Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpring Creek Village Resort Zone Map Amendment #Z-08028 Report compiled on April 9, 2008 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Doug Riley, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Spring Creek Village Resort Zone Map Amendment, #Z-08028 MEETING DATE: Monday, April 14, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission deny the zone map amendment application as recommended by the Zoning Commission as noted in Zoning Commission Resolution #Z-08028. BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map for the zoning classification of approximately 31.03 acres from B-P (Business Park District) to UMU (Urban Mixed Use District) for property located northwest of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue. At their April 1, 2008 public hearing, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission voted 3 in favor and 2 against to recommend denial of this application. As noted in the attached Zoning Commission minutes and/or staff report, following are the key points from the Zoning Commission and/or staff’s and the Development Review Committee’s recommendation for denial of this application: Non-Compliance with the 2020 Growth Policy Designation: This application is not consistent with the adopted 2020 Growth Policy Designation of Business Park and the intent and purpose of said designation (see p. 5 of the staff report and p. 6 of the Zoning Commission minutes). Compliance with the adopted Growth Policy is the first review criteria under State Statute and the Bozeman Municipal Code for zone map amendments. Compliance with an adopted Growth Policy provides predictability to the public in regards to land use decisions. Certain elements or criteria can be mitigated through the development review process, (e.g. road or sewer infrastructure issues), however, compliance with the adopted Growth Policy cannot be mitigated. Previous Growth Policy- Amendment Denial: The applicant applied for a Growth Policy Amendment for this property in 2004 (Project #P-04060). That request to re-designate this property from Business Park to Community Commercial was denied by the City Commission as there was an unwillingness to support additional “community commercial” type development along the entryway. Significant discussion occurred at that time to not encourage additional community commercial development west of Fowler Avenue. In addition, of paramount importance in the evaluation of this application is the “opening” of another area in the City to the type of uses permitted in the requested UMU District as detailed in the attached UMU District Table of Commercial Uses. During the evaluation and adoption 54 process for the creation of the UMU zoning district, it was presented by Staff that this zoning district was intended to be located within the City’s Growth Policy “Community Commercial” designations. This would assure that this new district would not detract from the other recognized commercial centers (e.g. Downtown, North 19th, Bozeman Gateway). Again, a Community Commercial designation to allow the types of uses the UMU District would permit for this property was previously reviewed and denied by the City Commission. The current Growth Policy Update: Some members of the Zoning Commission and staff have maintained that the appropriate process for changing the land use designation for this property is through the current Growth Policy Update. As noted in the submitted Clarion Analysis for the 2020 Plan update, modifications of the Business Park Land Use designations, or B-P zoning district, may be incorporated into that comprehensive public review and amendment process. Commercial Node planned at W. Babcock and Cottonwood: As shown on the attached copy of the Future Land Use Map and discussed on page 5 of the Zoning Commission Minutes, there is a commercial node designated at the corner of W. Babcock Street and Cottonwood Road to serve the adjacent residential areas. Walkability to and within this area will certainly be incorporated into this designated commercial node. The current B-P District allows a mix of land uses: As detailed on the attached Zoning District Summary Table, the current B-P District does allow a mix of land uses (in light of being portrayed as allowing offices only). UNRESOLVED ISSUES: There are no unresolved issues at this time. FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time, but will likely include increased costs to deliver municipal services when the property is developed. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. CONTACT: Please feel free to e-mail Doug Riley at driley@bozeman.net if you have any questions. APPROVED BY: _________________________________ _________________________________ Andrew C. Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager Attachments: April 1, 2008 Zoning Commission Minutes Zoning Commission Resolution #Z-08028 Staff Report Zoning District Summary Table Urban Mixed Use Zoning District and Table of Uses Figure 6-2 – Bozeman 2020 Plan Future Land Use Map Applicant’s Submittal Materials Public Correspondence 55 Zoning Commission Minutes from April 1, 2008 Page 1 MINUTES CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION, TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2008 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson JP Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present: JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson Nathan Minnick Peter Harned Warren Vaughan Nick Lieb Members Absent: Staff Present: Andy Epple, Planning Director Doug Riley, Associate Planner Sean Becker, Commissioner Liaison Shoni Dykstra, Planning Secretary Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner Courtney Kramer Guests Present: Brian Gallik Mike & Ileana Delaney Dan DeFrance Deb Stober Harry Kirschenbaum Tony Renslow Bill Quinn Randy Carpenter Erik Henyon Brian Caldwell Chris Mehl Cathy Costakis Donna Swarthout Mark Hufstetler Bonnie Martin Ed Ugorowski Ed Sypinski Anne Sherwood Richard Brown Trever McSpadden Brandon ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Commission and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Seeing there was no public comment, Chairperson Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2008. Seeing there were no changes or additions to the minutes, Chairperson Pomnichowski approved the minutes of February 20, 2008 as submitted. