potential intensity of the R-1 through R-3 zones. Review of future development will further verify adequate capacity is present and all needed connections can be provided before any construction may begin. Division 38.420 and Section 38.520.060 require dedication of parks and on-site open spaces to meet needs of residents. The associated annexation will partially address required compliance with City standards. Dedication of right of way for arterial and collector streets is part of the annexation process as is agreement to follow the City’s development standards. With future development proposals, the applicant must demonstrate not just possible but actual street networks and utility 80 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 22 of 41 connections existing or to be constructed to support the intensity of development proposed. See also Criterion F regarding transportation. The criterion is met. E.Reasonable provision of adequate light and air. Yes. This criterion is not about individual preferences for a given degree of “elbow room” but about preservation of public health. The R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts includes setbacks from property lines adequate to meet this standard. The form and intensity standards, Division 38.320, require minimum separation from property lines, limits building heights, limits lot coverage with buildings, and maximum volume of buildings on a site. Section 38.520.030 requires building placement to ensure access to light and air. Division 38.420 and Section 38.520.060 require dedication of parks and on-site open spaces to meet needs of residents. The standards provide a reasonable provision of adequate light and air. In addition to the zoning standards, adopted building codes contain more detailed requirements for air circulation, window placement, and building separation that further ensure the intent of this criterion is satisfied. F.The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems. Not met. All development permitted under the R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts (or any other municipal zoning district) will result in increased trips along streets, sidewalks, and trails compared to the existing condition of one home on the 40 acre project site. The recommended terms of annexation and City’s development approval processes, for example requirements for easements, the waiver of the right to protect special improvement districts related to transportation, and construction of future roads are expected to sufficiently address impacted transportation systems as a result of the map amendment. The City conducts routine transportation monitoring, modeling, and planning to understand existing conditions and future needs of the transportation system. The 2017 Transportation Master Plan is the most recent transportation plan. Figure 2.5, Existing Major Street Network, shows Kagy Boulevard as an arterial street and Laurel Parkway as collectors. The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2007 Update, Gallatin County’s adopted transportation plan for this same area, shows the same street classifications on Figure 9.2. These streets will provide the primary collector and arterial access to the site over time. Local streets will link the larger arterial and collectors. Further capacity expansion to the transportation network, such as upgrading the condition of Stucky Road will mitigate impact on the larger transportation network. Not all of these expansions will be the responsibility of individual projects. Stucky Road is currently a rural standard paved road. Development of the site will require development of additional street capacity. Exact routing and character of the improvements is not known at this time. They will be identified during development review when a specific construction proposal is made and impacts can be more accurately identified. Anticipated street capacity for various classes of 81 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 23 of 41 streets is shown in Table 2.7 of the Transportation Master Plan and discussed in Section 2.4.1 of the same document. As there are no existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities along this section of Cottonwood or Stucky Lane and Huffine does not lend itself as a pedestrian or bicycle friendly route. Although future development of this property provides opportunity to expand the pedestrian network through installation of sidewalks connecting to the existing, and limited in this area, transportation network, there are very few alternative transportation options other the a vehicle. The distal location of the property ensures nearly all traffic will be in the form vehicular form. The nearest service at the intersection of Huffine Lane and Cottonwoods are auto orientated destinations. According to the Walk Score® 3849 Staffanson Road has a Walk Score of 0, no bus service, and only minimal bike infrastructure. Although the City will require complete streets within the development upon further development the surrounding area has limited transportation network. Limited transportation network will shunt all traffic to two intersections; Cottonwood and Huffine and Cottonwood and Stucky. Neither intersection provides full multi-modal transportation support. The City has established minimum standards applicable to development to limit block length, ensure trail and sidewalk connections, and provide streets adequate to carry traffic projected from development. These standards are not applied at the time of the ZMA but will be implemented during the subdivision and site plan processes required before any construction may begin. See also Criterion D. On page 74-75 of the BCP 2020 in the discussion of application of the zoning criteria it says: “Development creates or funds many of the City’s local streets, intersection upgrades, and trails. Therefore, although a text or map amendment may allow more intense development than before, compliance with the adopted Plans and standards will provide adequate capacity