HomeMy WebLinkAboutFellowship Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit with Variances, Application Z-11069.pdf1
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Dave Skelton, Senior Planner
Bob Murray, City Engineer’s Office
Tim McHarg, Director, Planning and Community Development
SUBJECT: A Conditional Use Permit with Variances Application to allow the construction of a 53,587
square foot church with related parking and site improvements on property located on the northeast
corner of the intersection of West Oak Street and North 27th Avenue. The application for a conditional
use permit includes a request for variances to Section 18.44.010A “Relationship to Undeveloped Areas”
and 18.44.010.B “Relationship to Developed Areas” to not construct North 25th Avenue and provide for
the continuation of streets, Section 18.50.060 “Frontage” to not construct North 25th Avenue and provide
street frontage along the west perimeter of Rose Park. Zoning File #Z-11069.
MEETING DATE: May 23, 2011
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action Agenda Item
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission denies the requested variances to: 1) Section
18.44.010A “Relationship to Undeveloped Areas” and 18.44.010.B “Relationship to Developed Areas”,
and 2) Section 18.50.060 “Frontage”; and
That the City Commission approves the Conditional Use Permit Application for Fellowship Baptist
Church, Z-11069 Conditional Use Permit with Variances, Zoning Application #Z-11069 with said
conditions listed in the staff report.
Staff recommends that the City Commission first take action on the two variance requests and then
recommends that this application be conditionally approved with the conditions listed in the staff report.
RECOMMENDED MOTION FOR VARIANCE TO SECTION 18.44.010.A “RELATIONSHIP
TO UNDEVELOPED AREAS” AND SECTION 18.44.010.B “RELATIONSHIP TO
DEVELOPED AREAS TO NOT CONSTRUCT NORTH 25TH AVENUE AND PROVIDE FOR
THE CONTINUATION OF STREETS:
“Having reviewed the application materials, considered public comment, and considered all of the
information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for Z-11069 and move to
deny the requested variance to Section 18.44.010A “Relationship to Undeveloped Areas” and
18.44.010.B “Relationship to Developed Areas” to not construct North 25th Avenue and provide for the
continuation of streets.
Commission Memorandum
2
RECOMMENDED MOTION FOR VARIANCE TO SECTION 18.50.060 “FRONTAGE” TO
NOT CONSTRUCT NORTH 25TH AVENUE AND PROVIDE STREET FRONTAGE ALONG
THE WEST PERIMETER OF ROSE PARK:
“Having reviewed the application materials, considered public comment, and considered all of the
information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for Z-11069 and move to
deny the requested variance to Section 18.50.060 “Frontage” to not construct North 25th Avenue and
provide street frontage along the west perimeter of Rose Park.
RECOMMENDED MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
“Having reviewed the application materials, considered public comment, and considered all of the
information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for Z-11069 and move to
approve Conditional Use Permit application Z-11069 to construct a 53,587 church and site related
improvements, hereby incorporating by reference the findings included in the staff report with
conditions as recommended in the staff report and subject to all applicable code provisions.
BACKGROUND: Fellowship Baptist Church and representative Van Bryan Studio Architects have
submitted a Conditional Use Permit with Variances application to construct a 53,587 square foot church
and related site improvements at the northeast corner of the intersection of West Oak Street and North
27th Avenue. Churches are considered a Community Center land use, and therefore, a conditional use
permit is required in the R-3 zoning district in which it is located. The property is not located in an
Overlay District; therefore design review is not required of this application.
The application includes a request for variances to the following sections of the Bozeman Municipal
Code: 1) Section 18.44.010A “Relationship to Undeveloped Areas” and 18.44.010.B “Relationship to
Developed Areas” to not construct North 25th Avenue and provide for the continuation of streets, and 2)
Section 18.50.060 “Frontage” to not construct North 25th Avenue and provide street frontage along the
west perimeter of Rose Park.
At the request of the applicant, the City Commission on April 25, 2011 reclaimed approval authority
over the Conditional Use Permit with Variances application, which is typically under the jurisdiction of
the Board of Adjustment.