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 56 Zoning Commission Minutes from April 1, 2008 Page 2 1. Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-08028 – (Spring Creek Village Resort) A Zone Map Amendment requested by the owner, Mike Delaney, and representative, Brian Gallik, requesting to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map on 31.03 acres from B-P (Business Park District) to UMU (Urban Mixed Use District) for property legally described as Lot 5 of Minor Sub 295 Spring Creek Village Resort, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana. (Riley) Staff Presentation: Doug Riley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for the Spring Creek Village Resort Zone Map Amendment. He noted the property was located at the Northwest corner of Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue. He stated the property is a vacant 31.05 acre parcel. He stated the application was to change the zoning designation from Business Park (B-P) to Urban Mixed Use (UMU). He noted the surrounding zoning districts were B-P, R-O, and county lands. He noted the underlying growth policy designation was Business Park. He stated the properties immediately to the east and west were also designated Business Park, while the land to the south was designated Residential and Future Urban. He noted the land to the north was designated Business Park and also Residential. He noted the applicant had applied in 2004 for a Growth Policy Amendment to change the designation from Business Park to Community Commercial which was denied by the City Commission. He stated the UMU district was adopted in 2006 by the City of Bozeman. He noted the UMU district was designed to correspond to the Community Commercial growth policy designation, and that the proposal was not in compliance with the adopted Growth Policy. He noted the change proposed was a substantial change or deviation from the Growth Policy, and that the proposal did not meet the first criteria for a zone map amendment as it was not in compliance with the adopted Growth Policy. He presented the application in regards to the 12 criteria for a zone map amendment as noted in the Staff Report. He noted at the time the staff report was written the application had not received any public comment, but the applicant has now submitted a letter from Dan Burden that the Zoning Commissioners had received at the beginning of his presentation. He noted Staff as well as the DRC are recommending denial of the project. Questions for Staff: Nick Lieb sought clarification on when the property had received the B-P zoning district. Planning Director Andy Epple noted the property was zoned B-P in 1992 when B-P was created. He noted that prior to B-P the property was zoned T-R (Technology Research). Mr. Lieb sought clarification on the zoning designation on the Billion Property. Planner Riley noted the Billion Auto Plaza property was zoned B-P with 21 acres to the north being zoned B-2 with an underlying growth policy designation of Community Commercial. Mr. Lieb sought clarification if the Billion Auto Plaza property was a PUD. Planner Riley noted it was. Warren Vaughan noted that the Clarion Analysis indicated B-P districts should be addressed in the Growth Policy Update. Planner Riley noted that a number of different options would be reviewed through the Update process to possibly allow for additional uses and/or higher densities 57 Zoning Commission Minutes from April 1, 2008 Page 3 within the B-P district. Nathan Minnick sought clarification on the process the northerly Billion property recently had gone through. Planner Riley noted the Growth Policy Amendment had been adopted, and then the owner had applied for a zone map amendment of B-2. Mr. Vaughan sought clarification on the basis for the DRC recommendation of denial. Planner Riley noted the DRC was in agreement with Staff’s recommendations of denial with a unanimous vote. Peter Harned sought clarification on how the resort designation affected liquor licensing. Planner Riley noted the property was one lot of the Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision, but deferred to the applicant on how liquor licensing would be affected by the resort designation. Applicant Presentation: Mike Delany presented a history of the property and the B-P zoning designation. He noted that not all districts zoned B-P were the same. He noted when the Bozeman 2020 Plan was adopted, B-P districts restricted almost everything other than office space and did not encourage the mixing of uses. He noted Dan Burden, whose letter the Zoning Commission Members had been given, had helped with the creation of the UMU district. He also stated that the UMU district was not affiliated with the Community Commercial growth policy designation even though Staff had recommended the affiliation. Mr. Delaney stated he did not want to develop more offices, but wanted to provide a walkable campus with a variety of uses. He presented two designs for the property, one with a zoning designation of B-P the other with UMU. He urged the Commission to think about eco-friendly development and the people who would benefit from the zone map amendment. Brian Gallik presented an excerpt from the Clarion Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Analysis to the Zoning Commission members and the entire analysis to the recording secretary. He noted the previous Growth Policy Amendment for the property had received a recommendation of approval from the Planning Board. He also noted the denial of the Growth Policy Amendment by the City Commission was made prior to the adoption of the UMU zoning district. He also noted the minimum requirements of a district zoned UMU was the property had to be over 20 acres in size and located at a major intersection. He noted that the application had met each of the zoning criteria as the growth policy was not just the map but also the text. He noted Staff was legally and actually wrong in keeping the property zoned B-P. He noted that Staff’s recommendation was not within the context of the 2020 Plan. He stated that the proposal was in compliance with the underlying growth policy designation. Mr. Gallik noted the Clarion Analysis and the reference in the analysis to the B-P district needing revision in the growth policy update. He stated that the second criteria regarding traffic congestion could only be based on speculation at this point. He referenced Dan Burden’s letter and stated if a rule is ill conceived, it is more beneficial to break it than to follow it. He stated he had reviewed the staff report and aside from the underlying Business Park growth policy map designation he did not see any reason to deny the application. He asked the members to recommend approval to the City Commission. 