to offset that increase.” As the zoning designation itself does not change traffic flow or transportation demand, and the compliance of future development with adopted standards will offset impacts from development, Staff finds this criterion is not met. G.Promotion of compatible urban growth. Yes. Individuals may have widely varying opinions about what constitutes compatibility. Compatible development and Compatible land use are defined in Article 38.7 BMCto establish a common reference for consideration of this criterion and application of development standards. They are defined as: “Compatible development. The use of land and the construction and use of structures which is in harmony with adjoining development, existing neighborhoods, and the goals and objectives of the city's adopted growth policy. Elements of compatible development 82 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 24 of 41 include, but are not limited to, variety of architectural design; rhythm of architectural elements; scale; intensity; materials; building siting; lot and building size; hours of operation; and integration with existing community systems including water and sewer services, natural elements in the area, motorized and non-motorized transportation, and open spaces and parks. Compatible development does not require uniformity or monotony of architectural or site design, density or use. Compatible land use. A land use which may by virtue of the characteristics of its discernible outward effects exist in harmony with an adjoining land use of differing character. Effects often measured to determine compatibility include, but are not limited to, noise, odor, light and the presence of physical hazards such as combustible or explosive materials.” As noted in the definition of Compatible development, there are many elements that contributed to compatibility. The final sentence of the definition deserves emphasis “Compatible development does not require uniformity or monotony of architectural or site design, density or use.” Compatible development can be different than what is already in place. The City has adopted a variety of standards to implement compatibility. The proposed R-1, R-2, R-3, and PLI districts are predominantly residential districts. The allowed uses for residential districts are set in 38.310.030. Please refer to Appendix B for a list of permitted residential uses in these districts. Table 38.310.030.A - Permitted general and group residential uses in residential zoning districts and Table 38.310.030.B – Permitted accessory and non-residential uses in residential zoning districts show these districts retain compatibility with the primarily residential uses in the zoning district. The form and intensity standards for residential districts are in section 38.320.030. There is a progression of intensity between these districts to support more intense development. The proposed amendment is associated with an annexation creating an incremental increase in the size of the City. As discussed in Criterion A above, both the City’s and County’s growth policy expect this area to transition from rural to urban development. The unannexed areas adjacent to this property are agricultural or detached homes on an individual large lot in conformance with the Gallatin County AS and RS zoning. There is considerable difference in the intensity of development allowed between the AS and R-1 through R-3. The primary uses are residential in the City and residential and agricultural in the AS district. Residential uses are planned for the entire area as described in Criterion A. Therefore, the uses are expected to be compatible. Compatible land uses, as defined above, are those that can exist in harmony and do not cause physical hazards. They do not have to be identical or similar in size or scale to be compatible. Examples of development standards applied to future development to support compatibility are constraint and treatment of 83 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 25 of 41 stormwater runoff and lighting required to be dark sky compliant and not trespass on adjacent property. The City Commission has adopted standards to control development impacts and support compatibility. The following excerpt from the BCP 2020, page 75 describes the City’s approach. “What combination of uses under what conditions can work well together? There is a wide range of possible answers for each community to consider. Some communities take a highly prescriptive worst-case view and try to restrain all possible points of perceived conflict. This tends to create a very homogenous community with little interest or scope for creativity. Bozeman takes a different approach. The worst case scenario is recognized as unlikely, but possible. Development standards deal with the majority of cases, while restraining extraordinary problems. The City creates standards under items 1 through 3; when one district is adjacent to another and is consistent with the growth policy, any physical conflicts will be minimal, if present at all. The City’s zoning policy encourages continued development of mixed uses. … The City uses the broad scope of its development standards to enable differing uses to be successful near each other. This shows on the zoning map where districts providing a wide diversity of uses are intermixed.” Staff concludes that although the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones are different than the surrounding zoning it is compatible and is urban growth as called for in the growth policy. See also discussion for Criteria A & H. H.Character of the district. Yes. Section 76-2-302, MCA says “…legislative body may divide the municipality into districts of the number, shape, and area as are considered best suited to carry out the purposes [promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community] of this part.” Emphasis added. This proposal amends the zoning map and not the text. Therefore, no element of this amendment modifies the standards of any zoning district. The character