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
SUBJECT: Zone Map Amendment Z-11002 Spring Creek Village Resort Lot 4
MEETING DATE: June 6, 2011
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing for Z-11002 and consider whether to
amend or to not 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: 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.
This zone map amendment was heard by the Zoning Commission on March 1st. The minutes and
resolution summarizing their discussion and decision are included with this memo. The City
Commission’s consideration was originally scheduled to hear this application on March 7th,
however the hearing was continued several times at the applicant’s request. The applicant now
wishes the hearing to go forward.
The applicant has been working to identify options to address the concerns raised in the staff
report. Several different options were considered and found to not be viable. The applicant
submitted a concept PUD and subdivision pre-application on May 17th to examine the options to
develop the property.
Several public comments have been received both in support and in opposition to the application.
A protest was received from some of the owners in the adjacent Cottonwood Condominiums.
The protest did not reach the threshold needed to require a super-majority action by the City
Commission.
On May 26, 2011 the applicant’s representative delivered a letter requesting the Commission
table the application indefinitely. Only the Commission can address this request. As the
Commission directed staff to be prepared to conduct the public hearing on June 6th after the
166
applicant requested and was granted two previous continuances, the staff has prepared the entire
packet necessary to conduct the hearing. If the Commission decides to table the application then
the packet materials will not be used. If the Commission declines to table the application, then
the packet materials are available for action on June 6th.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: 1) Does the Commission wish to conduct the hearing and decide the
application or accept the request to table indefinitely?
2) Are the zoning purposes met by the proposed change in zoning district designation?
3) Does the Commission wish to amend the zoning map?
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Table the application indefinitely.
2) Retain the existing zoning designation.
3) Amend the zoning map as requested.
FISCAL EFFECTS: There are no direct expenses to the City budget associated with a zone
map amendment whether it is implemented or not.
Attachments:
Staff report to Zoning Commission
Zoning Commission minutes and resolution
Zone Map Amendment application and supporting documents
Public Comment
Letter requesting application be tabled indefinitely
Report compiled on: May 27, 2011
167
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.
Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 1 of 11
168
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:
Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 2 of 11
169
Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 3 of 11
170
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.
Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 4 of 11
171
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:
• 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.
Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 5 of 11
172
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
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
Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 6 of 11
173
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
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
Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 7 of 11
174
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
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
Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 8 of 11
175
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.”
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.
Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 9 of 11
176
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
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
Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 10 of 11
177
Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report #Z-11002 Page 11 of 11
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
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
178
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION #Z-11002
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
179
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
180
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
181
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.
182
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
183
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.
184
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
185
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.
186
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
187
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:
188
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:
189
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?
190
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
191
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.
192
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
193
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.
194
195
196
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
197
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
198
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
199
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
200
201
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/ANNX.ZMA.GPA.ZCA.BMC/AN...laney%20zone%20change%20request%20-%20Kirchoff%204-11-2011.txt
From: Aimee Kissel on behalf of Agenda
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 8:38 AM
To: Chris Saunders; Brit Fontenot; Carson Taylor; Chris Kukulski; Chris Mehl;
Chuck Winn; Cyndy Andrus; Greg Sullivan; Jeff Krauss; Sean Becker
Subject: FW: Delaney zone change request
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Kirchhoff [mailto:skirchhoff3@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:25 AM
To: Agenda
Subject: Delaney zone change request
Dear Mayor and Commissioners:
I am writing to urge you to deny Mike Delaney's requested zone change to allow
the eventual construction of a "mini downtown" on the west end of Bozeman.
A mini downtown is undesirable. For the past 50 years, the viability of
Bozeman's central downtown business district has always been at the heart of
our land use planning processes; a mini downtown to the west is contrary to
this core thought process. I agree with assistant planning director Saunders,
who said the requested change to B-2 on this far-flung property is contrary to
the goal of infill, sense of place, and a human scale of development. These
objections seem to be the minimum of what is wrong with Mr Delaney's
application. In a
larger sense, this proposal is in opposition to the foundation of our
best-laid plans for the future of our city, which have been adopted following
a long, deliberative process that gives highest priority to the collective
good.
Mr Delaney has a legitimate interest in "improving" and using his property.
