Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpring Creek Village Resort Lot 4 Zone Map Amendment.pdf Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director DPCD Tim McHarg, Director DPCD Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Zone Map Amendment Z-11002 Spring Creek Village Resort Lot 4 MEETING DATE: March 21, 2011 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing for Z-11002 and consider to amend or not to amend the zoning map. Recommended motion: Having considered public comment, the submitted application, the purposes of zoning, and relevant materials from the review I move to retain the BP zoning. BACKGROUND: This zone map amendment was originally scheduled to be considered by the Zoning Commission on February 15, 2011 and City Commission on March 7, 2011. It was continued for two weeks. The Zoning Commission heard the application on March 1st. The minutes and resolution summarizing their discussion and decision are included with this memo. The applicant has requested a change in the zoning map from BP, Business Park to B-2, Community Business on slightly less than 20 acres located NW of the intersection of W. Main Street and Resort Drive. Amending the zoning map is a legislative decision with general guiding purposes which are outlined and a summary of staff’s analysis is presented in the staff report. The applicant has been working to identify options to address the concerns raised in the staff report. An example site layout was provided at the Zoning Commission, at this time the layout is simply a conceptual drawing and others could be proposed. They are also considering the possibility of a covenant or other means to guide development that would address the issues at hand. At this time such an idea is still being explored and is not available for consideration by the Commission. It may have developed to a more useful state by the time of the public hearing. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Does the Commission wish to amend the zoning map and have the zoning purposes been met? ALTERNATIVES: 1) Amend the zoning map as requested. 2) Retain the existing zoning designation. 269 FISCAL EFFECTS: There are no direct expenses to the City budget associated with a zone map amendment whether it is implemented or not. Attachments: Zone Map Amendment application and supporting documents Zoning Commission minutes and resolution Staff report Report compiled on: March 9, 2011 270 Page 1 Appropriate Review Fee Submitted CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 1. Name of Project/Development: 2. Property Owner Information: Name: E-mail Address: Mailing Address: Phone: FAX: 3. Applicant Information: Name: E-mail Address: Mailing Address: Phone: FAX: 4. Representative Information: Name: E-mail Address: Mailing Address: Phone: FAX: 5. Legal Description: 6. Street Address: 7. Project Description: 8. Zoning Designation(s): 9. Current Land Use(s): 10. Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Designation: 11. Gross Area: Acres: Square Feet: 12. Net Area: Acres: Square Feet: 271 Page 2 (Development Review Application – Prepared 11/25/03; Amended 9/17/04, 5/1/06; 9/18/07) 13. Is the subject site within an urban renewal district? Yes, answer question 13a No, go to question 14 13a. Which urban renewal district? Downtown Northeast (NURD) North 7th Avenue 14. Is the subject site within an overlay district? Yes, answer question 14a No, go to question 15 14a. Which Overlay District? Casino Neighborhood Conservation Entryway Corridor 15. Will this application require a deviation(s)? Yes, list UDO section(s): No 16. Application Type (please check all that apply): O. Planned Unit Development – Concept Plan A. Sketch Plan for Regulated Activities in Regulated Wetlands P. Planned Unit Development – Preliminary Plan B. Reuse, Change in Use, Further Development Pre-9/3/91 Site Q. Planned Unit Development – Final Plan C. Amendment/Modification of Plan Approved On/After 9/3/91 R. Planned Unit Development – Master Plan D. Reuse, Change in Use, Further Development, Amendment /COA S. Subdivision Pre-application E. Special Temporary Use Permit T. Subdivision Preliminary Plat F. Sketch Plan/COA U. Subdivision Final Plat G. Sketch Plan/COA with an Intensification of Use V. Subdivision Exemption H. Preliminary Site Plan/COA W. Annexation I. Preliminary Site Plan X. Zoning Map Amendment J. Preliminary Master Site Plan Y. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment K. Conditional Use Permit Z. Zoning Variance L. Conditional Use Permit/COA AA. Growth Policy Map Amendment M. Administrative Project Decision Appeal BB. Growth Policy Text Amendment N. Administrative Interpretation Appeal Other: This application must be accompanied by the appropriate checklist(s), number of plans or plats, adjoiner information and materials, and fee (see Development Review Application Requirements and Fees). The plans or plats must be drawn to scale on paper not smaller than 8½- by 11-inches or larger than 24- by 36-inches folded into individual sets no larger than 8½- by 14-inches. The name of the project must be shown on the cover sheet of the plans. If 3-ring binders will be used, they must include a table of contents and tabbed dividers between sections. Application deadlines are Wednesdays at 5:00 pm. This application must be signed by both the applicant(s) and the property owner(s) (if different) before the submittal will be accepted. 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 representatives access to the subject site during the course of the review process (Section 18.64.050, BMC). I (We) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant’s Signature: Date: Applicant’s Signature: Date: Property Owner’s Signature: Date: Property Owner’s Signature: Date: 272 Page 3 (Zoning Map or Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Checklist – Prepared 12/05/03, revised 9/20/04) ZONING MAP OR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT CHECKLIST This checklist shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal. Any item checked “No” or “N/A” (not applicable) must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant. A. Amendment Type. What type of amendment is being requested? (check all that apply) Zoning Map Amendment Unified Development Ordinance Amendment – Zoning Provisions Unified Development Ordinance Amendment – Subdivision Provisions B. Zoning Map or UDO Zoning Provision Amendment Criteria. For Zoning Map Amendments and Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments involving zoning provisions, written responses for each of the following criteria shall be provided. Are written responses for the following criteria provided? Zoning Provision Criteria Yes No N/A 1. Is the new zoning designed in accordance with the comprehensive plan? 2. Is the zoning designed to lessen congestion in the streets? 3. Will the new zoning promote health and general welfare? 4. Will the new zoning secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers? 5. Will the new zoning provide adequate light and air? 6. Will the new zoning prevent the overcrowding of land? 7. Will the new zoning avoid the undue concentration of population? 8. Will the new zoning facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks, fire, police, and other public requirements? 9. Does the new zoning give consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses? 10. Does the new zoning give reasonable consideration to the character of the district? 11. Was the new zoning adopted with a view to conserving the value of buildings? 12. Will the new zoning encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout such county or municipal area? C. UDO Subdivision Provision Criteria. For Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments involving subdivision provisions, written responses for each of the following criteria shall be provided. Are written responses for the following criteria provided? Subdivision Provision Criteria Yes No N/A 1. Will the amendment provide for the orderly development of the jurisdictional area? 2. Will the amendment provide for the coordination of roads within subdivided land with other roads, both existing and planned? 3. Will the amendment provide for the dedication of land for roadways and for public utility easements? 4. Will the amendment provide for the improvement of roads? 273 Page 4 Subdivision Provision Criteria, continued Yes No N/A 5. Will the amendment provide for adequate open spaces for travel, light, air and recreation? 6. Will the amendment provide for adequate transportation, water and drainage? 7. Will the amendment provide for the regulation of sanitary facilities? 8. Will the amendment provide for the avoidance or minimization of congestion? 