of the districts as created by those standards remains unaltered. Even though the criterion is most applicable to text amendments it still must be applied to consideration of zoning map amendments. As noted above, the City Commission has discretion within the limits of the State established criteria in considering the location and geographical extents of a zoning district. Implementation of zoning must also be in accordance with the adopted growth policy.As noted in Criterion A the City policy calls for a diverse land use pattern. See discussion in Criterion A. Application of any municipal zoning district to the subject property and subsequent development will alter the existing character of the subject property;which is a rural individual home with accessory buildings. Likewise, development under any municipal zoning district 84 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 26 of 41 will be visually different from adjacent unannexed property. This is true even if both are used for similar types of housing due to the differences between municipal and county zoning. It is not expected that zoning freeze the character of an area in perpetuity. Rather, it provides a structured method to consider changes to the character. The BCP 2020 notes, “…when considering an amendment to the zoning map both the actual and possible built environment are evaluated. If the amendment is accompanying an annexation request there is often a substantial change in use that will occur. In this case, the Commission must look at what the growth policy recommends for the area, as there is less built context to provide guidance.” See Criterion A above for discussion about the application and growth policy. The City has defined compatible development as: “The use of land and the construction and use of structures which is in harmony with adjoining development, existing neighborhoods, and the goals and objectives of the city's adopted growth policy. Elements of compatible development include, but are not limited to, variety of architectural design; rhythm of architectural elements; scale; intensity; materials; building siting; lot and building size; hours of operation; and integration with existing community systems including water and sewer services, natural elements in the area, motorized and non-motorized transportation, and open spaces and parks. Compatible development does not require uniformity or monotony of architectural or site design, density or use.” As noted above, the City Commission has latitude in considering the geographical extents of a zoning district. To date, the City of Bozeman has not defined a specific area outside of the area itself to be rezoned for consideration of this criterion. A review of the existing uses within a quarter mile radius of the amendment site shows five zoning districts. Two, R-1 and R-2, are municipal district and allow a variety of housing types including detached homes, townhomes, andother forms of attached homes. The second, A-S and RS, are county zoning district focused on low density residential and preservation of agricultural operation until it transitions to urban development. See discussion under Criterion A above. Active uses within a quarter mile include a park, detached individual homes, and agricultural fields. This is a small selection of the potential uses allowed in the existing zoning districts. The majority of the area within a quarter mile is undeveloped and remains as fields. In the developed areas, zoned as R-1 and R-2, single household residences are the most commonly constructed buildings in the Loyal Garden subdivision. Looking at a broader area as shown in the maps in Section 1, all of the municipally zoned areas north and east of the subject property are within the Loyal Garden subdivision and are zoned similarly in intensity. This is consistent with the City’s previous and current growth policy and infrastructure planning. The character of the larger area is in process of change with multiple 85 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 27 of 41 large developments now under construction or in review. This is illustrated by this excerpt from the Community Development Viewer. All colored or striped shaded areas are in some stage of review and development. This application is the gold/brownshaded squarein the lower left of the image. The majority of the area adjacent to the site is agricultural and low density residential. Loyal Garden subdivision is to the northeast and the Cottonwood apartment’s project (in review) is to the east of Cottonwood Road creating a transition from rural to urban, as described in Criterion A. Therefore, the character is not fully defined, and is suitable to add additional uses. The City, as shown by an examination of the zoning map and authorized uses in all zoning districts, has striven to encourage a diverse development pattern and avoid large areas of single use development. This is further supported by the statement in the description of the Urban Neighborhood future land use category, “Large areas of any single type of housing are discouraged.” No size is specified for what is a large area. Therefore, when considering the character of an area it is expected that there will be diversity of development types. This diversity is also shown on the zoning maps in Section 1. Table 4 of the BCP 2020, see Criterion A above, identifies the implementing zoning districts of the Urban Neighborhood future land use category. That category allows for zoning districts that authorize a wide range of possible future development. There are no zoning districts which 86 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 28 of 41 are limited to only one type of development. All zoning districts implementing the Urban Neighborhood category provide for a range of housing types, institutions, and commercial activities. The expansiveness and intensity allowed varies between districts. The proposed R- 1 through R-3 and the supportive PLI has the potential for limited subordinate commercial services on