58 Zoning Commission Minutes from April 1, 2008 Page 4 Questions for Applicant: Mr. Lieb sought clarification on what the resort designation entailed. Mr. Delaney stated that a resort designation was issued 10 years ago by the State of Montana after going through a review process. He noted this property is one of the few resort designations within city limits within Montana. He noted a restaurant with a bar would be included in a PUD application for the site if the UMU zoning was granted. He noted the resort designation did not guarantee that a liquor license would be issued. He noted the liquor license was not relevant to the current application. Public Comment: Harry Kirschenbaum resides at 141 Chouteau which is within walking distance of the property. He noted he has worked across the street for the last nine years. He noted the applicant had invited the neighborhood leaders to review the proposal. He noted the neighborhood was a beautiful place to live, but other than the mall there is nothing lively in the area. He noted that nothing along Valley Commons Drive or in Stoneridge Square, other than a convenience store, is open at night or on the weekends. He stated he would not like to see more offices in the area, but something that would be more walkable and more of a neighborhood center. Dan DeFrance stated he resided at 4526 Alexander Street. He stated B-P was a good idea for Bozeman 16 years ago, but now we know more about mixed use and its success. He knows people in the neighborhood want this. He stated the owners were willing to go a step further than the B-P designation. He noted he was supporting the proposal. He stated the idea of a resort in Bozeman would encourage social activity in individual neighborhoods. He noted he had sent a letter to the City Commissioners. Deb Stober resides at 395 North Valley Drive. She handed out a letter of support from Dawn Smith who was unable to attend the meeting. She noted she was there to recommend the change to allow for a restaurant and other activities to take place in the area. She noted the growth in the neighborhood and the lack of businesses that allowed for family activities other than the regional park. She stated the proposal would be a good use for the corridor. Discussion: Mr. Lieb sought clarification from staff on the B-P zoning district being consistent with the Entryway Corridor. Planning Director Epple noted any zoning district, due to the certificate of appropriateness application process, would ensure compliance with the entryway corridor standards. Planning Director Epple also noted the Commission had changed the B-P zoning districts during the last Growth Policy Update to ensure that B-P districts became more than strip malls. He noted the review of projects needed to not only agree with the map but also with the text of the 2020 Plan. He stated the 2020 Plan provides predictability to the public and he noted the necessity of compliance with the growth policy and zoning districts to provide that 59 Zoning Commission Minutes from April 1, 2008 Page 5 predictability. He noted the Community Commercial designation at the corner of Babcock and Cottonwood where a neighborhood commercial area was designated for the area to provide the neighborhood amenities within a walkable community. He also noted the allowable uses for the B-P districts demonstrating the applicant had more options than developing strictly office space within the current zoning. Mr. Harned noted he resides at 4564 Alexander Street which is within the Valley West Subdivision. He sought clarification on the restaurant within the Ridge PUD. Planning Director Epple noted the restaurant was approved through a PUD process. Mr. Harned sought clarification on other zoning conditions which would allow for restaurants on the property without a zoning change to UMU. Planning Director Epple noted the growth policy designation would not allow for the type of “resort-oriented” project the applicant would like to develop. Mr. Lieb sought clarification on the Bozeman Gateway growth policy designation. Planning Director Epple thought it Community Commercial. Mr. Harned sought clarification on what would have to happen in order to build the type of project the applicant had referenced. Planning Director Epple noted the underlying growth policy designation would need to be changed to Community Commercial. Mr. Lieb sought clarification on what could be done with a PUD for the property while zoned B-P. Planning Director Epple noted the PUD allowed for higher restrictions in some areas while allowing relaxations of certain regulatory requirements. Mr. Vaughan sought clarification on the recommendation in the Clarion Analysis in regards to the B- P zoning district. Planner Riley noted the recommendation from Clarion suggested two potential options, one was allowing additional uses while the other increased densities to provide more walkablity. He noted the issue would be addressed through the current Growth Policy Update. Planning Director Epple noted B-P districts have a higher amount of required open space than other districts with commercial zoning. Mr. Vaughan noted both the applicant and Staff had good arguments. He noted that B-P is not necessarily a good fit for the property, but he would also like to see some middle ground between B-P and UMU. He would like to see how B-P is addressed in the Growth Policy Update. Mr. Harned stated Bozeman is currently a more linear commercial town, while the 2020 Plan states Bozeman is trying to develop community centers. He noted he would like to see more commercial areas outside of the entryway corridors. He noted the lack of a buffer between the property and surrounding uses. He noted the one story condos to the north of the property. He noted Downtown Bozeman was able to effectively