9. Will the amendment provide for the avoidance of subdivision which would involve unnecessary environmental degradation and the avoidance of danger of injury to health, safety or welfare by reason of natural hazard or the lack of water, drainage, access, transportation, or other public services or would necessitate an excessive expenditure of public funds for the supply of such services? I (We), the undersigned, hereby certify that the information contained in this application is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. Property Owner’s Signature(s) Date State of County of On this day of , 20 , before me, a Notary Public for the State of , personally appeared , known to me to be the person(s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to the above instrument and acknowledge to me that he/she/they executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for State of Residing at My Commission Expires 274 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Zone Map Amendment Narrative Responses 1 of 3 1. Is the new zoning designed in accordance with the comprehensive plan? Yes. The underlying growth policy designation is Community Commercial, Mixed Use. The proposed B-2 Community Business District zoning would implement the intent of the Bozeman Community Plan. 2. Is the zoning designed to lessen congestion in the streets? Yes. The proposed zoning amendment is consistent with the Bozeman Community Plan and will not generate any more traffic than anticipated in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. The property is located adjacent to Huffine Lane a 5-lane principal arterial and will gain access from Resort Drive and Fallon Street, 2 local streets. Impacts to traffic and mitigation will be further evaluated with the subdivision and development of the property. 3. Will the new zoning promote health and general welfare? Yes. The property will be served by the municipal water and sewer lines previously installed in conjunction with the minor subdivision improvements. Development of the property will require further review by the city and state to ensure public health and general welfare is addressed. 4. Will the new zoning secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers? Yes. The property is under the jurisdiction of the City of Bozeman Fire and Police Departments. Development of the property will comply with the UDO and building standards to secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers. 5. Will the new zoning provide adequate light and air? Yes. The B-2 zoning establishes the setbacks, lot coverage, structure height, etc. to provide for adequate light and air. 6. Will the new zoning prevent the overcrowding of land? Yes. The B-2 zoning establishes yard setbacks, lot coverage and other standards to avoid the overcrowding of land and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 7. Will the new zoning avoid the undue concentration of population? Yes. The B-2 zoning is consistent with the Bozeman Community Plan which designates this property as Community Commercial Mixed Use and identifies the appropriate locations for commercial development. The density of the development is also regulated by the minimum zoning requirements established for the B-2 district. 275 2 of 3 8. Will the new zoning facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks, fire, police, and other public requirements? Yes. The property is located adjacent to Huffine Lane a principal arterial and designed to support commercial development. The property is also served by municipal water and sewer, police and fire. Development of the property as B-2 will be evaluated and any additional impacts will be identified through the appropriate review processes. 9. Does the new zoning give consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses? Yes. The vacant property is located adjacent to Huffine Lane and designated as Community Commercial, Mixed Use in the Bozeman Community Plan. The property’s adjacency to the highway lends itself to B-2 commercial uses and the growth policy plans for commercial uses on this site. 10. Does the new zoning give reasonable consideration to the character of the district? Yes. The area including this property, the Billion property and the northern lots of Loyal Garden were designated Community Commercial, Mixed Use with the updates to the Bozeman Community Plan. Both the Billion property to the west and the Loyal Garden lots to the southwest of this property have been zoned/rezoned to B-2. The B-2 zoning will facilitate the development of a community center in the northwest portion of the city and will support the residential subdivisions to the north and south. The B-2 zoning is consistent with the adjacent neighborhood and will be developed with consideration given to the existing neighborhood character. 11. Was the new zoning adopted with a view to conserving the value of buildings? Yes. The neighboring properties are zoned B-P, UMU and R-O. The adjacent property to the west is developed with a bank and a veterinary clinic which are listed as principal permitted uses within the B-2 district. The properties to the north, south and east are currently vacant. Any B-2 development on this property would be complimentary to the neighboring buildings. In addition, this property is located within a Class I Entryway Corridor so development of this property will not only be reviewed against the UDO but also the Design Objectives Plan which establishes additional design standards to conserve the value of existing development, provide necessary buffers and maintain the aesthetic quality of the corridor. 12. Will the new zoning encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout such county or municipal area? Yes. The B-2 zoning is consistent with the underlying growth policy designation of Community Commercial, Mixed Use and reflects the long term land use development 276 3 of 3 pattern for the city. The new zoning will support commercial development that will provide greater convenience and reduce fuel consumption for residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. 277 278 279 Adjoining Property Owners Lot 4, Minor Subdivision No. 295, The Spring Creek Village Resort Bozeman, MT Frank Richard Kountz & Kristie Kountz 424 Meadows Drive Lake Havasu City, AZ 86404-3969 Tract 1, COS 2229 Frank Richard Kountz & Kristie Kountz 8600 Huffine Lane Bozeman, MT 59718-9012 Lot L, Minor Subdivision No. 313 Cresent Cross Limited Partners 5550 Blackwood Road Bozeman, MT 59718-7665 Tract 2, COS 2229 First Security Bank P.O. Box 910 Bozeman, MT 59771-0910 Lot 5A, Minor Subdivision No. 340A AO Group, LLC 935 Highland Boulevard, Ste 2180 Bozeman, MT 59715-6904 Lot 4, Minor Subdivision No. 340 THEAH, LLC Cottonwood Veterinary 450 Cottonwood Road Bozeman, MT 59718-9207 Lot 3, Minor Subdivision No. 340 Delaney & Co, ½ Int. Ken LeClair, ½ Int. 101 E. Main Street Bozeman, MT 59715 Lot 3A, Minor Subdivision No. 365 Julia J. Ruhl 491 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 1 Bozeman, MT 59718-1973 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 1 Okarche M. Vogel 475 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 2 Bozeman, MT 59718-1973 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 2 Robert & Carolyn Gaughen 480 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 3 Bozeman, MT 59718-1973 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 3 Peggy ann Mussehl 462 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 4 Bozeman, MT 59718-1973 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 4 Lorna A. McCormick 451 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 5 Bozeman, MT 59718-1973 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 5 Ruth E. Perkins 433 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 6 Bozeman, MT 59718-1973 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 6 James L. & M. Jane Simmons 3700 S. Westport Ave., #2368 Sioux Falls, SD 57106-6360 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 7 Harold & Diane Powers 438 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 8 Bozeman, MT 59718-1973 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 8 John & Karen Barnhart 398 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 9 Bozeman, MT 59718-1973 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 9 Gurney & Peggy Taylor 386 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 10 Bozeman, MT 59718-1973 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 10 280 Richard & Pamela Wallace 101 Erik Drive Bozeman, MT 59715-1745 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 11 Austin & Deidra Rector 423 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 12 Bozeman, MT 59718-2000 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 12 Dylan T. Cok 417 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 13 Bozeman, MT 59718-2000 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 13 Frank M. McCandless 413 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 14 Bozeman, MT 59718-2000 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 14 Curtis R. Toft 409 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 15 Bozeman, MT 59718-2000 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 15 Revocable Inter-Vivos Trust of Betty Madill Betty Madill, Trustee 403 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 16 Bozeman, MT 59718-2000 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 16 Michael & Diane Mone 393 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 17 Bozeman, MT 59718-2000 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 17 Revocable Inter-Vivos Trust of Betty Madill William Davis (50%) & Betty Madill (50%) 403 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 18 Bozeman, MT 59718-2000 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 18 Aloma S. Story 2263A W. Oak Street Bozeman, MT 59718-6017 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 19 Linda J. Lougee 354 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 20 Bozeman, MT 59718-2000 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 20 Laurence E. Thayer 365 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 21 Bozeman, MT 59718-2000 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 21 Bonnie I. Fifield 343 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 22 Bozeman, MT 