the site but does not require them. Page 77 of the BCP 2020 describing review of zoning map amendments states “When evaluating compliance with criteria, it is appropriate to consider all the options allowed by the requested district and not only what the present applicant describes as their intensions.” When evaluating compatibility between zoning districts, Staff considers the full range of allowable uses, not only what is built at the moment or proposed by a specific project. As discussed under Criterion G, the proposed zoning and the adjacent R-1 and R-2 zoning district are both residential in nature and are identical in uses and standards. The present development under R-1 and R-2 near to the requested amendment is developed at the low end of the allowed intensity for these zoning districts. A decision by one owner to use less than the full allowance for development does not limit or restrict another owner from choosing differently. There is a public park kitty-corner on the northeast corner of the property platted to meet park requirements for the Loyal Gardens subdivision. Additional parkland will be required upon development of subject property. The schematic development plan shows parkland near and around Farmers canal. The water conveyance facility provides a substantial separation from the proposed development and the existing Loyal Gardens development. There is a much larger difference between the proposed development and the existing “ranchette” subdivision to the east with the unannexed County RS properties. Although the land of both areas is the same the construction of roads to modern standards from the existing gravel surface and associated traffic increase may be the most significant character change caused by the development. However, as described on page 77 of the BCP 2020, a local street is considered an adequate separation between uses when combined with the City’s development standards even for substantially different districts. Therefore, for properties to the west, north, and east the character of the district is adequately addressed. The greatest difference in character is between the R-3 and the AS zoned property to the west. The property to the west is sited on the property line where the extension of Laurel Parkway is expected to be located according to the Transportation Master Plan adopted in 2017. The associated annexation requires ROW for the anticipated Laurel Parkway but no street is currently constructed between the properties. No time frame for this transition is specified. The change will not occur until the property owner chooses to develop the property. In the meantime, there is a difference between the intensity of development on the two properties even though both are zoning districts with primarily residential uses. Should a street or similar separator be placed along the western boundary of the property being rezoned that will have the same separating/buffering effect as for the properties to the east and north discussed above. 87 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 29 of 41 Evaluation of this situation is guided by the growth policy. On page 76 of the BCP 2020 under discussion of application of this zoning criteria is says: “Second, when considering an amendment to the zoning map both the actual and possible built environment are evaluated. If the amendment is accompanying an annexation requestthere is often a substantial change in use that will occur. In this case, the Commission must look at what the growth policy recommends for the area, as there is less built context to provide guidance.” The City has adopted many standards to identify and avoid or mitigate demonstrable negative impacts of development. These will support the ability of future development in R-1 through R-3 to be compatible with adjacent development and uphold the residential character in an area where city zoning is applied. The following excerpt from the BCP 2020, page 75 describes the City’s approach. “What combination of uses under what conditions can work well together? There is a wide range of possible answers for each community to consider. Some communities take a highly prescriptive worst-case view and try to restrain all possible points of perceived conflict. This tends to create a very homogenous community with little interest or scope for creativity. Bozeman takes a different approach. The worst case scenario is recognized as unlikely, but possible. Development standards deal with the majority of cases, while restraining extraordinary problems. The City creates standards under items 1 through 3; when one district is adjacent to another and is consistent with thegrowth policy, any physical conflicts will beminimal, if present at all. The City’s zoning policy encourages continued development of mixed uses. … The City uses the broad scope of its development standards to enable differing uses to be successful near each other. This shows on the zoning map where districts providing a wide diversity of uses are intermixed.” The standards adopted by the City prevent physically dangerous spillover effects. An example is the capture, treatment and discharge controls from additional stormwater runoff as additional impervious surfaces are built. Required setbacks from property lines, landscaping requirements, and similar site and building standards address character and compatibility. These and other standards carry out the intent and purpose of the City’s land development standards in Chapter 38 of the municipal code. Sec. 38.100.040. - Intent and purpose of chapter. A. The intent of this unified development chapter is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; to recognize and balance the various rights and responsibilities relating to land ownership, use, and development identified in the United States and State of Montana constitutions, and statutory and common law; to implement the city's adopted growth policy; and to meet the requirements of state law. 88 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 30 of 41 Zoning