On April 29, 2011, Planning Staff met with the Director of Parks & Recreation, Recreation and Parks
Advisory Board (RPAB), and Gallatin Valley Land Trust (GVLT) to discuss the application for a
conditional use permit and consider the potential impacts of the requested variances to the adjacent Rose
Park. Based on the informative meeting and consideration of the applicant’s requested variances the
Director of Parks & Recreation, RPAP and GVLT recommend approval of the said variances. Attached
to the staff report are the findings and recommended conditions provided by the three agencies for
consideration by the City Commission.
On May 4, 2011 the Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the requested variances and
conditional use permit application. The DRC was split on a recommendation of the requested variances,
which resulted in a recommendation of denial, and further recommended conditional approval of the
conditional use permit application. Their recommended conditions, code provisions and comments are
included in this report.
3
Should the Commission choose to grant the variances in whole or part, the City Engineer’s Office and
Planning Office recommends that the following options be considered as a condition of approval:
Option 1: Grant the variance in its entirety. In this case, the street would not be constructed. A paved
shared use path would be constructed instead of the street. The easement for the street is in place and
would remain to allow for future construction. Under this option alone, any future construction of the
street would be funded entirely by the City.
Option 2: Grant the variance to the requirement to construct the entire street width, but instead require
that a “half” street be constructed prior to occupancy of the proposed development. This would include
curb, gutter and sidewalk on the west side of North 25th Avenue and a minimum of 24’ of asphalt. This
would allow for two way traffic until such time as the east side of the street is constructed, but would not
allow for parking in the interim. Under this option, in the future the City would be responsible for
funding the curb, gutter and sidewalk on the east side and the remaining 7’ of asphalt to complete the
street.
Option 3: Grant the variance but require a waiver of right to protest a Special Improvements District
(SID) for North 25th Avenue in the future. Creating an SID for this improvement may be difficult due to
the fact that there would only be one owner involved assuming the City paid for its portion. The lack of
diversity of ownership and the size may make it difficult to sell bonds for an SID. It could be included
in a larger SID if one were contemplated which could help mitigate this concern. Additionally, part of
the standard language in the waivers is that if an alternate means of financing is utilized the applicant
agrees to participate on completion of the improvements on a fair share proportionate basis.
With exception to the variances requested with this application, the recommended conditions of
approval are intended to the guide the development and build out of the subject property as proposed.
As of this writing the Planning Office has not received any formal objection of the recommended
conditions from the applicant, nor has staff received any public testimony on the Conditional Use Permit
with Variances application.
A full and complete digital version of the Conditional Use Permit with Variances application is available
upon request at the office of the Department of Planning and Community Development. As the subject
property also has a substantial amount of background with efforts for development of the site and
previous requests for variances to not construct North 25th Avenue, said staff report and minutes of
previous City Commission meetings are available at the request of the Commission.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Which of the alternatives does the Commission wish to select?
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approval of the Conditional Use Permit with Variances Application as submitted to include the
request for variances to the Bozeman Municipal Code with no conditions.
2) Approval of the Conditional Use Permit with Variances to include the request for variances to
the UDO with the recommended conditions of approval provided in the staff report.
3) Approval of the Conditional Use Permit with Variances to deny, one or both of the requested
variances to the UDO with the recommended conditions of approval provided in the staff report.
4) Denial of the application.
5) As determined by the Commission.
4
FISCAL EFFECTS: The Department of Planning is not aware of any fiscal effects for the proposed
development at this time, but will include increased property tax revenues, along with increased costs to
deliver municipal services to the property, when the property is developed. Granting of the variances to
not construct North 25th Avenue with this development may place the burden on the City to complete
local street improvements with any future identified needs.
