HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing for Christenot Zone Map Amendment
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Doug Riley, Associate Planner
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Christenot Zone Map Amendment #Z-11170
MEETING DATE: November 28, 2011
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission adopts the provided staff findings and approves
the zone map amendment, with the 4 recommended contingencies listed on Page 2 of the Staff
Report, and directs staff to prepare an ordinance for the map amendment.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Based upon the analysis and findings in the Staff Report and after consideration of public comment, I move to approve the zone map amendment request for R-4, with the 4 recommended contingencies listed on Page 2 of the Staff Report,
and direct staff to prepare an ordinance for the map amendment.
BACKGROUND: The Christenot Zone Map Amendment (ZMA) was originally on the City Commission’s agenda of August 29th, 2011. Following the public hearing, discussion and continuance of the preceding annexation application, this corresponding item was required to be
continued as well. As indicated for the annexation, staff also re-noticed this item due to the time
that has elapsed.
The property owner/ applicant, Paul Christenot, Executor for Orville Christenot RLT, represented by Madison Engineering, has made application to amend the City of Bozeman Zone
Map and establish an initial municipal zoning designation of R-4 (Residential High Density
District) on approximately 6.663 acres. The subject property is located on the south side of
Durston Road across from Springbrook Avenue and is addressed as 5200 Durston Road. The
underlying Bozeman Community Plan land use designation for the property is “Residential”. The property contains an existing home on the north side near Durston Road. The balance of the
property is undeveloped. On July 27, 2011 the Development Review Committee (DRC)
recommended approval of the application and their recommended contingencies are included in
the attached report.
The Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ZMA at their August 16, 2011 meeting to formally receive and review the application and all written and oral testimony on the proposal. The Zoning Commission voted 4-0 to not recommend approval of the requested R-4
zoning designation. The Zoning Commission did not recommend an alternate zoning designation
for the subject property. The Zoning Commission discussion and public comment received at the
60
Zoning Commission hearing can be found in the attached minutes from their meeting, as well as
the attached Zoning Commission Resolution.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: As previously noted, the Zoning Commission voted against
recommending R-4 zoning for the subject property and did not recommend an alternative zoning designation for consideration. (The Zoning Commission is only required to make a recommendation on the application before it and there is no statutory obligation for them to
make an alternate zoning recommendation). Staff continues to recommend approval of the
applicants requested R-4 zoning for the reasons included in the attached staff report.
If the City Commission determines to adopt a zoning designation different than what has been requested by the applicant, the following “Public Hearing Procedure and Requirement” section
from the Bozeman Municipal Code (Section 38.37.030.D.2) must be considered:
“If the City Commission intends to adopt a zoning designation different than that applied for, the
hearing will be continued for a minimum of one week to enable the applicant to consider their options and whether to protest the possible action. In the case of protest against a change to the zoning map by the applicant the same favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and voting
members of the City Commission is required as for any other protested zoning action.”
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the zone map amendment as recommended above by
Staff and the DRC.
2) Deny the zone amendment request as recommended by the Zoning Commission and consider a zoning designation different than what
has been requested by the applicant and continue the item for a
minimum of one week to allow the applicant to consider their
options and whether to protest the possible action (as required
under 38.37.030.D.2 cited above).
FISCAL EFFECTS: Annexing the property and establishing the new municipal zoning will
enable future development of the property with the full infrastructure and public services (police,
fire, streets, etc.) of the City. This would increase tax values and corresponding revenue from
the property. The City will accrue additional costs to service the property with municipal service.
Attachments: Staff Report, Applicant’s submittal materials, Zoning Commission Resolution #Z-11170, Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 8-16-11, public comment
Report compiled on: November 15, 2011
61
Christenot ZMA Staff Report #Z-11170 Page 1 of 8
CHRISTENOT ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FILE # Z-11170 CITY COMMISSION AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Item: Zoning Application #Z-11170 – An application to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map to establish a municipal zoning designation of R-4 (Residential High Density District) on approximately
6.663 acres.
Owner/Applicant: Paul Christenot, Executor for Orville Christenot RLT, 2400 Durston Road #68,
Bozeman, MT 59718.