does not prohibit change but provides a structure within which change can occur. Such changes include modifications to both the text and zoning map. Such amendments are authorized in the zoning enabling act for municipalities. Landowners have both property rights and responsibilities. The City has adopted development standards to ensure that responsibilities are met while landowners exercise their property rights. The City has not chosen, and is not required, to adopt standards for all situations and issues, for example, addressing preservation of view sheds or extra separation of buildings from unannexed property. Theme 7 of the BCP 2020 includes this statement: “RC-3.2 Work with Gallatin County to keep rural areas rural and maintain a clear edge to urban development that evolves as the City expands outwards.” This objective describes the situation now under review. The City is expanding outwards by annexation. Gallatin County has identified this area as a growth area in its land use planning documents. There will be a distinct edge between the AS and RS zones and the proposed R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts with different intensity of residential uses. Staff concludes that although the proposed city zoning is different than the surrounding zoning it is compatible and is urban growth as called for in the growth policy. See also discussion for Criteria A & G. I. Peculiar suitability for particular uses. Neutral. The proposed amendment does not modify the existing standards of the R-1, R-2, or R-3 districts. Therefore the impact of the amendment is limited to this application site. The property is generally flat. A agricultural water user facility crosses the property from west to east. Groundwater in the area is shallow and potentially at hazard from onsite sewage treatment. The property is within the City’s planning area for land use and utility extensions. There is no street frontage at this time. Municipal utilities and emergency services can be extended to the area with infrastructure construction. The site is capable of supporting a more intensive district in the range of zoning districts. These features are not unusual for properties adjacent to the City. The described features support annexation and development within the City. There are not sufficient distinctive characteristics of the property to make a positive or negative findings for this criteria specific to an individual zoning district. J. Conserving the value of buildings. Yes. The proposed amendment does not modify the existing standards of the R-1, R-2 or R-3 districts. Therefore the impact of the amendment is limited to this application site and not other zoned properties. The propertyhas one detached home. The proposed zoning districts will have no negative effect on the value of buildings within the amendment boundary. As discussed under Criterion H, property to the west, north, south, and east has or will have separation from future development on the site. As discussed under Criterion A, G, and H, placement of these zoning districts is consistent with the planned use and long term character of the area. 89 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 31 of 41 Any new structures at the site will be required to meet setback and other protective requirements set forth in the Bozeman Municipal Code, which will alleviate potential negative impacts to the value of surrounding buildings and properties. As described in earlier criteria, the proposed zoning is compatible with existing buildings on adjacent properties and does not create any new situations not in compliance with municipal code. Therefore, this criterion is met. K.Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. Yes. As discussed in Criteria A above, this property has been planned for urban residential uses for many years. The proposed zoning districts are primarily residential district. The property is adjacent to the City, within the municipal services area, and can be annexed. The property is in an area of high groundwater where septic systems are a possible hazard to groundwater. Spot Zoning Criteria Rezoning may, in certain factual circumstances, constitute impermissible “spot zoning.” The issue of whether a rezoning constitutes spot zoning was discussed by the Montana Supreme Court in Plains Grains LP v. Board of County Comm’rs of Cascade County and Little v. Bd. Of County Comm’rs, in which the Court determined that the presence of the following three conditions generally will indicate that a given situation constitutes spot zoning, regardless of variations in factual scenarios. 1.Is the proposed use significantly different from the prevailing land uses in the area? No. This criterion includes the modifier ‘significantly.’ It is not prohibited to have uses that are different. To be a Yes answer, the reviewer must demonstrate a ‘significant difference.’ When evaluating this criterion the entire range of uses authorized in a district is evaluated, not just what has been built. The R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts are primarily for homes as established in 38.310.030. The shape and configuration of homes may vary but remain homes. As discussed in several criteria above, the surrounding area is already developed or planned for urban residential development. A review of Table 38.310.030.A - Permitted general and group residential uses in residential zoning districts, shows there are no differences between the adjacent municipal zoned areas because there are the same zoning districts. Comparing county RS and AS reveal only one difference, the AS zone allows commercial agricultural uses where the RS and city zoning districts are more restrictive for these uses. Similarly, a review of Table 38.310.030.B – Permitted accessory and non-residential uses in residential zoning districts are also the same. Such a high degree of similarity does not support a finding of “significantly different.” 