Attachments: City Commission Staff Report w/ Exhibits
Agency Comments
CUP with Variances Application
Report compiled on May 12, 2011
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
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:
Fellowship Baptist Church
Fellowship Baptist Church felbap@bresnan.net
2165 W. Durston Bozeman, MT 59718 jeremy@fhgconstruction.org
587-0033 n/a
Van Bryan Studio Architects vbryan@vbsa.net
21 W. Babcock Bozeman, MT 59715
586-4777 586-4778
Van Bryan Studio Architects vbryan@vbsa.net
21 W. Babcock Bozeman, MT 59715
586-4777 586-4778
Lot 5, Phase II Annie Subdivision
n/a
Church and church parking
R-3 Undeveloped Lot
Urban Residential Infill
10.99 478820.8 10.99 478820.8
128
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:
✔
✔
✔
✔
129
130
SEATS PARKING / SEAT SPACES REQUIRED350 1/4 88PUBLIC ASSEMBLY AREAS AREA PARKING / AREA SPACES REQUIREDMen's Ministry (109) 678 1/200 SF 3Women's Ministry (111) 725 1/200 SF 4Activity Center (141) 2,100 1/200 SF 11Youth (204) 3,218 1/200 SF 16Activity (205) 2,265 1/200 SF 11CLASSROOMS AREA SEATS (1/21 SF)SPACES REQUIRED 119 302 14 4120 220 10 3134 457 22 5135 255 12 3136 255 12 3137 255 12 3138 280 13 3139 254 12 3140 254 12 3141 254 12 3142 254 12 3217 350 17 4218 309 15 4219 309 15 4220 309 15 4TOTALS 184FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCHPARKING CALCULATIONSWORSHIP CENTER131
132
133
134
135
136
3-30-11
Bozeman Planning Department
City of Bozeman
Re: Fellowship Baptist Church
Variance Request-Narrative
Dear Planner,
The Fellowship Baptist Church (FBC) is submitting a Conditional Use Permit with a two
part Variance Application for its proposed project on the North East corner of Oak and
27th. The Variance is specific to The Uniform Development Ordinance, Section
18.50.060. “Frontage” and Section 18.44.010A&B “Relation to undeveloped
areas/Relation to developed areas”.
The FBC is requesting consent to install a 10’ hard surface transportation trail and
amenities in lieu of the requirement to install the future phase of 25th St. proposed
between its eastern boundary and Rose Park
The two Variances have been evaluated pursuant to the following:
Section 18.66.060 Zoning Variances
Section 18.50.060 “Frontage”
C.- Criteria for Consideration and Findings – In acting on an application for a
variance, the Commission shall designate such lawful conditions as well secure
substantial protection for the public health, safety and general welfare, and shall issue
written findings setting forth factual evidence that the variance:
1. Will not be contrary to and will sere the public interest;
The installation of a 10’ hard surface transportation trail will not be contrary to and will
serve the public interest due to the unique use of Rose Park. In fact it is the preference
and opinion of the Parks and Recreation Department that the transportation trail is a more
appropriate solution than the extension of 25th St. Rose Park is home to a community
Folf Course which is widely utilized. If 25th St. and subsequent street side parking where
to be in place, it is reasonable to expect unwanted interaction and damage to result
between the Folf participants and parked vehicles. Concurrently if 25th were to be in
place there exists a danger of participant and vehicular incidents.
137
2. Is necessary, owing to conditions unique to the property, to avoid an unnecessary
hardship which would unavoidably result from the enforcement of the literal
meaning of this title:
b. Conditions unique to the property may include, but are not limited to, slope,
presence of watercourses, after the fact imposition of additional regulations on
previously lawful lots, and governmental actions outside of the owners control
The FBC feel that the Variance is warranted due to the hardship which is created with the
addition of language and regulations that were implemented after the legal creation of Lot
1 and Rose Park.
The property known as Lot 1 of Phase of Annie Subdivision, was recorded May 30th,
1995.
Section 18.50.060 “Frontage”- This language was added to the Uniform Development
Ordinance in 2001, 6 years after the planning and plating of this legal lot.
At the time of original platting the Annie Subdivision and more specifically Lot 1 and
Rose Park met all City and State subdivision requirements. At no time was it required or
planned for the continuation of 25th St. to divide the property.