Representative: Madison Engineering, 895 Technology Blvd., Suite 203, Bozeman, MT 59718
Date/Time: Before the Bozeman Zoning Commission on Tuesday, August 16, 2011 at 6:00 PM in
the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue Bozeman, Montana; and before
the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, August 29, 2011 at 6:00 PM in the Commission Meeting
Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue Bozeman, Montana
Report By: Doug Riley, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Approval of R-4 with contingencies
LOCATION
The subject property is located on the south side of Durston Road across from Springbrook Avenue and is addressed as 5200 Durston Road. The approximately 6.663 acres is legally described as a portion of Tract 6, Smith Subdivision located in the NW 1/4 of Section 11, T2S, R5E, PMM, Gallatin
County, Montana. Please refer to the vicinity map below.
62
Christenot ZMA Staff Report #Z-11170 Page 2 of 8
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 approval of the requested Zone Map Amendment with the following contingencies:
1. That all documents and exhibits necessary to establish an initial municipal zoning designation
shall be identified as the “Christenot Zone Map Amendment”. 2. That the Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be approved until the Annexation
Agreement is signed by the applicant and formally approved by the City Commission. If the
annexation agreement is not approved, the Zone Map Amendment application shall be null and
void.
3. That the applicant submit a zone amendment map, titled “Christenot 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 contain a metes and bounds legal description of the perimeter of the subject property and zoning districts, and total acreage of the property.
4. That the Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant
provides a metes and bounds legal description prepared by a licensed Montana surveyor 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 establish an initial municipal zoning designation of R-4 (Residential High Density District) on approximately 6.663 acres. The subject property is not currently
located within the corporate limits of the City of Bozeman and this ZMA is being processed with a
concurrent annexation application.
The intent of the R-4 District “is to provide for high-density residential development through a variety of housing types within the City with associated service functions. This will provide for a variety of compatible housing types to serve the varying needs of the community’s residents. Although some
office use is permitted, it shall remain as a secondary use to residential development. Secondary status
shall be as measured by percentage of total building area.”
On July 27, 2011 the Development Review Committee (DRC) recommended approval of the application with the recommended contingencies included above.
LAND CLASSIFICATION AND ZONING
There is an existing home and associated accessory buildings on the northern portion of the subject
property along Durston Road. The southern portion of the property is vacant. The following land uses
and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North (Across Durston Road): Residential; Zoned: R-1 (Residential Single-Household Low
Density District)
63
Christenot ZMA Staff Report #Z-11170 Page 3 of 8
South: Residential; Zoned R-1 and R-2 (Residential Two-Household Medium Density District)
East: Residential and School; Zoned R-4 (Residential High Density District)
West: Residential and vacant: Unannexed County Land – Designated “Residential” on the City of Bozeman Future Land Use Map
Existing Zoning and Future Land Use Maps
64
Christenot ZMA Staff Report #Z-11170 Page 4 of 8
REVIEW CRITERIA
The establishment of a 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 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO),
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 and City
Commission.
A. Be in accordance with a growth policy. Yes. The subject property is recognized as “Residential” on Figure 3-1 Future Land Use Map of the
Bozeman Community Plan as noted on the above map. The Residential land use designation of the
Bozeman Community Plan indicates that:
65
Christenot ZMA Staff Report #Z-11170 Page 5 of 8
“This category designates places where the primary activity is urban density dwellings. Other uses which complement residences are also acceptable such as parks, low intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches, and schools. High density residential areas should be established in close proximity to commercial centers to facilitate the provision of services and employment
opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an automobile. Implementation of this category
by residential zoning should provide for and coordinate intensive residential uses in proximity to commercial centers. The residential designation indicates that it is expected that development will occur within municipal boundaries, which may require annexation prior to development. The dwelling unit density expected within this classification varies between 6 and 32 dwellings per net
acre. A higher density may be considered in some locations and circumstances. A variety of housing
types can be blended to achieve the desired density. Large areas of single type housing are discouraged. In limited instances the strong presence of constraints and natural features such as floodplains may cause an area to be designated for development at a lower density than normally expected within this category. All residential housing should be arranged with consideration of
compatibility with adjacent development, natural constraints such as watercourses or steep slopes, and
in a fashion which advances the overall goals of the Bozeman growth policy. The residential designation is intended to provide the primary locations for additional housing within the planning area.”