interact within the same type of context. He also noted the mall does not have the access this property would have which does meet the requirement of UMU zoning districts being located at the intersection of two arterials. He would like to see projects that would reduce traffic. He noted he would like to see projects that have retail on the bottom level, offices on the second story, and housing on the third. He stated he would like to see what could happen with the designation, but also noted the allowable height of buildings which would be allowed with UMU zoning could be a problem. He stated he had seen Mr. Delaney’s projects in the past and does like them. 60 Zoning Commission Minutes from April 1, 2008 Page 6 Mr. Minnick stated that the application was not in compliance with the 2020 Plan. He noted there was also an argument for the application. He works in the area and noted the amount of B- P office space currently for lease. He also noted the neighborhood center on Cottonwood might not happen for a long time. He noted the property seemed to be well situated for the type of project the applicant has referenced. He noted the forward thinking of the applicant and the only issue was determining the interpretation of what is allowed to be developed under the 2020 Plan. Mr. Lieb noted the City Commission determines the criteria. He noted he felt the only unmet criterion is the first one. He noted he did not feel B-P is relevant for the property and is supportive of the proposal. He noted he did not think Staff was misleading but was applying the rules set forth. He noted the property should not be B-P anymore. Chairperson Pomnichowski noted her general agreement with the previous comments. She stated the Zoning Commission’s charge was to see how the application complies with all 12 criteria. She noted both the applicant and Staff made statements about the application not meeting the first criteria. She noted the timing feels unfortunate as the Growth Policy Update will be completed in a few months time. She noted she sympathized with the applicant regarding the B- P district regulations and did not agree with the restrictions. She noted that a Business Park designation within a Growth Policy indicated the areas intended to see the least amount of retail and service business. She noted UMU districts allowed for the same uses found within B-2 districts which are the areas intended to see the most commercial activity. She noted the intensification in use from a B-P to an active UMU district would compromise the predictability of zoning within the context of growth policy designations. She noted that UMU did not align with the designated land use. She did not find the application met the 12 criteria. She noted a public meeting would be held for the Growth Policy Update when Business Park designations would be addressed. Mr. Vaughan noted he did not think B-P zoning was the best district for the property, however, he did not feel UMU met the Growth Policy. He noted he would be invalidating the integrity of the process if he voted for the approval of the application. He would like to see an approved Growth Policy Amendment. He noted if the growth policy designation was different, he would feel differently about the project. He is going to recommend denial of the application. Motion and Vote: It was moved by Mr. Vaughan, seconded by Mr. Harned, to recommend denial of the Zone Map Amendment application #Z-08028 the Spring Creek Village Resort to the City Commission. Those voting Aye being Mr. Vaughan, Mr. Harned and Chairperson Pomnichowski. Those voting No being Mr. Minnick and Mr. Lieb. The motion carried 3-2. Chairperson Pomnichowski noted the recommendation of denial would be forwarded to the City Commission for their consideration on April 14, 2008. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS 61 Zoning Commission Minutes from April 1, 2008 Page 7 Seeing there was no new business before the board, Chairperson Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting and moved to adjourn the meeting. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT The Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. _______________________________________ _______________________________________ JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson Andrew C. Epple, Director Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 62 Spring Creek Village Resort ZMA 1 RESOLUTION #Z-08028 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING MAP FOR THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 31.03 ACRES FROM B-P (BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT) TO UMU (URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HUFFINE LANE AND FERGUSON AVENUE WHICH IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 5, MINOR SUB. NO. 295, SPRING CREEK VILLAGE RESORT, LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 10, T2S., R5E., P.M.M., CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA. WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted zoning regulations and a zoning map pursuant to Sections 76-2-301 and 76-2-302, M.C.A.; and WHEREAS, Section 76-2-305, M.C.A. allows local governments to amend zoning maps if a public hearing is held and official notice is provided; and WHEREAS, Section 76-2-307, M.C.A. states that the Zoning Commission must conduct a public hearing and submit a report to the City Commission for all zoning map amendment requests; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission has been created by Resolution of the Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Section 76-2-307, M.C.A.; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18.70 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance sets forth the procedures and review criteria for zoning map amendments; and WHEREAS, Mile Delaney, 101 E. Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715, represented by Brian Gallik, Goetz, Gallik & Baldwin, P.C., 35 North Grand Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715, applied for a zoning map amendment, pursuant to Chapter 18.70 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, to amend the zoning designation on 31.03 acres from B-P (Business Park District) to UMU (Urban Mixed Use District); and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment request has been properly submitted, reviewed and advertised in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.70 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance and Title 76, Chapter 2, Part 3, M.C.A.; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission held a public hearing on April 1, 2008, to formally receive and review all written and oral testimony on the proposed zoning map amendment; and 63 Spring Creek Village Resort ZMA 2 WHEREAS, three members of the public spoke at the public hearing expressing their support for the proposed Zone Map Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment does not comply with the twelve criteria for consideration established in Chapter 18.70 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission, on a vote of 3 in favor and 2 against, officially recommends to the Bozeman City Commission denial of zoning application #Z-08028 to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map for the zoning classification of approximately 31.03 acres from B-P (Business Park District) to UMU (Urban Mixed Use District) for property located northwest of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue legally described as Lot 5, Minor Sub. No. 295, Spring Creek Village Resort, located in the SW ¼ of Sec. 10, T. 2 S., R.5 E., P.M.M., CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA. DATED THIS DAY OF , 2008, Resolution #Z-08028 _____________________________ ____________________________ Andrew Epple, Planning Director JP Pomnichowski, Chair Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman Zoning Commission 64 SPRING CREEK VILLAGE RESORT ZONE MAP AMENDMENT ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FILE NO. Z-08028 Spring Creek Village Resort Zone Map Amendment - Staff Report, #Z-08028 1 Item: Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-08028 requesting to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map for the zoning classification of approximately 31.03 acres from B-P (Business Park District) to UMU (Urban Mixed Use District) for property located northwest of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue. Owner/Applicant: Mike Delaney, 101 E. Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715 Representative: Brian Gallik, Goetz, Gallik & Baldwin, P.C., 35 North Grand Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 Date/Time: Before the Bozeman Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. and before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. both in the Community Room, Gallatin County Courthouse, 311 West Main Street, Bozeman, Montana. Report By: Doug Riley, Associate Planner Recommendation: Denial PROJECT LOCATION & MAP The subject property consists of approximately 31.03 acres located northwest of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue. The property is legally described as Lot 5, Minor Sub. No. 295, Spring Creek Village Resort, located in the SW ¼ of Sec. 10, T.2 S., R.5 E, of P.M.M., CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA Please refer to the following vicinity map. 65 Spring Creek Village Resort Zone Map Amendment - Staff Report, #Z-08028 2 PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicant has indicated his desire to amend the existing B-P (Business Park District) zoning to UMU (Urban Mixed Use District) zoning on this 31.03 acre vacant property. Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision consists of a 5 lot minor subdivision. This lot and the lot to the immediate west, as well as the Ridge Athletic Club, are zoned B-P while the lots across Fallon Street primarily occupied by Cottonwood Condominiums are zoned R-O (Residential Office District). The City of Bozeman 2020 Plan Future Land Use Map designates this property as Business Park as are the adjacent properties to the east and west (see attached copy of the adopted Future Land Use Map – Figure 6-2). The applicant applied for a Growth Policy Amendment in 2004 (Project #P-04060) and requested to re-designate this property to Community Commercial. That application and re-designation was denied by the City Commission. The applicant would now like to establish the newly adopted UMU zoning district designation on the property. The UDO text amendment establishing the UMU district was adopted in 2006. RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff and the Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed this application for a Zone Map Amendment against Section 18.70.020 (Amendments and Rezonings - Investigation Requirements) of the Bozeman Municipal Code. The analysis finds that this application DOES NOT satisfy the required criteria. Based on the evaluation of said criteria, Planning Staff and the DRC recommends DENIAL of the requested Zone Map Amendment. ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES Existing Zoning: B-P (Business Park District) The intent of the B-P (Business Park District) is to provide for high quality settings and facilities for the development of a variety of compatible employment opportunities. These areas should be developed so as to recognize the impact on surrounding or adjacent development and contribute to the overall image of the community. Compatibility with adjacent land uses and zoning is required. 66 Spring Creek Village Resort Zone Map Amendment - Staff Report, #Z-08028 3 Proposed Zoning: UMU (Urban Mixed Use District) Section 18.19.010 of the BMC indicates that the intent of the UMU (Urban Mixed Use District) is to establish areas within Bozeman that are mixed-use in character, and to set forth certain minimum standards for development within those areas which encourage vertical mixed-use development with high density. The purpose in having an urban mixed-use district is to provide options for a variety of employment, retail and community service opportunities within the community, with incorporated opportunity for some residential uses, while providing predictability to landowners and residents in uses and standards. There is a rebuttable presumption that the uses set forth in each district will be compatible both within the individual districts and to adjoining zoning districts when the standards of Title 18 are met and any applicable conditions of approval have been satisfied. Additional requirements for development apply within overlay districts. A. It is further