Yet the interest of an individual property owner should not be allowed to
trump the community's express desire for orderly and positive land use. Surely
if Mr Delaney sought to convert his property into public parkland, no hue and
cry would go up and little opposition would come from the zoning commission
and professional staff. If Mr Delaney were to donate the property to the city
for use as a water park or west side city pool and rec center, the community
would feel gratitude for his actions. If Mr Delaney wished to deal the land to
the school district or the hospital, he would enjoy a downhill ride in his
interactions with staff and commissions, not the uphill battle that is engaged
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/ANNX.ZMA.G...20change%20request%20-%20Kirchoff%204-11-2011.txt (1 of 2) [5/23/2011 10:48:18 AM]
202
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/ANNX.ZMA.GPA.ZCA.BMC/AN...laney%20zone%20change%20request%20-%20Kirchoff%204-11-2011.txt
in now with his intention to create a mini downtown.
And the list of potential uses goes on and on. If you vote to deny Mr
Delaney's request, as I hope you will, he will not lose his right to use his
property, only the particular spectrum of uses he requests will be denied.
The city is in no way behooved to facilitate Mr Delaney's particular designs
for his property when these designs run counter to land use designations that
were adopted after a protracted, open, legal process that put the community's
best interests first. I encourage you to deny his request.
Sincerely,
Steve Kirchhoff
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/ANNX.ZMA.G...20change%20request%20-%20Kirchoff%204-11-2011.txt (2 of 2) [5/23/2011 10:48:18 AM]
203
From: Stacy Ulmen on behalf of Agenda
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 8:50 AM
To: Tim McHarg; Chris Saunders; Greg Sullivan; Chris Kukulski; Chuck Winn; Brit
Fontenot
Subject: FW: Zone Map Change submitted by Micheal Delaney
Hello,
I assume that staff will be getting back to this individual regarding his questions?
Stacy
From: Sean Becker
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:43 PM
To: Agenda
Subject: FW: Zone Map Change submitted by Micheal Delaney
-------------------------------------------
From: Mike Money[SMTP:CUTBANKKID@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:42:47 PM
To: Jeff Krauss; Sean Becker; Carson Taylor; Chris Mehl; Cyndy Andrus
Cc: Carl and Lee Spring; Richard and Pamela Wallace; Curt Toft;
Betty Madill; Linda Lougee; Ed and Linda Mooney; Allison and Micki Walter;
Anna Shannon; Austin and Deidra Rector; Bill and Mary Allen; Bill Gibson;
Carol Pazanin; Don and Diana Henson; Gurney and Peggy Taylor; Jean Travis;
Jim and Madelene Hanson; Jon and Dylan Cok; Larry Thayer; Lorna McCormick; Mark and Kristie Jacoby; Marlene Short; Rich and Molly Semenik;
Ruth Perkins; Scott and Traci Henderson; Shawn and Wayne Rowe
Subject: Zone Map Change submitted by Micheal Delaney
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Honorable Commissioners,
I send this email in regards to the Zone Map Change being proposed by Mike Delaney for the property that
borders Huffine Lane, Resort Avenue and Fallon Street. I am the President of the CT Condominium
Association which adjoins the subject property. With that in mind we will be presenting a letter to you, the
City Commission, which will present our association’s objections to the proposal.
I am sending you this personal message for two reasons. The first is I am not sure I can be at the City
Commission hearing scheduled to review Mr. Delaney’s application. The second is to express our
disappointment with the applicant. He is part owner/partner of our low density residential development, which
is less than 50% developed. His continued push to expand the commercial use of the land South of us, and
utilize the “Resort” liquor license designation as granted the State of Montana, in no way benefits the current or
future homeowners in our Association.
Please understand, when we elected to purchase our homes in CT Condominium development, we understood
the subject property was zoned Business Park. Yet, we elected to take that risk. However, with the “resort”
liquor law designation and the community business zoning designation, there is no bright future for our
neighborhood or future property values. We are asking you to vote against this Zone change.
Please review please our letter prior to the meeting and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call
me.
Thanks for taking the time.
Mike Money
406-581-8599
Page 1 of 1
4/1/2011file://R:\PROJECTS\Current Planning\ANNX.ZMA.GPA.ZCA.BMC\ANNX.ZMA\Z11002...