Figure 3-1 (Future Lane Use Map) is not the only element of the growth policy which must be
considered. There are many goals, objectives, and other text which must also be evaluated. While not
every element will apply to every proposal, a broad evaluation of compliance is needed. A proposal
may comply with Figure 3-1 but not the other elements of the plan. To be in accordance with the growth policy compliance must be to both Figure 3-1 and the other plan elements.
Chapter 3 of the Bozeman Community Plan addresses land uses. Beginning on page 3-3, there are
seven principles 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
Supportive examples of applicable goals and objectives for this application include:
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.
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
design. (underlining added)
The majority of this site is vacant and this property can be considered an infill development site with
access to all necessary City infrastructure (streets, sewer, water, etc.) to allow a significant amount of
infill density. Existing adjoining streets have been stubbed to this property’s boundary from the east
66
Christenot ZMA Staff Report #Z-11170 Page 6 of 8
and south to allow additional development and vehicular and pedestrian connections and circulation.
As this site is relatively narrow in width, the higher density R-4 zoning and permitted lot sizes and permitted housing types (including apartments) would allow the most efficient development design to occur to accommodate new development. In considering the appropriateness of a particular zoning
district for a site, it is appropriate to consider what district will most fully advance the community plan
goals and aspirations. As a zone map amendment is a legislative, not quasi-judicial, matter the City has
broad discretion to decide the course considered most suitable.
There is also other existing R-4 zoning adjacent to the subject property to the east and the expansion of this area would allow for appropriate infill development and the utilization of the existing
infrastructure as desired by the City’s adopted Growth Policy.
B. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.
Yes. The site has frontage on and primary access from Durston Road which is classified as an arterial in the Bozeman Transportation Plan. Future development design would require alignment of any new
street on this property to align with Springbrook Avenue to the north. There are also two existing local
streets stubbed to this property’s boundaries to accommodate future connection. West Villard Street to
the east and Meriwether Avenue to the south. The extension/connection of these streets into this
property will likely be required as part of any future development proposal. These various street connections would allow this property to develop at a significant relative density and will enhance the
vehicular and pedestrian circulation opportunities for the adjacent neighborhoods as well.
C. Secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers.
Yes. The regulatory provisions established in all of the zoning designations, in conjunction with
provisions for adequate transportation facilities, properly designed water mains and fire service lines and adequate emergency exits/escapes, will address safety concerns with any further subdivision
and/or other development of the property. All new structures and development on the subject property
would be required to meet the minimum zoning requirements for setbacks, lot coverage, height
limitations and lot sizes to ensure the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Per
Chapter 18.02 of the UDO, the City of Bozeman’s has the authority and power to require more stringent standards than the minimum requirements if it ensures the best service to the public interest.
D. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare. Yes. The regulatory provisions established through the City’s municipal code under Title 18, Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO), BMC, will adequately address the issues of health and general
welfare. Further development of the subject property also requires review and approval by the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, City Engineer's Office and Director of Public Service.
The property, upon further development, would be required to come into conformance with all
requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Additional development issues related to municipal infrastructure (i.e., water and sanitary sewer) and public services (i.e., police and fire protection) will be addressed with subdivision and/or site plan
review when residential densities and demand can be more closely calculated. Water and sewer
infrastructure are in the vicinity and available to the site.
E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
Yes. The regulatory standards set forth in the City of Bozeman UDO for the requested R4 zoning district provides the necessary provisions (i.e., yard setbacks, lot coverage, open space and building
67
Christenot ZMA Staff Report #Z-11170 Page 7 of 8
heights), which are intended to provide for adequate light and air for any proposed development on the
subject property.
F. Prevention of overcrowding of land. Yes. The minimum yard setbacks established in the R4 district, as well as the limitations of lot
coverage for principal and accessory structures and off-street parking facilities, would maintain the
desired percent of buildable area. Minimum yard setbacks, height requirements, maximum lot
coverage and required parking are also limiting factors that help prevent the overcrowding of land. Such regulatory standards should prevent the overcrowding of land, and maintain compatibility with
the character of the surrounding area.