the intent of this district to: 1. Allow a mixture of complimentary land uses which encourages mixed-uses on individual floors including, but not limited to, retail, offices, commercial services, restaurants, bars, hotels, recreation and civic uses, and housing, to create economic and social vitality and to encourage the linking of trips; 2. Foster the development of vertically oriented mixed-uses, in contrast to single use development distributed along high vehicle capacity roadways; 3. Encourage development that exhibits the physical design characteristics of vibrant, urban, pedestrian-oriented, storefront-style shopping streets with pedestrian amenities; 4. Develop commercial and mixed-use areas that are safe, comfortable, and attractive to pedestrians; 5. Provide flexibility in the siting and design of new developments and redevelopment to anticipate changes in the marketplace; 6. Reinforce the principle of streets as public spaces that encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel, and on-street parking; 7. Provide roadway and pedestrian connections to residential areas; 8. Provide transitions between high-traffic streets and adjacent residential neighborhoods; 9. Encourage efficient land use by facilitating compact, high-density, multi-story development and minimizing the amount of land that is needed for surface parking; 10. Facilitate development (land use mix, density and design) that supports public transit, where applicable; 11. Provide appropriate locations and design standards for automobile and truck-dependent uses; 12. Maintain mobility along traffic corridors while supporting the creation of “places” or centers which will create lasting and enduring, long-term value to community; 13. Emphasize the need to serve the adjacent, local neighborhood and also the greater Bozeman area as well; 14. Minimize parking lots through shared uses of mixed-uses; 15. Create central urban gathering places such as community squares or plazas; and 16. Facilitate designs of each mixed-use to help ensure long-term financial viability of each mixed-use; 17. Allow for urban oriented recreational activities consistent with the standards and intent of the district; and 18. To encourage and support the use of sustainable building practices. B. To accomplish the intent of the district, the UMU district should ideally be located at the intersections of major traffic corridors, that is at the intersections of two arterials, or less 67 Spring Creek Village Resort Zone Map Amendment - Staff Report, #Z-08028 4 frequently, an arterial and a collector street. The major intersections should have or be planned to have a stop light or other active traffic control. While placement at major intersections is a necessary precondition, not all major intersections should have the UMU district adjacent to them. Additional, placement of this district should be adjacent or near to dense residential development to enhance walking and bicycle use. The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property: North: Across Fallon Street: The Ridge Athletic Club; zoned B-P (Business Park District) Cottonwood Condominiums; zoned R-O (Residential Office District) The intent of the R-0 (Residential Office District) is to provide for and encourage the development of multi-household and apartment development and compatible professional offices and businesses that would blend well with adjacent uses. 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. South: Across Huffine Lane: Mix of uses; (Trailer Park, Residential, Consignment Store, Mini-Warehousing) - un-annexed and under County jurisdiction. East: Across Ferguson Avenue; Valley Commons Business Park (Casey’s Corner and Big Sky Western Bank) - zoned B-P (Business Park District). West: Across Resort Drive; Vacant; zoned B-P (Business Park District). GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION The area that is subject to this application has a Growth Policy land use designation of Business Park. This designation is described as follows: Business Park. This classification provides for areas typified by office uses and technology-oriented light industrial uses, although retail, services, or industrial uses may also be included in an accessory or local service role. The following growth policy designations are adjacent to the subject property: North: Across Fallon Street - Business Park – (The Ridge Athletic Club) and Residential (Cottonwood Condominiums). The Residential designation is described as follows: Residential. This category designates places where the primary activity is urban density living quarters. Other uses which complement residences are also acceptable such as parks, low intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches, and schools. The residential designation also indicates that it is expected that development will occur within municipal boundaries which may require annexation prior to development. The dwelling unit density expected within this classification varies. It is expected that areas of higher density housing would be likely to be located in proximity to commercial centers to facilitate the broadest range of feasible transportation options for the greatest number of individuals and support businesses within commercial centers. Low density areas should have an average minimum density of six units per net acre. Medium density areas should have an average minimum density of twelve units per net acre. High density areas should have an average minimum density of eighteen units per net acre. A variety of housing types should be 68 Spring Creek Village Resort Zone Map Amendment - Staff Report, #Z-08028 5 blended to achieve the desired density with large areas of single features such as floodplains may cause an area to be designated for development at a lower density than normally expected within this classification. All residential housing should be arranged with consideration given to the existing character of adjacent development, any natural constraints such as steep slopes, and in a fashion which advances the overall goals of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. The residential designation is intended to provide the principal locations for additional housing within the Planning Area. South: Across Huffine Lane – Residential and Future Urban. The Future Urban Designation