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
From: Aimee Kissel on behalf of Agenda
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:28 AM
To: Chris Saunders; Tim McHarg; Brit Fontenot; Carson Taylor; Chris Kukulski; Chris
Mehl; Chuck Winn; Cyndy Andrus; Greg Sullivan; Jeff Krauss; Sean Becker
Subject: FW: West Side Story II
From: DeFrance.Dan [mailto:Dan.DeFrance@IGT.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 9:46 AM
To: Agenda
Cc: dan.defrance@gmail.com
Subject: West Side Story II
Dear Commissioners,
I live with my family in the Valley West subdivision of Bozeman. Because the area is new and largely unfinished,
we are always looking forward to seeing this part of Bozeman develop, and always hoping for the best.
A couple of years ago I happened to meet Mike Delaney and Ileana Indreland at an airport while we waited for
our flight home to Bozeman. They had exciting plans for a large tract of land near our neighborhood. They
wanted to challenge the status quo and push for mixed‐use development in the west side of Bozeman, and they
wanted to know my opinions. Afterwards, they continued to seek out more opinions from more people living in
the area. To me, it was evidence that Bozeman was maturing into a modern city with its own distinct pockets of
culture and commerce like I had always hoped for, rather than the all‐too‐common western towns along the
Interstate, which seem to surround themselves by continuous and declining sprawl in every direction. Mike and
Ileana had already proven themselves capable of carrying out a spectacular real estate vision when they
successfully developed The Village Downtown on the east side of Bozeman. Shortly later, I was glad to see the
city commissioners listen to the plans for the west side and approve the zoning that would allow the idea to
become a reality. I am still grateful for that decision, and I count my family lucky that our part of Bozeman will
now have something exciting to offer as our children grow within the town that grows around them.
The economy has slowed in the two years since then, but Mike and Ileana have weathered the storm and have
stayed true to their dream for the west side. I met with both of them again recently, and was glad to hear that
they will soon be gearing up to move forward with construction. They also mentioned that if they could muster
the support, they would like to make another tract of adjacent land more than what it has been zoned for as
well. That is why I am writing. Mike and Ileana have the resources and the determination to make that part of
Bozeman into something better than an office park. This parcel would need to be rezoned from BP to B‐2 in
order to realize this potential. It could then allow local shops and restaurants, and with it a more distinctive and
useful personality on the west side of Bozeman. It could help the Valley West subdivision in which we live to
become an even healthier localized community with an identity of its own, with something more to offer the
rest of Bozeman. I hope that when the opportunity comes up, you will vote to allow the rezoning to pass, and
continue growing Bozeman in a smart and modern way; a continued exception to the ordinary.
Best regards,
Dan DeFrance
4526 Alexander St.
Bozeman, MT 59718
Page 1 of 1
5/23/2011file://R:\PROJECTS\Current Planning\ANNX.ZMA.GPA.ZCA.BMC\ANNX.ZMA\Z1100...
232
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/ANNX.ZMA.GPA.ZCA.BMC/A...MA/Public%20comment/public%20comment%20April%2025,%202011.txt
From: Aimee Kissel on behalf of Agenda
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 8:12 AM
To: Chris Saunders; Tim McHarg
Subject: FW: Delaney Application
From: Sean Becker
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 5:12 PM
To: Agenda; bigskyice@yahoo.com
Subject: FW: Delaney Application
-------------------------------------------
From: memontana2@aol.com[SMTP:MEMONTANA2@AOL.COM]
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 5:11:39 PM
To: Sean Becker; Carson Taylor; Cyndy Andrus; Chris Mehl; Jeff Krauss;
Chris Kukulski
Subject: Delaney Application
Auto forwarded by a Rule
To: Bozeman City Commissioners:
We are writing this letter in support of Delaney’s application #Z-11002 regarding change
in use of Lot 4, located at Huffine and Resort Dr.
We are residents of Cottonwood Condominiums, an adjacent condominium
development. It is our understanding that a petition was submitted from the President
of our HOA, with several signatures of residents who are objecting to this change of
zoning. We have talked to others in the HOA, and find that this petition does not
represent the view of all the owners.