G. Avoiding undue concentration of population.
Yes. Future development of the subject property zoned under this proposal will likely result in a
significant density increase beyond what currently exists. However, compliance with the regulatory standards set forth in the UDO and the International Building Code will aid in providing adequately sized dwelling units to avoid undue concentration of population. According to the census information
for the City of Bozeman the average household size has been declining from 5.74 in 1930 to 2.48 in
2000. This historical trend is anticipated to continue and would indicate that the undue concentration
of the population is not a significant issue with any zoning designation.
H. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements. Yes. Further assessment of the impacts to infrastructure, public services, schools, park land, and other
community requirements will be evaluated during subdivision and/or site plan review. Said impacts
identified with development of the property will be mitigated with recommended conditions of approval by the DRC with a determination made by the approval authority on adequate provisions.
For this application, the DRC has determined that municipal infrastructure is located in proximity to
the subject property and may be extended into the property by the landowner/developer for further
development of the site. Emergency services are currently serving this area, and municipal police and
fire are within adequate response times of the site. The City will have the opportunity to further evaluate the development of the property during the above-described review procedures.
I. Conserving the value of buildings. Neutral. There is an existing residential home on the property and the proposed zoning would not
impact its value (and would likely enhance its value in conjunction with annexation and connection to
municipal services). It is more likely, however, that the property will be redeveloped in its entirety in order to be accommodate the necessary street infrastructure to serve the property. The adjacent
properties are primarily a mix of older and newer residential buildings and vacant properties.
J. Character of the district.
Yes. The most important factor in determining the suitability of a proposed zoning designation is the
potential for compatibility with existing adjacent land uses. As envisioned by the Bozeman Community Plan, this area is designated to continue to develop as “Residential”. The proposed zoning
also gives reasonable consideration to existing land uses and those predominately to the east that have
developed under R4 zoning. Future planning and review requirements will also give the City the ability
to control how the uses on site would function and relate to the surrounding developed and
undeveloped properties.
68
Christenot ZMA Staff Report #Z-11170 Page 8 of 8
K. Peculiar suitability for particular uses.
Yes. The relatively small nature (6.6 acres) and narrow shape of this property will benefit from the flexibility of the allowed residential land use types and dimensional requirements of the R4 zoning
district in designing future development. R4 zoning would permit infill development that would best
take advantage of the existing infrastructure (e.g. streets, sewer, water, etc.) available to this property.
L. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area.
Yes. The R4 zoning designation of this proposal is supportive of the overall intent of the growth policy in regards to encouraging infill development and the establishment of urban density. As previously
noted, this zoning will also allow this property to develop at a density that takes full advantage of the
existing infrastructure available at this location.
M. Promotion of Compatible Urban Growth.
Yes. 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
encourages infill development and higher density urban centers. Future review of an actual
development proposal will also look at achieving appropriate compatibility with the surrounding area.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No written or verbal testimony has been received by the Department of Planning and Community Development as of the writing of this staff report on August 10, 2011.
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 approval of the application
with contingencies.
The recommendation of the Bozeman Zoning Commission will be forwarded to the Bozeman City
Commission for consideration at its public hearing scheduled for Monday, August 29, 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.