is described as follows: Future Urban: This category designates areas where development is considered to be generally inappropriate over the 20 year term of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, either because of natural features, negative impacts on the desired development pattern, or significant difficulty in providing urban services…Development within the Future Urban area would be generally disruptive to the desired compact urban land use pattern depicted in the Plan. As Bozeman develops over time, it is expected that the City would expand outward into areas previously designated as Future Urban. As the City’s growth policy is updated from time to time, some areas currently classified as Future Urban are expected to be reclassified urban designations… East: Across Ferguson Avenue – Business Park West: Across Resort Drive – Business Park REVIEW CRITERIA & FINDINGS According to Section 18.70.020 of the Bozeman Municipal Code, the Bozeman Zoning Commission shall cause to be made an investigation of facts bearing on each zone map amendment application. The criteria identified in this section are taken from State Statute. The Zoning Commission must provide necessary information to assure that the action of each zone map amendment application is consistent with the intent and purpose of the UDO. Specifically, the investigation must address the following criteria as required in Section 76-02-304, Montana Code Annotated: A. Consistency with the City’s growth policy This application is not consistent with the adopted 2020 Growth Policy Designation of Business Park and the intent and purpose of said designation. This request is also not in compliance with the adopted Growth Policy goal to designate “centers” for commercial development rather than corridors (Goal 6.6.2). Several existing community commercial “centers” have been previously identified and recognized in the Growth Policy and with zoning to accommodate many of the commercial uses that would be allowed by this request. Section 6.1.2 “Land Use Principles” of the City’s Growth Policy indicates that: “Development should be integrated into neighborhoods and the larger community rather than as a series of unconnected stand alone projects” and; “Future development patterns should not be detrimental to the existing community, with special attention to be given to the support of the existing Historic Core and Downtown of the community”. 69 Spring Creek Village Resort Zone Map Amendment - Staff Report, #Z-08028 6 Certainly, of paramount importance in this evaluation is the “opening” of another area in the City to the type of uses permitted in the requested UMU zoning district. During the evaluation and adoption process for the creation of the UMU zoning district, it was presented by Staff that this zoning district was intended to be located within the City’s Growth Policy “Community Commercial” designations. This would assure that this new district would not detract from the other recognized commercial centers (e.g. Downtown, North 19th, Bozeman Gateway). As previously noted, the applicant applied for a Growth Policy Amendment for this property in 2004 (Project #P-04060). That request to re-designate this property from Business Park to Community Commercial was denied by the City Commission as there was an unwillingness to support an amendment to the Plan that encouraged additional “commercial” development along the entryway. Significant discussion occurred at that time to not encourage additional community commercial development west of Fowler Avenue. A zoning amendment from B-P to UMU is considered a very substantial change or deviation for the property from the underlying growth policy designation. The applicant has indicated that zoning does not need to be in strict compliance with the underlying growth policy designation. Obviously, the review criteria under State Statute, and the Bozeman Municipal Code, identifies consistency with an adopted Growth Policy as the first review criteria for consideration. This criteria is nationally recognized as the correct planning formula to assure that land use decisions are based on sound and exhaustive public planning processes that consider the context of individual land use decision within the larger community context. B. Lessening of congestion in the streets This site has street frontage on all four boundaries. Huffine Lane borders the property to the south. Ferguson Avenue borders the property to the east. Fallon Street borders the property to the north and Resort Drive borders the property to the west. The requested zoning and potential development under the UMU District could increase the congestion on these streets, (over the development under the existing BP zoning), depending on the actual development and uses proposed under the zoning. For example, the proposed UMU District allows Large Scale Retail as a conditional use where the existing BP zoning does not allow large scale retail. C. Securing safety from fire, panic, and other dangers The regulatory provisions established in all of the proposed zoning designations, in conjunction with provisions for adequate transportation facilities, will address safety concerns with any future development of the property. New development on the subject property would be required to meet the minimum zoning requirements for setbacks, lot coverage, height limitations and lot sizes. D. Promotion of health and the general welfare Under either the existing BP or the proposed UMU zoning, this property can be served with municipal infrastructure (e.g., water and sanitary sewer) and public services (e.g. police and fire protection). Specific infrastructure upgrades to serve the property would need to be addressed during the appropriate development review process. Generally, the standards of development, and accompanying development review processes or building permit applications, adequately address the issues of health and safety for any zoning designation. 