90 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 32 of 41 Bozeman has deliberately developed a zoning system that includes districts with diverse uses and opportunities. The City deliberately chooses to encourage diverse development and avoid large areas of the same zoning. As noted in Criterion A, this diversityof development approach is supported in the growth policy. As shown in the large scale vicinity map in Section 1 of this report, R-1, R-2, and R-3 has been placed adjacent to other unannexed property and adjacent to the R-1 zoning districts. This is consistent with the legislative discretion authorized in 76- 2-302, MCA and cited in the discussion under Criterion H. As discussed in Criteria A, G, and H, the area proposed for zoning change is in a transitional area and changing over time from rural to urban. The implementing zoning districts for the Urban Neighborhood future land use category in the BCP 2020 allow both residential and non- residential uses. Some implementing zoning districts, such as B-1 are primarily business oriented. The R-1, R-2, and R-3 are residential districts. Future development of the site in compliance with the proposed R-1, R-2, and R-3 designation provides for predominantly residential development. As described in Criterion H and others above, the uses authorized in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 are similar to the urban land uses in the area. This criterion only looks at use. It does not consider similarity or difference in other standards related to development such as height, separation from property lines, etc. There are more differences between R-1, R-2, and R-3 and the AS zoned unannexed adjacent property. The prevailing, or most frequent, use measured by area adjacent to the subject property is agriculture. This is not surprising as this application is occurring in conjunction with annexation of property on the edge of the City. Any municipal zoning district will have differences from the rural zoning established by Gallatin County in this area. The annexation is an incremental expansion of the City, in an area planned by both Gallatin County and the City of Bozeman for such expansion, and the change in zoning is inherent with the growth of the City. Although there are differences between the rural and urban zoning at this time it is the intention of the zoning authority for the use of land to change as shown in the Criterion A analysis above. Therefore, staff finds that this criterion is not met. 2.Is the area requested for the rezone rather small in terms of the number of separate landowners benefited from the proposed change? Yes. The application is submitted by one landowner in conjunction with annexation of the single 40 acre property. Although the City supports multiparty annexation applications, landowner annexation of single properties are the most frequent annexations. As described in Criterion A above, the amendment advances the overall policies of the BCP 2020, the City’s adopted growth policy, and the growth policy and neighborhood plans for Gallatin County. As the application advances the growth policies there are benefits to the larger community from the amendment. Although there is generalized benefit to the community, the number of direct beneficiaries is small. 91 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 33 of 41 3.Would the change be in the nature of “special legislation” designed to benefit only one or a few landowners at the expense of the surrounding landowners or the general public? No. While the applicant/landowner will directly benefit from the proposed zone map amendment, the proposed amendment is not at the expense of surrounding landowners or the general public. As discussed above in the various review criteriaabove, no substantial negative impacts are identified due to this amendment. When looking at the City as a whole, Bozeman is in need of additional housing to meet increased demand for a variety of housing options. The proposed R-1, R-2, and R-3 would allow for more housing in a growing area of the City, which benefits the general public. Additional parks and transportation links will provide benefits to the community at large. As discussed in Criterion A, the application is consistent both the City’s and the County’s growth policy. The growth policy is the overall land use policy for the community. Consistency with the growth policy demonstrates benefit to the general public. As discussed under Criterion D, the City’s development standards will require the applicant to provide the needed infrastructure to support any proposed development prior to construction of homes. Concurrency and adequacy of infrastructure remove most potential injury to others. As discussed in Criterion H, the application is different but consistent with the existing and developing character of the area. Therefore, the amendment does not benefit the landowner at the expense of others. Development of the site in any manner will create additional demand for services and change the character of the site as a large lot single home. A change to an urban district does not inherently injure the surrounding landowners. PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS IN THE CASE OF WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST SUCH CHANGES SIGNED BY THE OWNERS OF 25% OR MORE OF 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. The City will accept written protests from property owners against the proposal described in this report until the close of the public hearing before the City Commission. Pursuant to 76-2-305, MCA, a protest may only be submitted by the owner(s) of real property within the area affected by the proposal or by owner(s) of real property that lie within 150 feet of an area affected by the proposal. The protest must be in writing and must be signed by all owners of the real property. In addition, a sufficient protest must: (i) contain a description of the action protested sufficient to identify the action against which the protest is lodged; and (ii) contain a statement of 92 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 34 of 41 the