59718-2000 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 22 Marlene J. Short 331 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 23 Bozeman, MT 59718-2000 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 23 George & Edna Spring 317 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 24 Bozeman, MT 59718-2000 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 24 Don & Diane Henson 322 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 25 Bozeman, MT 59718-2000 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 125 Jacoby Revocable Living Trust Mark & Kristie Jacoby, Trustees 308 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 26 Bozeman, MT 59718-2000 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 26 James G. Hanson & Madelene F. English 289 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 27 Bozeman, MT 59718-2001 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 27 Mildred V. McAfee Living Trust Mildred & Kenneth McAfee, Trustees 265 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 28 Bozeman, MT 59718-2001 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 28 281 Anna M. Shannon 298 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 29 Bozeman, MT 59718-2001 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 29 Edward & Linda Mooney P.O. Box 6776 Bozeman, MT 59771-6776 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 30 Alan & Kathleen Schachman P.O. Box 1069 Manhattan, MT 59741-1069 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 31 Scott & Traci Henderson 223 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 32 Bozeman, MT 59718-2001 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 32 Jean M. Travis 254 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 33 Bozeman, MT 59718-2001 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 33 Dale & Sherry Bergland 236 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 34 Bozeman, MT 59718-2001 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 34 Patti M. Schmidt 215 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 35 Bozeman, MT 59718-2001 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 35 Shawn Kelly Rowe 209 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 36 Bozeman, MT 59718-2001 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 36 William D. Gibson 212 Slough Creek Drive, Unit 37 Bozeman, MT 59718-2001 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 37 Dymerski Trust Joseph & Mary Dymerski, Trustees 40066 95th St. W. Leona Valley, CA 93551 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 38 Allison J. Walter & Nicole M. Walter 354 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 39 Bozeman, MT 59718-2003 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 39 Ken LeClair 2421 Highland Boulevard Bozeman, MT 59715-5852 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 40 Megan McWalter 354 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 41 Bozeman, MT 59718-2003 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 41 Dennis & Gloria Cartwright 332 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 42 Bozeman, MT 59718-2003 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 42 Ileana Indreland & Michael W. Delaney 101 E. Main Street, Suite D Bozeman, MT 59715 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Units 43 & 49 Carol A. Pazanin 323 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 44 Bozeman, MT 59718-2003 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 44 Elmer & Juanita Hedrich Living Trust Juanita R. Hedrich, Trustee 316 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 45 Bozeman, MT 59718-2003 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 45 Bill & Mary Allen 26682 W. 109th St. Olathe, KS 66061-8776 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 46 282 William & Peggy Ryan 307 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 47 Bozeman, MT 59718-2003 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 47 George & Thressa Kingma 303 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 48 Bozeman, MT 59718-2003 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 48 Cottonwood Condominiums, Inc. d/b/a CT Inc. 2421 Highland Boulevard Bozeman, MT 59715-5852 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Units 50, 53, 54 56 & 57 William Talley 277 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 51 Bozeman, MT 59718-2003 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 51 Donald W. Dyk 251 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 52 Bozeman, MT 59718-2022 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 52 Sime Family, LLC 105 Three Feathers Road Bozeman, MT 59718-7668 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 55 Joe & Gina Hupka 210 Stillwater Creek Drive, Unit 58 Bozeman, MT 59718-2022 Lot 2B, Minor Subdivision No. 365A CT Condominiums, Unit 58 Human Resource Development Council of District IX, Inc. 32 S. Tracy Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715-4659 Lot 2, Minor Subdivision No. 340 Units 101-102, 106-108, 201-203, 206-208 & 301-308 Ph 2, Bldg 2 Kimberly Heitman 244 S. Cottonwood Road, Unit 103 Bozeman, MT 59718-9239 Lot 2, Minor Subdivision No. 340 Unit 103 Michael & Kaylie Utter 210 Cirque Drive Bozeman, MT 59718-9315 Lot 2, Minor Subdivision No. 340 Unit 104 Raymond Charles Ingalls, Jr 244 S. Cottonwood Road, Unit 105 Bozeman, MT 59718-9239 Lot 2, Minor Subdivision No. 340 Unit 105 Tracy Marsh 244 S. Cottonwood Road, Unit 204 Bozeman, MT 59718-9239 Lot 2, Minor Subdivision No. 340 Unit 204 Clinton J. Bishop, Jr. 244 S. Cottonwood Road, Unit 205 Bozeman, MT 59718-9239 Lot 2, Minor Subdivision No. 340 Unit 205 CERTIFICATION OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS LIST I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the attached name and address list of all adjoining property owners of record and each purchaser under contract for deed of property within 200 feet of the property located at Lot 4, Minor Subdivision No. 295, The Spring Creek Village Resort, is a true and accurate list of names from the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder records and mailing addresses from the Gallatin County Assessor Records. I further understand that an inaccurate list may delay review of the project. _____________________________________ __________________________ Signature Date G:\c&h\11\11003\Office\ADJOINER.doc 283 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 1 of 11 SPRING CREEK VILLAGE RESORT LOT 4 REZONE ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FILE # Z-11002 ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Item: Zoning Application #Z-11002 – An application to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map to allow a change in municipal zoning designation from B-P (Business Park) to B-2 (Community Business) on 19.9621 acres. Owner: Spring Creek Village, LLC, 101 East Main Street, Suite D, Bozeman MT 59715. Applicant: Delaney & Co., Inc., 101 East Main Street, Suite D, Bozeman MT 59715. Representative: C&H Engineering and Surveying, 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman MT 59718 Date/Time: Before the Bozeman Zoning Commission on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 at 7:00 PM in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue Bozeman, Montana; and before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, March 7, 2011 at 6:00 PM in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue Bozeman, Montana Report By: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Recommendation: Denial LOCATION The property is 19.9621 acres of land located northwest of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Resort Drive. The property is Lot 4, Minor Subdivision 295, Section 10, Township 2 South Range 5 East, Gallatin County. Please refer to the vicinity map below. 284 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 2 of 11 RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES Based upon review and consideration by the Development Review Committee and Planning Staff, and after evaluation of the proposed zoning against the criteria set forth in 18.70.020 of the Unified Development Ordinance and Section 76-2-304 Montana Codes Annotated, the Planning Staff recommends denial of the requested Zone Map Amendment. In the event that Zoning Commission or City Commission finds differently, Staff recommends the following contingencies to be included with any recommendation or action of approval: 1. That the applicant submit a zone amendment map, titled “Spring Creek Village Resort ‘BP’ to ‘B-2’ Zone Map Amendment”, on a 24” by 36” mylar, 8 ½” by 11” or 8 ½” by 14” paper exhibit, and a digital copy of the area to be zoned, acceptable to the Director of Public Service, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the City of Bozeman Zoning Map. Said map shall containing a metes and bounds legal description of the perimeter of the subject property, total acreage of the property and adjoining rights-of-way and/or street access easements. 