70 Spring Creek Village Resort Zone Map Amendment - Staff Report, #Z-08028 7 However, as not being in compliance with the adopted Growth Policy as noted earlier, the general welfare of the community is not protected through predictability in land use patterns by adherence to the adopted growth policy and land use plan. E. Provision of adequate light and air The regulatory standards set forth in the UDO for all of the zoning districts will provide 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 development on the subject property(s). F. Prevention of the overcrowding of land A full analysis of the ability of the infrastructure has not been completed at this time for what could be considered a significant zoning change that would allow a much larger increase in population on the subject property (i.e. over what the existing lower intensity B-P zoning would allow). G. Avoiding undue concentration of population As previously noted, the underlying growth policy designation for this property is Business Park. Development of the property under the proposed UMU District certainly adds the potential for a significant increase in population for the property over the previously identified “best use” for this property through the Growth Policy designation. H. Facilitating the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan identifies this property as lying outside of the “Capital Facilities Overlay District” (Figure 6-2). The “Capital Facilities Overlay District” is intended to establish a priority area for development within the larger scope of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan future land use plan. Upgrades to roads, water and sewer infrastructure may be needed as part of future development of the subject property. As a note, as part of the Development Review Committee review of this item, the Engineering Department has indicated that “prior to any further development within this subdivision, sidewalks shall be installed at the standard location along all existing public streets within the boundaries of the previously approved subdivision”. I. Reasonable consideration to the character of the district The development of the subject property as Urban Mixed Use is not in keeping with the adjacent property’s growth policy and zoning designations of Business Park. The existing B-P zoning still allows a mix of land uses that have previously been determined to meet the character of the district and this area. While the applicant indicates that the City’s Growth Policy promotes “mixed uses” and this request promotes that goal, the Growth Policy (Section 6.1.2 Land Use Principles) also indicates that: “The mixing of uses may be accomplished at several levels. The first and most general level is contained in Figure 6-2, (Future Lane Use Map), in which the placement of commercial nodes rather than strips allows for a diversity of activities in an area” and; 71 Spring Creek Village Resort Zone Map Amendment - Staff Report, #Z-08028 8 “The current zoning ordinance provides several opportunities for such project level mixing of uses”. The development of the subject property for a zoning district that was intended to be established in areas designated by the Growth Policy as Community Commercial was essentially evaluated by the City Commission during the applicant’s 2004 Growth Policy Amendment request. Again, that growth policy amendment was denied. Hence, the Commission determined that the lower intensity B-P zoning and growth policy designation was most appropriate for this property. J. Reasonable consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses The suitability of this property for many of the “urban” type uses that would be possible under the UMU district was substantially reviewed when the applicant was denied a Growth Policy Amendment to change the classification of this property from Business Park to Community Commercial. The intent and purpose section and associated regulations of the UMU District promote urban, vertically oriented mixed uses and multi-story development that would be out of character with the surrounding area’s growth policy and zoning designations. This would be true for the adjacent B-P zoned and designated properties as well as the un-annexed County properties across Huffine Lane. K. Conserving the value of buildings Non-applicable as the subject property is currently vacant. L. Encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the municipality Again, by not being in compliance with the adopted Growth Policy, the request is not encouraging what has been previously determined through an exhaustive public planning process to be the appropriate use of land for this area of the City. AGENCY REVIEW The Planning Department has requested written summary-review comments from the Bozeman Development Review Committee regarding the requested zone map amendment. Comments received as of the writing of this staff report have been outlined above. Additional comments and/or recommendations received after the date of this report will be forwarded to the governing body. PUBLIC COMMENT No public comments have been received by the Planning Department as of the writing of this report. Any comments received after the writing of the Staff Report will be distributed to the Commissioners at the public hearing. SUMMARY & CONCLUSION The Planning Department and Development Review Committee have reviewed the requested zone map amendment and have provided the above comments as they relate to the review criteria and recommend DENIAL. The recommendation of the Bozeman Zoning Commission will be forwarded to the Bozeman City Commission for consideration at its public hearing on Monday, April 14, 2008. The City Commission will make the final decision on the application. 72 Spring Creek Village Resort Zone Map Amendment - Staff Report, #Z-08028 9 IN THE CASE OF PROTEST AGAINST SUCH CHANGES SIGNED BY THE OWNERS OF 25% OR MORE OF EITHER OF THE AREA OF THE LOTS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED CHANGE; OR THOSE LOTS 150 FEET FROM A LOT INCLUDED IN A PROPOSED CHANGE, SUCH AMENDMENT MAY NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE EXCEPT UPON A FAVORABLE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRESENT AND VOTING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION. Report sent to: Brian K. Gallik, Goetz, Gallik & Baldwin, P.C., 35 N. Grand Ave., Bozeman, MT 59715 Mike Delaney, 101 E. Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715 Attachments: Zoning District summary table Urban Mixed Use Zoning District and Table of Uses Figure 6-2 – Bozeman 2020 Plan Future Land Use Map Applicant’s submittal materials 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202