protestor's qualifications (including listing all owners of the property and the physical address), to protest the action against which the protest is lodged, including ownership of property affected by the action. Signers are encouraged to print their names after their signatures. A person may in writing withdraw a previously filed protest at any time prior to final action by the City Commission. Protests must be delivered to the Bozeman City Clerk, 121 North Rouse Ave., PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230. APPENDIX A - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT Notice was published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on June 13, 20, and July 4, 2021. The site was posted on site and notices mailed by the applicant as required by 38.220 and the required confirmation provided to the Planning Office. Notice was or will be provided at least 15 and not more than 45 days prior to any public hearing. As of the writing of this report on June 24, 2021, no public comment has been received. APPENDIX B - PROJECT GROWTH POLICY AND PROPOSED ZONING Adopted Growth Policy Designation: The property is designated as “Urban Neighborhood” in the Bozeman Community Plan 2020. 1. URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. This category primarily includes urban density homes in a variety of types, shapes, sizes, and intensities. Large areas of any single type of housing are discouraged. In limited instances, an area may develop at a lower gross density due to site constraints and/or natural features such as floodplains or steep slopes. Complementary uses such as parks, home-based occupations, fire stations, churches, schools, and some neighborhood-serving commerce provide activity centers for community gathering and services. The Urban Neighborhood designation indicates that development is expected to occur within municipal boundaries. This may require annexation prior to development. Applying a zoning district to specific parcels sets the required and allowed density. Higher density residential areas are encouraged to be, but are not required or restricted to, proximity to commercial mixed use areas to facilitate the provision of services and employment opportunities without requiring the use of a car. Proposed Zoning Designation and Land Uses: The applicant has requested zoning of four classifications including R-1 (Residential Low Density), R-2 (Residential Moderate Density), R-3 (Residential Medium Density), and PLI (Public Lands and Institutions) in association with the annexation of the property. 93 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 35 of 41 The intent of the R-1 District is set in 38.300.100: B.Residential low density district (R-1). The intent of the R-1 residential low density district is to provide for primarily single-household residential development and related uses within the city at urban densities. These purposes are accomplished by: 1. Providing for a minimum lot size in developed areas consistent with the established development patterns while providing greater flexibility for clustering lots and housing types in newly developed areas. 2. Providing for such community facilities and services as will serve the area's residents while respecting the residential character and quality of the area. The intent of the R-2 District is set in 38.300.100: C. Residential moderate density district (R-2).The intent of the R-2 residential moderate density district is to provide for one- and two-household residential development at urban densities within the city in areas that present few or no development constraints. These purposes are accomplished by: 1. Providing for minimum lot sizes in developed areas consistent with the established development patterns while providing greater flexibility for clustering lots and housing types in newly developed areas. 2. Providing for community facilities to serve such development while respecting the residential quality and nature of the area. Use of this zone is appropriate for areas with moderate access to parks, community services and/or transit. The intent of the R-3 District is set in 38.300.100: D. Residential medium density district (R-3). The intent of the R-3 residential medium density district is to provide for the development of one- to five-household residential structures near service facilities within the city. This purpose is accomplished by: 1. Providing for minimum lot sizes in developed areas consistent with the established development patterns while providing greater flexibility for clustering lots and mixing housing types in newly developed areas. 2. Providing for a variety of housing types, including single household dwellings, two to four household dwellings, and townhouses to serve the varied needs of households of different size, age and character, while reducing the adverse effect of non- residential uses. Use of this zone is appropriate for areas with good access to parks, community services and/or transit. 94 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 36 of 41 The intent of the PLI District is set in 38.300.130: The intent of the PLI public lands and institutions district is to provide for major public and quasi-public uses outside of other districts. Not all public and quasi-public uses need to be classified PLI. Some may fit within another district; however, larger areas will be designated PLI. Sec. 38.310.030. Authorized uses—Residential zoning districts. Table 38.310.030.A Permitted general and group residential uses in residential zoning districts Table clarifications: 1. Uses: P = Principal uses; C = Conditional uses; S = Special uses; A = Accessory uses; — = Uses which are not permitted. 2. If a * appears after the use, then the use is defined in article 7. 3. Where a code section is referenced after the use, then the use is subject to the additional standards specific to the subject use in that code section. 