2. That the Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant provides a metes and bounds legal description and map of the area to be rezoned, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the zone map. PROPOSAL The property owner has made application to the Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development for a Zone Map Amendment to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map to change municipal zoning designation from B-P (Business Park) to B-2 (Community Business) on 19.9621 acres located northwest of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Resort Drive. The property is Lot 4, Minor Subdivision 295, Section 10, Township 2 South Range 5 East, Gallatin County. The subject property is currently located within the corporate limits of the City of Bozeman. The intent of the B-2 community business district is to provide for a broad range of mutually supportive retail and service functions located in clustered areas bordered on one or more sides by limited access arterial streets. LAND CLASSIFICATION AND ZONING The subject property has been subdivided and is presently vacant. The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property: North: Residential, R-O (Residential-Office district) vacant, multi-household residences; South: Residential, located outside the City; agriculture East: Community Commercial Mixed Use, UMU (Urban Mixed Use), vacant; West: Community Commercial Mixed Use, BP (Business Park), bank, veterinary clinic, automotive dealership and support businesses. B-2 (Community Business) to the NW and SW with warehouse, vacant, and unoccupied buildings, automotive dealership. Please see the maps below: 285 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 3 of 11 286 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 4 of 11 REVIEW CRITERIA A change in zoning district is a legislative act to set policy relating to future development proposals. The Bozeman Planning Office has reviewed the application for a Zone Map Amendment against the Bozeman Community Plan, the City of Bozeman Zoning Ordinance, and the thirteen (13) criteria established in Section 76-2-304, Montana Codes Annotated, and as a result offer the following summary-review comments for consideration by the Zoning Commission and City Commission. A. Be in accordance with a growth policy. No. The recent update to the growth policy, the Bozeman Community Plan, changed the future land use map, Figure 3-1, for this area from business park mixed use to community commercial mixed use. A map of the area is presented above. The B-2 district is one of several possible implementing zoning districts for the community commercial mixed use designation. However, Figure 3-1 is not the only element of the growth policy which must be considered. There are many goals, objectives, and other text which must also be evaluated. While not every element will apply to every proposal, a broad evaluation of compliance is needed. A proposal may comply with Figure 3-1 but not the other elements of the plan. To be in accordance with the growth policy compliance must be to both Figure 3-1 and the other plan elements. Chapter 3 of the Bozeman Community Plan gives addresses land uses. Beginning on page 3-3, there are seven ideas laid out which provide a foundation for Bozeman’s land use policies and practices. There is a description of each of them provided in the provided pages attached to this report. These are: 287 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 5 of 11 · Neighborhoods · Sense of Place · Natural Amenities · Centers · Integration of Action · Urban Density · Sustainability The description of the different land use categories depicted on Figure 3-1 are described in Section 3.4 of the growth policy. The definition of the community commercial mixed use designation begins on page 3-10. “Community Commercial Mixed Use. Activities within this land use category are the basic employment and services necessary for a vibrant community. Establishments located within these categories draw from the community as a whole for their employee and customer base and are sized accordingly. A broad range of functions including retail, education, professional and personal services, offices, residences, and general service activities typify this designation. In the “center-based” land use pattern, Community Commercial Mixed Use areas are integrated with significant transportation corridors, including transit and non-automotive routes, to facilitate efficient travel opportunities. The density of development is expected to be higher than currently seen in most commercial areas in Bozeman and should include multi-story buildings. A Floor Area Ratio in excess of .5 is desired. It is desirable to allow residences on upper floors, in appropriate circumstances. Urban streetscapes, plazas, outdoor seating, public art, and hardscaped open space and park amenities are anticipated, appropriately designed for an urban character. Placed in proximity to significant streets and intersections, an equal emphasis on vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation shall be provided. High density residential areas are expected in close proximity. Including residential units on sites within this category, typically on upper floors, will facilitate the provision of services and opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an automobile. The Community Commercial Mixed Use category is distributed at two different scales to serve different purposes. Large Community Commercial Mixed Use areas are significant in size and are activity centers for an area of several square miles surrounding them. These are intended to service the larger community as well as adjacent neighborhoods and are typically distributed on a one mile radius. Smaller Community Commercial areas are usually in the 10-15 acre size range and are intended to provide primarily local service to an area of approximately one-half mile radius. These commercial centers support and help give identity to individual neighborhoods by providing a visible and distinctive focal point. They should typically be located on one or two quadrants of intersections of arterials and/or collectors. Although a broad range of uses may be appropriate in both types of locations the size and scale is to be smaller within the local service placements. Mixed use areas should be developed in an integrated, pedestrian friendly manner and should not be overly dominated by any single land use. Higher intensity employment and residential uses are encouraged in the core of the area or adjacent to significant streets and intersections. As needed, building height transitions should be provided to be compatible with adjacent development.” Examples of applicable goals and objectives from the Bozeman Community Plan: Chapter 3 Land Use 288 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 6 of 11 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 minimizes sprawl. Rationale: A sense of community is strengthened by distinctive areas which facilitate neighborhood identity. This is strengthened when essential services are available and encourage informal interactions. Full featured neighborhoods allow extensive interaction and build identity with a specific part of the community. A sense of place does not prohibit change or continued evolution of the community. Objective LU-1.4: Provide for and support infill development and redevelopment which provides additional density of use while respecting the context of the existing development which surrounds it. Respect for context does not automatically prohibit difference in scale or designLU-2 centers LU-2.3 Chapter 4 Community Quality Goal C-1: Human Scale and Compatibility — Create a community composed of neighborhoods designed for the human scale and compatibility in which the streets and buildings are properly sized within their context, services and amenities are convenient, visually pleasing, and properly integrated. Rationale: A community’s physical form, rather than its land uses, is its most enduring characteristic. We should design places for people as the primary user. Good design looks good and feels good. The spatial relationships in our environment in large part determine our experience of the place. Scale and context should be the beginning point of any discussion of community quality. Goal C-3: Neighborhood Design – New neighborhoods shall be pedestrian oriented, contain a variety of housing types and densities, contain parks and other public spaces, have a commercial center and defined boundaries. Rationale: Good neighborhoods allow choices in housing, recreation, modes of transportation, options for commerce, work, and entertainment while providing a healthy environment and a sense of place and identity that residents can call home. Objective C-3.4: Create neighborhood Commercial Centers that will provide uses to meet consumer demands from surrounding Residential Districts for everyday goods and services, and will be a pedestrian oriented place that serves as a focal point for the surrounding neighborhoods. The site of the requested rezoning is currently vacant. The site is regular in shape with no odd boundaries. There are no existing buildings or internal infrastructure constraining the future use of the site. This is different than much of the adjacent commercial development which in some cases has been developed for many years or has constraining physical configuration. In considering the appropriateness of a particular zoning district for the site it is appropriate to consider what district will most fully advance the community plan goals and aspirations, not just what is the least possible to comply. As a zone map amendment is a legislative, not quasi-judicial, matter the City has discretion to decide the course considered most suitable. There are B-2 areas within the vicinity, but not adjacent to, the proposed site. The B-2 areas within the vicinity have different physical locations and configurations which lessen the likelihood of strip commercial