The proposed extension of 25th St does not act as a major vehicular connector or arterial
to the surrounding community, if 25th were installed it is planned to terminate on the
northerly boundary of Tschache Lane. Therefore 25th has no specific vehicular public
benefit.
3. Will observe the sprit of this title, including the adopted growth policy, and do
substantial justice;
The spirit of the this title and adopted growth policy will be observed and protected with
the installation of a hard surface transportation trial for the specific reasons that the
language was added to the UDO:
Section 18.50.060. “Frontage”
The rational for adding the 2001 “Frontage” language regarding Street frontage along
park perimeters was advantageous for three reasons, a delineation of public vs. private
space, transportation route (sidewalk) and parking. The proposed hard surface
transportation path will accomplish all three objectives.
138
Delineation - The hard surface transportation trail in conjunction with trees and park
elements will act as a visible delineation line between the FBC property and Rose Park.
Transportation - The hard surface trail will allow pedestrians and bikers to move quickly
and safely between the parks two boundaries.
Parking- In order to accommodate parking, the church would like to offer the use of its
parking lot for park access during non church service hours. This will be in addition to
the current Rose Park parking lot located of off Tschache Rd.
4. In addition to the criteria specified above, in the case of a variance relating to the
flood hazard provisions of Chapter 18.58, BMC
The land is not in a flood hazard and therefore this requirement is Not Applicable.
Section 18.44.010A&B “Relation to undeveloped areas/Relation to developed areas”.
The Variance specific to these two sections pertains to the fact that the project will be
built in multiple phases. Therefore by definition there will be developed and
undeveloped areas on the site all relative to and adjacent to Rose Park. It is because these
two regulations are opposites of the same condition that they are evaluated concurrently.
C.- Criteria for Consideration and Findings – In acting on an application for a
variance, the Commission shall designate such lawful conditions as well secure
substantial protection for the public health, safety and general welfare, and shall issue
written findings setting forth factual evidence that the variance:
1. Will not be contrary to and will sere the public interest;
25th St., if installed would act as a local street only, it would not server to connect
differing areas of town, nor act as a collector to major arterials or as an arterial itself.
The completed transportation plan for 25th has the street ending at Tschache Rd which is
located on the properties northerly boarder. Therefore there will not future connectivity
that is lost with out the continuation of vehicular traffic. The result has been determined
that the function of 25th St is for the adjacent parking and pedestrian circulation thru the
park. As stated above, the public will be served with the provided parking and hard
surface transportation trial.
2. Is necessary, owing to conditions unique to the property, to avoid an unnecessary
hardship which would unavoidably result from the enforcement of the literal
meaning of this title:
139
b. Conditions unique to the property may include, but are not limited to, slope,
presence of watercourses, after the fact imposition of additional regulations on
previously lawful lots, and governmental actions outside of the owners control
As identified in the narrative above, the creation of Lot 1 and Rose Park were done so
legally with out the future intent of the extension of 25th St.
3. Will observe the sprit of this title, including the adopted growth policy, and do
substantial justice;
As stated in the rational for the variance for street frontage above, it is the opinion of the
Parks and Recreation Department that the hard surface transportation trail will observe
the spirit of the title and accomplish the goals set out for the purpose of park frontage
while minimizing the capacity for incident between the parks users due to vehicular
proximity.
4. In addition to the criteria specified above, in the case of a variance relating to the
flood hazard provisions of Chapter 18.58, BMC
The land is not in a flood hazard and therefore this requirement is Not Applicable.
In conjunction to the Variance and with the acknowledgement that all future scenarios
can not be anticipated, FBC further acknowledges that the required 60’ road easement
typical in the planning of 25th would remain in tact.
In conclusion the FBC contends that there is not a clear advantage to the installation of
25th St., and further contends that he collective argument with the support of the Parks
and Recreation Department form a persuasive argument for support of the Variance
request.
Thank you,
Van K. Bryan, Architect.
140