4. If a number appears in the box, then the use may be allowed subject to development condition(s) described in the footnotes immediately following the table. Uses Zoning Districts R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O1 RMH General residential Accessory dwelling units* - attached (38.360.040) P P P P P P P — Accessory dwelling units* - detached (38.360.040) P P P P P P P — Apartments/apartment building* ————P P P — Apartment building, limited4 ———P P P P — Cottage housing (38.360.120)* P P P P P P P P 95 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 37 of 41 Manufactured homes on permanent foundations(38.360.170)* P P P P P P P P Manufactured home communities* ———————P Single-household dwelling (38.360.220) P P P P P P P P Two-household dwelling (38.360.220) ——P P P P P — Three household dwelling or four- household dwelling (38.360.220) ———P P P P — Townhouses* & rowhouses* (two attached units)(38.360.250) P2 P2 P P P P P P3 Townhouses* & rowhouses* (five attached units or less) (38.360.250) ———P3 P P P — Townhouses* & rowhouses* (more than five attached units) (38.360.250) ————P P P — Group residential Community residential facilities* with eight or fewer residents P P P P P P P P Community residential facilities* serving nine or more residents ———S P P P — Cooperative household* S S S P P P P S Family day care home* P P P P P P P P 96 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 38 of 41 Group day care home* P P P P P P P P Group living (38.360.135)* P P P P P P P P Lodging houses* ———S P P P — Transitional and emergency housing (38.360.140)* and related services S S S S S S S S Notes: 1.The primary use of a lot, as measured by building area, permitted in the R-O district is determined by the underlying growth policy land use designation. Where the district lies over a residential growth policy designation the primary use shall be non-office uses; where the district lies over a non-residential designation the primary use shall be office and other non-residential uses. Primary use shall be measured by percentage of building floor area. 2.In the R-S, R-1, and RMH district townhomes are only allowed when utilized to satisfy the requirements of division 38.380, Affordable Housing. May only be utilized in developments subject to division 38.380 of this article. 3.In the R-3 district, townhouse groups must not exceed 120 feet in total width. 4.Supplemental use criteria for apartment building, limited are in section 38.360.070. Table 38.310.030.B Permitted accessory and non-residential uses in residential zoning districts Table clarifications: 1. Uses: P = Principal uses; C = Conditional uses; S = Special uses; A = Accessory uses; — = Uses which are not permitted. 2. If a * appears after the use, then the use is defined in article 7. 3. Where a code section is referenced after the use, then the use is subject to the additional standards specific to the subject use in that code section. 4. If a number appears in the box, then the use may be allowed subject to development condition(s) described in the footnotes immediately following the table. Uses Zoning Districts R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O1 RMH Accessory uses Essential services Type I* A A A A A A A A Guest house* A A A A A A A — 97 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 39 of 41 Home-based businesses (38.360.150)* A/S A/S A/S A/S A/S A/S A/S A/S Other buildings and structures typically accessory to authorized uses A A A A A A A A Private or jointly owned recreational facilities A A A A A A A A Signs*, subject to article 5 of this chapter A A A A A A A A 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 Non-residential uses Agricultural uses* on 2.5 acres or more (38.360.270) P ——————— Agricultural uses* on less than 2.5 acres (38.360.270) C ——————— Bed and breakfast* C C C C P P P — 98 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 40 of 41 Commercial stable (38.360.230) C ——————— Community centers* C C C C C C P C Day care centers* S S S P P P P S Essential services Type II* P P P P P P P P Essential services Type III*2 C C C C C C C C Short Term Rental (Type 1)* P P P P P P P — Short Term Rental (Type 2)* ——P P P P P — Short Term Rental (Type 3)* ———————— General service establishment* ——————P5 — Golf courses C C —————— Offices* ————S3 S3 P — Public and private parks P P P P P P P P Medical offices, clinics, and centers* ————C C3 P — Recreational vehicle parks (38.360.210)* C ——————P Restaurant* —————P4 P5, 6 — Retail* —————P4 P5, 6 — 99 20365 Staff Report for the Lazarewicz Zone Map Amendment Page 41 of 41 Uses approved as part of a PUD per division 38.380 of this article C C C C C C C C Veterinary uses S ——————— Notes: 1.The primary use of a lot, as measured by building area, permitted in the R-O district is determined by the underlying growth policy land use designation. Where the district lies over a residential growth policy designation the primary use shall be non-office uses; where the district lies over a non-residential designation the primary use shall be office and other non-residential uses. Primary use shall be measured by percentage of building floor area. 2.Only allowed when service may not be provided from an alternative site or a less intensive installation or set of installations. 3.Only when in conjunction with dwellings. 4.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. 5.Subject uses are limited to 1,500 square feet of gross floor area per individual tenant. 6.These uses may not include drive-through facilities. APPENDIX C - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF Owner:Al & Gail Lazarewicz, 3849 Staffanson Road, Bozeman, MT 59718 Applicant:Sunrise Homes, LLC, 10-B Pinebrook Road, Park City, UT 84098 Representative:Caddis Engineer & Surevying, 226 Timberline Dr., Bozeman, MT 59718 Report By:Tom Rogers, Senior Planner FISCAL EFFECTS No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by this Annexation or Zone Map Amendment. Future development will incur costs and generate review according to standard City practices. ATTACHMENTS The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. Application materials 100