development or other development that would be contrary to the growth policy. The 289 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 7 of 11 application site is therefore distinguishable from these other areas even though they all have an underlying community commercial mixed use growth policy designation. After examining the guiding principles for the land use chapter and the goals of the Bozeman Community Plan, Staff has concluded that a change to B-2, while conforming to Figure 3-1, does not meet the other elements of the plan. There is a transition in existing and proposed development character along W. Main Street/Huffine lane beginning at Fowler Avenue and intensifying at Ferguson Avenue to a more coherent and coordinated development style. The UMU zoning district at the corner of Ferguson Avenue and Huffine provides a potential for development advancing the Centers and Urban Density themes described in Section 3.2 of the Bozeman Community Plan. The requested rezoning site is immediately to the west of the UMU area and would provide a natural expansion for the UMU district. The larger UMU area would advance the ideas of Centers and a Sense of Place in the community and help avoid the appearance and function of commercial strip along Huffine Lane which is discouraged. The requested B-2 designation for the site would not accomplish this. Therefore, Staff does not find this criterion met for the requested change to B-2. See also Criterion J. B. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems. Neutral. The site is bounded on three sides by public streets, one arterial and two local streets. The site is in between Cottonwood Avenue and Ferguson Avenue which are signalized at their intersection with Huffine Lane. Resort Drive has limited access to Huffine Lane. The full right of way widths exist for these streets. The standard street sections as depicted in the long range transportation plan all include provisions for both motorized and non-motorized transportation. The standard sections are not altered by the change in zoning. The B-2 district allows for more intensive development than the BP district by allowing smaller setbacks, less open space required, and greater allowed building heights. If fully utilized, these would allow a greater number of destination trips to be generated by development of the site. The review procedures for site and subdivision proposals provide a means to measure and if needed mitigate impacts on the transportation systems. The B-2 district allows a greater diversity of uses than the BP district. A diversity of uses has the potential to support internal trip capture within the site. Either the BP or B-2 districts would allow a single use development of the proposed site. C. Secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers. Neutral. The site is within the response times for emergency services regardless of the zoning in place. The building codes will be applied to address necessary building exiting requirements and similar issues. No significant flood hazard has been identified. Other hazards are general to the Bozeman area and will occur regardless of zoning district. Proper security of the public will be affected by the timely installation of needed infrastructure. D. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare. No. Public health and safety will be addressed by the development standards of the Bozeman Municipal Code, construction codes, and similar guidance for development. The general welfare is promoted by maintaining and increasing the consistency of the zoning map with the Bozeman Community Plan. As described in Criterion A above the proposal does not appear to conform to the Bozeman Community Plan. E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air. Neutral. Either the BP or B-2 districts have provisions in place to ensure adequate light and air for the uses allowed within the district. The maximum surface area of a lot allowed to be covered with 290 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 8 of 11 buildings and other impervious in the BP district is limited to 60%. The B-2 district allows all of the lot except for required yards to be impervious surface. This means that the BP district provides greater quantities of light and air. There are many possible development scenarios where one district could develop more intensely than the other. The B-2 district allows residences under certain circumstances that may require dedication of parkland, BP does not. Different districts may have different open space standards and still meet this criterion. The Commission has determined that both the BP and B-2 zoning districts provide adequate light and air in conjunction with the rest of the standards in that district. F. Prevention of overcrowding of land. Neutral. These amendments are not altering requirements for lot coverage or building density. Objectively, overcrowding is a condition where the use of land overwhelms the ability of infrastructure and buildings to meet the needs of users. This functional problem is addressed by ensuring the installation of water, sewer, transportation, and other services in accordance with adopted City standards. Installation will be assured through the subdivision and site planning processes. Please note the constraint on sewer in Criterion H. G. Avoiding undue concentration of population. Neutral. The proposed amendments do not change standards for density of population. The B-2 district does allow for apartment buildings and accessory residences in conjunction with other principle uses. There is no minimum lot area requirement for residences in the B-2 district. The BP district does not allow residences. Undue concentration is a subjective measure but can most objectively be measured by whether there are adequate facilities to provide services to the persons within the area. H. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirement. Neutral. This amendments do not alter the City’s standards for public facilities. The parkland dedication, water rights provision, and other provision of infrastructure standards apply within both the B-2 and BP districts. Compliance with these standards will be required with any subdivision or zoning review when development intensity is more known. Development may occur over extended time periods and the availability of infrastructure may change over time as well. The site is within an area where sewer service is limited. The available service capacity has been allocated to those within the service area. If additional service is demanded there are considerable additional trunk sewers to be installed as described in the wastewater facility plan. The additional potential intensity of development allowed by the B-2 district may have additional demand for service beyond what could be done under the BP district. As shown in the citation below, the designation of a site with a particular zoning designation is not a certification that infrastructure is immediately available. “18.14.010.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 title 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.” 291 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 9 of 11 I. Conserving the value of buildings. Neutral. There are no buildings presently on the property proposed to be rezoned. The adjacent properties are mostly vacant. The site is separated from other properties on the north, east, and south boundaries by streets. Property to the west is either developed or approved for development with uses which would be compatible with the existing BP or proposed B-2 district. J. Character of the district. No. The site of the requested rezoning is currently vacant. The site is regular in shape with no odd boundaries. There are no existing buildings or internal infrastructure constraining the future use of the site. The adjacent parcel to the east is zoned as Urban Mixed Use .The parcels to the west are zoned Business Park. Development on those parcels to the west includes a veterinary clinic, banks, and future medical offices. Further west, across Cottonwood Avenue and within the BP zoning district, is existing development which was created through a PUD process several decades ago. There is property zoned as B-2 to the NW across Cottonwood Avenue and recently amended to the SW. In circumstances of the SW the site is physically configured in a restrictive manner and there are multiple existing buildings. To the NW the land uses proposed are a good fit for the B-2 district as an auto dealership complex which was proposed for that site prior to the change in zoning. The applicant’s submittal map erroneously shows the parcels immediately to the west of Cottonwood Road as B-2, and the property NW of the intersection of Fallon Street and Cottonwood Avenue as R-4. As noted earlier, there are vacant parcels adjacent to the subject site. Coordination with one of the adjoining zoning designations, like UMU, would be more consistent than placing B-2 at this location which has no adjoining B-2 zoning. At this point, there has not been a submitted proposal for possible development of the subject site and the zone map amendment must be reviewed with its potential for all uses and configurations allowed by the B-2 district. The historical B-2 development tends to be low height auto dominated single use development which doesn’t advance the desired more intensive, multi-use, high quality development sought in the growth policy. Unless a more specific proposal is made the City must consider the full range of allowable uses and character in a proposed zoning. The southern portion of the site lies within the West Main Entryway Corridor and the site is therefore subject to the standards of the Design Objectives Plan. These standards remain the same whether the zoning is changed or if it remains BP. K. Peculiar suitability for particular uses. Neutral. See discussion under the items A and J. The site has no physical characteristics which would make is especially suitable for particular uses. L. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. The Bozeman Community Plan future land use map, Figure 3-1, identifies the general character of the area as commercial mixed uses with residential to the north and south. The present uses authorized in the BP district have some overlap with the uses authorized in the B-2 district. Examples of overlap include offices and medical clinics. A full comparison can be made by examining Table 18-1 in Chapter 18 and Table 20-1 in Chapter 20 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Depending on the uses proposed within the site development could comply with the description of the community commercial mixed use district under either BP or B-2. M. Promotion of Compatible Urban Growth. No. The Bozeman Community Plan provides several guiding ideas and principles for the physical development of the City. Development consistent with these ideas and principles are more likely to be compatible with adjacent development both within and outside of the City limits. The growth policy 292 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 10 of 11 discourages strip commercial development and encourages higher density urban centers. Development inconsistent with the growth policy would not satisfy this criteria. For more discussion of this see Criterion A above. PUBLIC COMMENT No written or verbal testimony has been received. SUMMARY & CONCLUSION The Department of Planning and Community Development and the Development Review Committee, have reviewed the proposed Zone Map Amendment application and have provided summary review comments as outlined above in the staff report; and as a result, recommend denial of the application. The recommendation of the Bozeman Zoning Commission will be forwarded to the Bozeman City Commission for consideration at its public hearing scheduled for Monday, March 7, 2011. The City Commission will make the final decision on the application. IN THE CASE OF WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST SUCH CHANGES SIGNED BY THE OWNERS OF 20% OR MORE OF THE LOTS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO OR WITHIN 150 FEET FROM THE STREET FRONTAGE, 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 Zoning Commission has three possible actions to consider in forming their recommendation to the City Commission on this application: 1. Recommend to the City Commission to deny the application. If implemented by the City Commission, this would have the effect of leaving the BP (Business Park) zoning in place and future development on the site would be subject to the standards of the BP district. 2. Recommend to the City Commission to approve the application. If implemented by the City Commission, this would have the effect of changing the zoning to B-2 (Community Business) and future development on the site would be subject to the standards of the B-2 district. 3. If the Zoning Commission or applicant wish to recommend a district other than that requested in the application, the Zoning Commission should table the application and request Staff to reanalyze the proposal and to draft findings as such reflecting the desired alternate zoning. The item would then be reconsidered in light of the new analysis at a future meeting date. All motions should be phrased in the positive. If the motion does not receive at least three favorable votes the motion fails. To act on option 2 the Zoning Commission will need to elaborate their findings where they differ from those contained in the staff report. Suggested motion language for the three options listed above: 1. Having heard and considered public comment and all submitted materials and staff findings, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report and move to recommend to the City Commission that the existing zoning district of “BP” (Business Park District) remain on Lot 4, Minor Subdivision 295, Spring Creek Village Resort. 2. Having heard and considered public comment and all submitted materials and staff findings, I hereby find (insert alternate findings) and move to recommend that the City Commission approve the zone map amendment requested in application Z-11002 authorizing a zone map amendment for the subject property from “BP” (Business Park District) to “B-2” (Community Business District) subject to the contingencies listed on page 2 of the staff report. 3. Having heard and considered public comment and all submitted materials and staff findings, I hereby find that a zoning different than B-2 is desirable for this site and move to table the 293 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 11 of 11 application and request Staff to conduct analysis for the potential of (name the district) and return with findings to be considered at a future public hearing. REPORT SENT TO Spring Creek Village, LLC, 101 East Main Street, Suite D, Bozeman MT 59715. Delaney & Co., Inc., 101 East Main Street, Suite D, Bozeman MT 59715. C&H Engineering and Surveying, 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman MT 59718 ATTACHMENTS ZMA Application & Map Applicant’s response to ZMA criteria Letter from Applicant dated February 10, 2011 Bozeman Community Plan selections DRC Comments 294 Page 1 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2011 ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and ordered the Recording Secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Ed Sypinski Nathan Minnick Nick Lieb David Peck City Commission Liaison Chris Mehl Members Absent: Staff Present: Tim McHarg, Planning Director Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Michael Delaney Ileana Indreland Tony Renslow Jami Morris Cyndy Andrus ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT {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 general public comment forthcoming, Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 4. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 2011 295 Page 2 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2011 MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to approve the minutes of February 1, 2011 as presented. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick, Mr. Lieb, Mr. Peck, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-11002 – (Spring Creek Village Lot 4) A Zone Map Amendment requested by the owner, Spring Creek Village, LLC, and representative, Jami Morris, requesting to allow a change in urban zoning designation from B-P (Business Park District) to B-2 (Community Business District) on 19.9621 acres generally located west of Resort Drive, north of Huffine Lane, and south of Fallon Street and legally described as The Spring Creek Village Resort, Minor Subdivision No. 295, Lot 4, Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Saunders) (Continued from 2/15/11.) Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was to amend the zoning map and directed the Commission to the location of the site. He stated the Growth Policy Designation for the property was Community Commercial Mixed Use. He noted streets adjacent to the site and the location of the Community Commercial growth policy designation in comparison to the subject property. He stated there was a considerable amount of property within the vicinity that had not gone through the development process. He noted the location of the Billion property adjacent to the site and noted adjacent uses. He stated there had not been any public comment received in writing or in person. He stated Staff had been concerned with elements of the proposal and added the primary concern was compliance with the Growth Policy and its conformance with the map, goals, and objectives contained within the document. He stated the meeting had originally been noticed but had been opened and continued to this date while the City Commission was scheduled to review the proposal on March 21, 2011. He stated the Zoning Commission could concur with Staff, make their own findings, or table the proposal to allow time for amendments to the proposal. He stated Staff had met with the applicant and would continue to meet with them regarding design alternatives for the site. He stated he would be available to answer any questions. Mr. Sypinski asked for clarification that there would be a zone change made to include commercial uses as opposed to industrial uses to comply with the Growth Policy designation. Assistant Director Saunders responded there were a number of uses that overlapped in the B-2 district from the BP district and necessity for a zone change would depend on the specific proposal; he added there was a larger diversity of activities in the B-2 than in the B-P. Mr. Lieb asked the allowable uses that would cross over from B-P to B-2 zoning. Assistant Director Saunders responded that some examples of uses would be day care centers, banks, health & exercise establishments, hospitals, research laboratories, light manufacturing, medical clinics, offices, various public buildings, etc. and there would be opportunities to pursue Conditional Uses in the district. Mr. Lieb responded there did not seem to be a considerable difference in the allowable uses. Assistant Director Saunders responded B-P zoning was more restrictive as far as setback requirements were concerned and B-2 was more relaxed; B-2 also allows retail, food service, and housing. 