In our opinion, the change in zoning so that this development may be built as planned,
would be prudent. It seems there are currently too many condo complexes in this area,
and a retail/office project would be welcomed, not only for the convenience of having
these businesses and offices nearby, but also to stir up the mix, by adding something to
the neighborhood, other than more condos. The plan seems to be well designed with
forethought.
Actually, we have seen the plans for Delaney’s Spring Creek Village, which will be
adjacent to this development you are currently reviewing. We will be happy to have
shops and restaurants within walking distance of our home, and look forward to its
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/ANNX.ZMA....omment/public%20comment%20April%2025,%202011.txt (1 of 2) [5/23/2011 10:48:21 AM]
233
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/ANNX.ZMA.GPA.ZCA.BMC/A...MA/Public%20comment/public%20comment%20April%2025,%202011.txt
completion. We do believe that both of these developments will enhance our property
value, and be a needed contrast to all the many multi-family projects in the area.
We ask that you grant this application.
Mary Ellen and Ken Vidar
284 Stillwater Creek Dr.
Bozeman, MT 59718
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/ANNX.ZMA....omment/public%20comment%20April%2025,%202011.txt (2 of 2) [5/23/2011 10:48:21 AM]
234
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/ANNX.ZMA.GPA.ZCA.BMC/A...MA/Public%20comment/Public%20Comment%20April%2026,%202011.txt
From: Aimee Kissel on behalf of Agenda
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:22 AM
To: Chris Saunders; Tim McHarg
Subject: FW: public comment re: Delaney
From: Sean Becker
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 6:49 PM
To: Agenda; bigskyice@yahoo.com
Subject: FW:
-------------------------------------------
From: Mike Libster[SMTP:MLIBSTER@NW-CONCEPTS.COM]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 6:49:30 PM
To: Sean Becker; Carson Taylor; Cyndy Andrus; Chris Mehl; Jeff Krauss;
Chris Kukulski
Cc: 'Ken Vidar'
Auto forwarded by a Rule
April 25, 2011
TO: Bozeman City Commissioners
FROM: Michael & Kara Libster
234 Stillwater Creek Drive
Bozeman Montana 59718
RE: Delaney application #Z-11002
This letter is written in support of Michael Delaney’s above-reference application for change in use request
for Lot 4 on or near Huffine Lane and Resort Drive.
We recently purchased Unit 234 in the Cottonwood Condominium development. It has recently come to
our attention that some residents, including the president of the home owner’s association, have
submitted a petition objecting to the change of use request put forth by Mr. Delaney. We, along with other
members of the development, do not agree with this petition and we wish to add our support to Mr.
Delaney’s project.
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/ANNX.ZMA....omment/Public%20Comment%20April%2026,%202011.txt (1 of 2) [5/23/2011 10:48:22 AM]
235
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/ANNX.ZMA.GPA.ZCA.BMC/A...MA/Public%20comment/Public%20Comment%20April%2026,%202011.txt
During our 22 years of living both outside the city limits as well as within the city, one consideration of our
most recent move was the potential for better access to restaurants, shops and other commercial
businesses. From what we understand of the proposed project, we believe that Delaney’s “resort/business
use” would be a great addition to the neighborhood and would provide a much-needed variety of
neighborhood commercial, retail and restaurant options to an area dominated by a sea of residential
homes, townhouses, and condominiums. Using these lots found in high-traffic proximity to Huffine Lane,
embodies what we feel to be not only the highest and best use assessment of appropriate zoning for the
subject property, but a great source of future tax revenue for the city as well.
We find this mixed use “overlay” to be in strong alignment to the City of Bozeman’s stated zoning mission
of encompassing a “mixture” of residential with “neighborhood” retail, office, and business space. We
have always believed this zoning strategy is better than the alternative and unsightly, mass grid of
commercial development found in areas like North 19th, 7th Street, and other similar areas. This proposed
usage further promotes a green, pedestrian friendly, alternative to lengthy drives from residential
neighborhoods to high traffic areas to shop.
We look forward to seeing Mr. Delaney’s project come to completion and respectfully ask that you grant
his application.
Sincerely,
Michael and Kara Libster
234 Stillwater Creek Drive
Bozeman Montana 59718
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/ANNX.ZMA....omment/Public%20Comment%20April%2026,%202011.txt (2 of 2) [5/23/2011 10:48:22 AM]
236
237
238