REPORT SENT TO
Paul Christenot, Executor for Orville Christenot RLT, 2400 Durston Road #68, Bozeman, MT 59718
Madison Engineering, 895 Technology Blvd., Suite 203, Bozeman, MT 59718
ATTACHMENTS
Bozeman Community Plan - Chapter 3 Land Use Principles
Applicant’s submittal materials
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Christenot ZMA
1
RESOLUTION #Z-11170 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CITY OF
BOZEMAN ZONING MAP TO ESTABLISH AN INITIAL ZONING DESIGNATION OF R-4 (RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT) ON 6.663 +- ACRES OF SAID PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF TRACT 6, SMITH SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE NW ¼ OF SECTION 11, T2S, R5E, PMM,
GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted zoning regulations and a zoning map
pursuant to Sections 76-2-301 and 76-2-302, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-305, M.C.A. allows local governments to amend zoning maps
if a public hearing is held and official notice is provided; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-307, M.C.A. states that the Zoning Commission must conduct a public hearing and submit a report to the City Commission for all zoning map amendment
requests; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission has been created by Resolution of
the Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Section 76-2-307, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.70 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance sets forth
the procedures and review criteria for zoning map amendments; and
WHEREAS, Paul Christenot, Executor for Orville Christenot RLT, through their representative Madison Engineering, applied for a zoning map amendment, pursuant to Chapter
18.70 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, to amend the Bozeman zoning map to
establish an initial zoning designation of R-4 (Residential High Density District) for 6.663+-
acres; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment request has been properly submitted,
reviewed and advertised in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.70 of the
Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance and Title 76, Chapter 2, Part 3, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission held a public hearing on August 16, 2011, to formally receive and review all written and oral testimony on the proposed zoning
map amendment; and
WHEREAS, one public comment letter was received and six members of the public
spoke at the public hearing expressing concerns regarding the requested zoning designation of R-
82
Christenot ZMA
2
4 and its compatibility with area properties; problems with other existing R-4 or high density type developments in the area; the need to reduce the existing residential inventory before adding additional land; concerns with traffic; and this application changing the character of the area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission discussed the potential impact of
the application and the compatibility of the requested Zoning with area properties; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission finds that the proposed zoning
map amendment does not generally comply with the thirteen 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 4-0, officially recommends to the Bozeman City Commission denial of
zoning application #Z-11170 to amend the Bozeman zoning map to establish an initial zoning
designation of R-4 (Residential High Density District) on 6.663 +- acres contingent upon
annexation of said property which is described as Tract 6, Smith Subdivision located in the NW ¼ of Section 11, T2S, R5E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana.
DATED THIS DAY OF , 2011, Resolution #Z-11170
_____________________________ ____________________________ Doug Riley, Associate Planner Ed Sypinski, Chairperson
Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman Zoning Commission
83
Page 1 of 6
Zoning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2011
ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2011
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Sypinski called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and ordered the Recording
Secretary to take attendance.
Members Present:
Ed Sypinski, Chairperson
Nathan Minnick, Vice Chairperson
David Peck
Erik Garberg
City Commission Liaison
Chris Mehl
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Doug Riley, Associate Planner
Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Guests Present:
Chris Budeski
Jerry Pape
Carolyn Powell
Greg Kindschi
Scott Savage
Mark Lehman
Trevor Holzer
ITEM 2. 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 Sypinski closed this
portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JUNE 7, 2011
84
Page 2 of 6
Zoning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2011
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Minnick moved, Mr. Peck seconded, to approve the minutes of
June 7, 2011 as presented. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson
Sypinski, Mr. Peck, Mr. Garberg, and Vice Chairperson Minnick. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-11170 – (Christenot) A Zone Map Amendment
requested by the owner and applicant, Paul Christenot, Representative for Orville Christenot
RLT, 2400 Durston Road, #68, Bozeman, MT 59718, and representative, Madison
Engineering, Chris Budeski, 895 Technology Boulevard, Suite 203, Bozeman, MT 59718,
requesting to allow the establishment of the initial zoning classification of R-4 (Residential
High Density District) contingent upon annexation of 6.663 acres generally located at 5200
Durston Road, and legally described as a portion of Lot 6 in Smith Subdivision, Gallatin
County, Montana. (Riley)
Associate Planner Doug Riley presented the Staff Report noting the location of the proposal on
the south side of Durston Road and directed the Zoning Commission to a location map of the
property. He noted the proposal was for R-4 (Residential High Density District). He noted
adjacent land uses and other parcels that had not been annexed. He directed the Zoning
Commission to photos of what existed on the site and surrounding views. He stated there was an
existing single-family residence on the site. He stated the current future land use map
designation for the property designated the property as residential and noted the surrounding land
uses were also primarily residential. He stated there was existing R-4 property adjacent to the
east of the site and noted which properties were still under County jurisdiction. He stated Staff
was supportive of the R-4 zoning as it was compliant with the Growth Policy designation and
policies for residential development. He stated adequate infrastructure capacity to support R-4
development existed in the area and the main access would be off of Durston Road which is an
arterial street classification. West Villard and Meriwether streets were also stubbed to the
property’s boundaries and would be required to be connected. He stated Staff would require
Springbrook Avenue as a street connection and there would be design constraints; the R-4
designation would provide the property owner with maximum flexibility for housing
configurations. He stated he had received one letter of public comment opposing the proposed
R-4 zoning designation with preference to a lower density such as R-1 or R-2. He stated Staff
and the DRC was supportive of the proposal with the recommended conditions of approval.