296 Page 3 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2011 Mr. Lieb asked Staff’s concern regarding the proposed design of the site. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff’s concern was the relationship between the goals and objectives of the Growth Policy and the B-2 zoning for this site. This includes vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site; Staff was also concerned with proposed orientation and location of the structures within the site. Mr. Sypinski asked how the B-2 zoning would differ in impact on the Entryway Corridor than the B-P, UMU, or any other zoning designation. Assistant Director Saunders responded the positioning of the building and parking on the site would allow lesser setbacks where Business Park would simply look like a business park versus the something like the Locati building on East Main Street; office residential mixes would not be allowed in the B-P zoning district. Jami Morris addressed the Zoning Commission. She noted the development adjacent to the site; Allied Waste, Loyal Garden, JC Billion, and Cottonwood Vet Clinic as well as Alpine Orthopedic which was under construction. She noted the site was originally Business Park Growth Policy designation, but was currently Community Commercial Mixed Use Growth Policy designation. She noted the current proposal was for B-2 zoning and it would provide for basic services for residential neighborhoods located to the north of the site. She stated B-2 would afford an opportunity for higher density development and added that design and scale would be addressed during site plan review. She stated there were nine viable uses available for the property and a hotel and restaurant were currently interested in the location. She stated the applicant felt the City had indicated Community Commercial would be the best use for the site as they had modified the Growth Policy from its Business Park designation. She stated water and sewer were already being provided to the property and there were already signalized intersections and there was an existing sort of pork chop limiting access in that location to right in, left in, and right out. She stated the applicant had been given indication by the City Commission that they did not want to see the site developed as a PUD. She stated there was not much of a market for B-P lots and the general definition of strip development included direct access to a major thoroughfare, which would not occur on the site. She stated the Growth Policy discouraged strip development and all design proposals would be reviewed against the Design Objectives Plan. She stated the applicant chose the B-2 zoning designation option as outlined in the submittal materials outlining their responses to the review criteria. Michael Delaney addressed the Zoning Commission and directed them to a handout of a more specific design layout. He stated the property had been zoned Business Park for 20 years and no matter how they tried they could not develop the property. He stated Billion had used a Planned Unit Development to develop his property to allow his dealership. He stated a PUD had been initiated for the property east of the site known as Valley Commons which had widened the uses of B-P through the PUD. He stated he had been told the game had changed and the City would no longer encourage PUD’s; B-2 properties were developed and those with a different zoning designation that were developed had done so under a PUD. He stated the policy of the City was that there would be no more commercial development west of Fowler Avenue though the Ridge and other properties had been developed. He stated the City had approved the Urban Mixed Use zoning designation and he had argued the conditions of approval had made it nearly impossible for the site to be developed; a mandate of a minimum of three stories in height. He stated the City 297 Page 4 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2011 had agreed to zone the Billion property and part of the Loyal Garden subdivision as B-2 so they had attempted to secure the same zoning; he added two tenants were interested in occupying the site; one a bar/restaurant owner as well as a hotel owner. He stated there would be complications with each residential unit including parkland requirements and workforce housing; now the tenants are unwilling to wait beyond next summer. He stated he was encouraged that months from now the requirements for UMU would be changed; the B-2 development he was proposing would be well developed to include a mini Main Street done with style and thoughtfulness with users for at least two of the sites. He asked for the support of the Zoning Commission and suggested they would be proud to use the site in the future. Mr. Lieb asked if the property had the resort designation. Mr. Delaney responded the property did have a resort designation that had been approved through the State of Montana; he added they were in the process of purchasing their own liquor license as they have no guarantee the State of Montana will issue liquor licenses. Mr. Lieb asked if the hotel depicted on the site would be a Wingate. Mr. Delaney responded it would not be a Wingate, but would hopefully be another recognizable hotel. Mr. Lieb asked what uses would be located behind the hotel and restaurant. Mr. Delaney responded there would be mostly retail uses in that location. He stated entitlements for a B-2 zoning were workable while those for a B-P were difficult. Mr. Sypinski thanked Mr. Delaney for his presentation. He stated the Planning Board had recently reviewed the UMU zoning designation and asked why the applicant was not willing to extend the UMU designation to the site instead of requesting the B-2 zoning designation. Mr. Delaney responded they had considered that option and after the City Commission discussion during Informal review it was hard to understand what the City wanted and nearly impossible to develop the site at three story buildings; the killer of the deal according to Dan Burden to ensure long term success for the project and construction of buildings up to three stories in height but not mandated to construct them three stories in height. He stated financing would not be available if users were not acquired. He stated you had to be leery and practical in the current market. He stated that a number of occupants on North 19th Avenue had failed and would be vacating their stores; their intended design was based on a smaller and more intimate scale. Mr. Peck asked if public objections had been voiced in earlier iterations of the proposal. Mr. Delaney responded he can think of no public objection in any proposal in the last 20 years with the exception of one condo development that requested more green space in front of their building; there were no negative comments with the current proposal. Mr. Lieb stated the hotel had proposed 120 rooms and asked the scale of the structure. Mr. Delaney responded it would be somewhere between the Wingate and the Hilton Garden Inn but would be more stylized to fit the development; he added they were debating on whether or not to include a restaurant/bar in the hotel as well. Director McHarg suggested the Zoning Commission look more specifically at the zoning criteria while keeping in mind that only one of the many options for B-2 development had been presented at the meeting. Mr. Delaney responded if there was a choice between only UMU and B-P they would choose UMU, but would come back and request the B-2 zoning at a future date. 298 Page 5 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2011 Mr. Mehl stated the Staff Report indicated the intensity of the development might not be supported by Resort Drive. Mr. Delaney responded the State of Montana would require a four way stop. Mr. Mehl asked if Mr. Delaney was worried that right turn only out of the site would cause traffic issues. Mr. Delaney responded there would be two avenues of exit available as well as a possible future access point from the bank and medical campus planned for the area to the west; he added there were a number of right turn only access points along 19th Avenue that did not seem to detour people. Mr. Mehl asked how much of the site needed to be pedestrian friendly. Mr. Delaney responded if the development wasn’t pedestrian friendly, it would fail; when the property was developed to the east there would be connectivity between the sites and would be accessible by biking or walking. Mr. Mehl asked who had indicated that a PUD was not the preferred option. Mr. Delaney responded the Billion property had been encouraged to develop under the PUD and the City Commission had discouraged repeating the same zoning designation. Ms. Morris added the comment had been provided by Staff after the City Commission hearing for the UMU zoning designation. Mr. Mehl asked why the applicant was concerned that the Zoning Commission would recommend UMU. Ms. Morris responded that after three weeks of DRC review the indication was that Staff would support only UMU on the property and had instead recommended denial of the proposal instead of recommendation of the UMU district; she added Assistant Director Saunders had indicated that the noticing for the proposal would indicate an upzoning that had not been included in the proposal originally. Assistant Director Saunders stated