Chairperson Sypinski asked Planner Riley where the owners lived that had provided public
comment. Planner Riley noted their location on the end of Meriwether Avenue adjacent to the
south boundary of the property.
Vice Chairperson Minnick asked if all three streets in that location would be required to be
connected. Planner Riley responded Staff would recommend connection per the requirements of
the code. Vice Chairperson Minnick asked if an adjacent development had occurred prior to the
construction of Meriwether . Planner Riley responded he was not certain.
Mr. Peck asked if Planner Riley had calculated the density for the site. Planner Riley responded
85
Page 3 of 6
Zoning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2011
he hadn’t, but the applicant had possibly laid out a site plan and had some idea. Mr. Peck asked
if R-1 or R-2 densities had been investigated and what those may look like. Planner Riley
pointed out the R-1 and R-2 developments north and south of the property for an example of
those densities.
Chairperson Sypinski asked for clarification of the impact fees question for the site. Planner
Riley responded that was part of the annexation request. Chairperson Sypinski stated that the
application indicated the property was wholly surrounded by the City of Bozeman and it was not
due to the adjacent County property. Planner Riley responded that in this case the parcel , along
with the adjacent County parcels, were well within City boundaries and wholly surrounded by the
City. Chairperson Sypinski stated he thought it would also be appropriate to propose R-1 or R-2
zoning and that he had crunched some numbers and determined there would be a large difference
between the densities on the site. Director McHarg responded that the density would be lower
than projected once the street infrastructure was included on the site; he added Staff was
supportive of the request due to the flexibility the R-4 zoning would allow and there would likely
be a combination of different residential types due to the property constraints.
Chris Budeski , Madison Engineering, addressed the Zoning Commission. He stated he was here
as a representative to the owner. He stated Planner Riley had done a great job in presenting the
application. He stated 40% of the land would be dedicated to right of way which would leave
60% for development. He stated the reason the R-4 had been proposed was to allow for
flexibility in housing types on the site as it was a long, narrow lot. He stated single-family,
duplexes, and multi-family would be proposed to maximize the use of the land. He stated the
main access to the site would be off of Durston Road and there would be a minimal impact to
adjacent properties. He stated water mains would need to be extended and a collection system to
the sanitary sewer would be required. He stated the maximum anticipated development would be
controlled by parking requirements and would likely equate to 60 units overall with the low end
being somewhere between 15 and 24 units. He stated there would also need to be parkland
included.
Mr. Garberg asked about the standard right of way for the streets. Mr. Budeski responded the
right of ways would be 60 feet.
Chairperson Sypinski noted that although he had been affiliated with Mr. Budeski as a member
of the Planning Board he was nonbiased in addition to having no financial interest in the project
and would make a fair decision on the proposal.
Jerry Pape, Representative, stated the Christenot family thanked the Zoning Commission for their
consideration of the proposal. He stated that in order to connect Meriwether to Springbrook
would be tricky and the more flexible R-4 designation would allow a better design around those
street connections. He stated the applicant was intending to sell the property at fair market value
to future developers. He stated the applicant had asked for costs to be deferred as part of
annexation due to their age and the current economic condition; they would not be able to endure
the burden until a developer was found for the property.
86
Page 4 of 6
Zoning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2011
Chairperson Sypinski opened the item for public comment.
Ted Newman, 535 Valley Drive, stated there were quite a few things that were concerns to him.
He stated the R-4 district was not compatible with the surrounding zoning districts. He stated the
City Commission had admitted an error with regard to the approval of the Fowler Place
Subdivision to the west and the size of the lots. He stated whoever buys the property might want
to place a high density apartment building so there was no guarantee that the site would have any
low density development. He stated the future street layout should be considered more carefully
and noted the R-3 could accommodate 1-5 household structures. He stated under the UDO the
City Commission had a legal obligation to investigate how the proposal would affect the
surrounding property valuations. He stated no, no, and hell no to R-4.