the viability of which would be the best zoning district had been discussed during DRC review; UMU had not been advertised and B-2 had been analyzed with an allowance for the applicant to modify the application. He stated Staff’s concern was that the public was accurately noticed in a character that would allow them to reasonably conceive that there were multiple zoning districts under consideration. Mr. Delaney added he had asked his attorney to respond to Staff’s concerns and the Zoning Commission had been given that information. Director McHarg responded that just because something was legal did not make it the best planning practice. Mr. Sypinski stated he wished Greg Sullivan or Tim Cooper had given an opinion on Mr. Gallik’s letter of response. Mr. Mehl responded he thought Staff had already provided for the options available regarding a decision on the proposal. Mr. Mehl stated Mr. Delaney had the option of going before the City Commission to present the design that would be facing Huffine Lane. Mr. Delaney responded all the properties surrounding the site were effectively being used as B-2 properties; there was so much big retail in Bozeman that it was almost impossible to get it financed. He stated every ugly thing that could have been built in the City had been built and that was not their game anyway. Ms. Indreland asked the Zoning Commission to review how the site would comply with the goals and objectives of the Growth Policy; she added the answers would demonstrate how the site would comply. Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick opened the public comment period of the meeting. Seeing none forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. Mr. Lieb stated he had reservations with the approval of the proposal. He stated the City had not wanted B-2 zoning in that location as they had wanted services more centralized. He stated he 299 Page 6 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2011 didn’t think it would be a good location for the hotel right along Huffine Lane. He stated he had a problem allowing B-2 for adjacent sites and not the site in question. Assistant Director Saunders responded the adjacent zoning designations included B-P but the new Billion development north of Fallon Street was zoned B-2. Mr. Lieb responded he was in support of the proposed B-2 zoning designation. Mr. Peck stated he was so new to the project and the Zoning Commission that he hesitated to say much. He stated he liked the proposal and he felt as though the owner had put a lot of thought into the development of the property. He stated the layout was a little too symmetrical as he preferred asymmetrical design. He stated he was not crystal clear on Staff’s concerns with regard to the Growth Policy. He stated he was supportive of the proposal. Mr. Sypinski stated the review criteria must be addressed as set forth in the ordinance. He stated he was concerned with the B-2 zoning and would prefer to see the UMU zoning designation expanded; it seemed like the applicant wanted a second bite at the apple as the tenants originally proposed for the UMU had been relocated to the B-2 zoning area. He stated he did not find the application to be in keeping with the review criteria as set forth in the ordinance. He stated he was not supportive of the B-2 and noted three areas west of the property that were already zoned B-P. He stated he was not supportive of the application as proposed and suggested the Zoning Commission recommend the UMU zoning designation as opposed to the B-2 zoning. Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick stated that it seemed like there would be a better vehicle to allow Mr. Delaney to develop the property. He stated the worst case scenario is that the property would change hands and not be developed to the same quality. He stated his concern was whether or not the PUD could be the vehicle used to guarantee the proposed quality of design. Mr. Sypinski responded there would be no guarantee that the proposal would be built out as shown on the applicant’s drawing; he added it sounded great, but zoning potential did not allow for knowing exactly what the project would be. Mr. Lieb asked how the B-2 could be restricted. Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick responded development was economically driven and he did not think there was going to be a demand for that type of use for some time. Director McHarg responded he thought a PUD was always an option, though not one was necessarily theoretically supportive of; the Zoning Commission was charged with reviewing a vacant piece of property for allowable uses. Mr. Sypinski stated there were three options; denial, approval, or a recommended alternative to the zoning designation. Director McHarg responded he did not think it was good practice to recommend a different designation than that proposed unless the project was remanded back to Staff for further review and discussion with the applicant. MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-11002 as proposed. The motion carried 3-1. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick, Mr. Peck, and Mr. Lieb. Those voting nay being Mr. Sypinski. 300 Page 7 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2011 ITEM 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick nominated Mr. Sypinski as the Chairperson due to his experience. Mr. Sypinski stated he would humbly accept the nomination. MOTION: Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to appoint Mr. Sypinski as Chairperson. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick, Mr. Lieb, Mr. Peck, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none. MOTION: Chairperson Sypinski moved, Mr. Lieb seconded to appoint Mr. Minnick as Vice Chairperson. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Lieb, Mr. Peck, and Mr. Minnick. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Sypinski welcomed David Peck to the Zoning Commission. Assistant Director Saunders clarified what a majority of the Zoning Commission would be and what would constitute a quorum of members. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Edward Sypinski, Chairperson Tim McHarg, Planning Director Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 301 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION #Z-10320 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING MAP TO ALLOW A CHANGE IN A MUNICIPAL ZONING DESIGNATION ON APPROXIMATELY 19.9621± ACRES OF LAND FROM “BP” (BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT) TO “B-2” (COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT) ON PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 4, MINOR SUBDIVISION 295, LOCATED IN SECTION 10, T2S, R5E, PMM 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 ordinance and 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, C&H Engineering., on behalf of Spring Creek Village LLC, applied for a zoning map amendment, pursuant to Chapter 18.70 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, to amend the Bozeman zoning map to allow a change in a municipal zoning designation on approximately 19.9621± acres of land from “BP” (Business Park District) to “B- 2”, (Community Business 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 continued the public hearing originally advertised for February 15, 2011 to March 1, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 1, 2011, to formally receive and review all written and oral testimony on the proposed zoning map amendment; and WHEREAS, no public testimony was received at the public hearing on the matter of the zone map amendment; and 302 Page 2 of 2 WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission discussed the Community Commercial Mixed Use land use designation, long term use of the property, entryway corridor requirements, the difference between BP and B-2 zoning districts, and the growth policy; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment generally complies with the 13 criteria for consideration established in Chapter 18.70 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission, on a vote of 3-1, officially recommends to the Bozeman City Commission approval of zoning application #Z-11002 to allow a change in a municipal zoning designation on approximately 19.9621± acres of land from “BP” (Business Park District) to “B-2”, (Community Business District), on property legally described as Lot 4, Minor Subdivision 295, located in Section 10, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana subject to the following contingencies: 1. That the applicant submit a zone amendment map, titled “Spring Creek Village Resort ‘BP’ to ‘B-2’ Zone Map Amendment”, on a 24” by 36” mylar, 8 ½” by 11” or 8 ½” by 14” paper exhibit, and a digital copy of the area to be zoned, acceptable to the Director of Public Service, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the City of Bozeman Zoning Map. Said map shall containing a metes and bounds legal description of the perimeter of the subject property, total acreage of the property and adjoining rights-of-way and/or street access easements. 2. That the Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant provides a metes and bounds legal description and map of the area to be rezoned, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the zone map. DATED THIS DAY OF , 2011, Resolution #Z-11002 _____________________________ ____________________________ Tim McHarg, Planning Director Ed Sypinski, Chairperson Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman Zoning Commission 303 304