Greg Kindschi, 505 North Valley Drive, stated he was concerned with the R-4 designation and
wanted to go on record opposing the proposal. He stated there was already a lot of high density
residential adjacent to the property. He stated it didn’t take long to look at the police reports and
see the high density areas are the most troublesome. He stated there were also problems with
parking and traffic in those areas. He stated he would prefer to see R-2 or R-1 zoning for the
property.
Carolyn Powell, 315 North Valley Drive, stated she was on the County Zoning District #1
Planning Board and had indicated that nothing developed in the area was consistent with Zoning
District #1. She stated she saw no benefit other than to the developer. She stated someone living
in the R-4 area had decided to commit a crime and had been chased down the street by the police
only to be found in an R-4 structure. She stated R-4, if provided for students, should be located
near the college. She stated three houses behind them had a ten foot rear yard while their lot was
a half acre parcel; it would be too crowded for half acre lots that had been there forever. She
stated single-family homes with duplexes on the east side would be much more appropriate.
Scott Savage, 301 Valley Drive, noted the location of his property. He stated the Growth Policy
indicated the character of the existing neighborhood would be preserved; there would be a whole
different character when the developer made it as dense as possible to maximize profits. He
stated he had a six year old and was sometimes awakened by the existing high density
neighborhood 500 feet away. He stated R-1 or R-2 would make more sense.
Trevor Holzer, 197 Meriwether Avenue, stated he had the same concerns as had been previously
indicated. He stated traffic would be outrageous and his three children played in the street in that
location. He stated there would be a lot of traffic through their development south to Babcock
Street. He suggested the R-1 should follow the road while R-2 could be located on the other
side.
Mark Lehman, 3016 West Villard Street, stated he felt the same way as previous members of the
public. He suggested existing properties and residential inventories should be utilized instead of
new properties being developed. He stated hell no to R-4.
Mr. Peck stated one area of concern was the character of the district as he had visited the site; R-
87
Page 5 of 6
Zoning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2011
4 did not seem compatible with neighboring uses. He stated he would like to see some
demonstration of what the plat would look like. Director McHarg suggested that Staff and the
applicant be provided with a response opportunity to public comment.
Mr. Pape stated the applicant was not the developer. He stated R-4 or greater density was not
necessarily worth more money and the owner’s intent was not to make the same mistake twice.
He stated a tract of R-1 and R-2 would not balance out the site. He stated many members of the
public that had commented were not members of the City of Bozeman and asked the procedure
for those types of comments. Director McHarg responded they were still members of the public
and many of them would be living near the site.
Mr. Mehl reiterated that all members of the public were welcome to make comment at any public
meeting.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated there were 13 review criteria set forth in the Ordinance for
Zone Map Amendments that would have bearing on the review of the proposal.
Vice Chairperson Minnick stated that regardless of what happens, any time development occurs
there will be hurdles to go over with regard to adjacent properties. He stated it would be difficult
to develop the land without the R-4 flexibility due to the amount of infrastructure. He stated he
could not determine whether or not the character of the district would be impacted due to the
information provided with the application.
Chairperson Sypinski stated he had some concerns as he couldn’t see that R-4 was allowing more
flexibility as there wouldn’t be much difference in housing types. He stated the proposal was in
accordance with the Growth Policy but he was concerned that traffic patterns would be affected.
He stated he thought the prevention of overcrowding the land was not a criterion that had been
met and neither was undue concentration of the population. He stated he agreed with Vice
Chairperson Minnick that the character of the neighborhood should be maintained. He stated the
last review criterion was for compatible urban growth and he did not think it was compliant.
MOTION: Mr. Garberg moved, Vice Chairperson Minnick seconded, to forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-
11170 with Staff conditions findings as outlined in the Staff Report. The motion failed 0-4.
Those voting aye being none. Those voting nay being Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Peck, Mr.
Garberg, and Vice Chairperson Minnick.
Mr. Garberg stated he appreciated the difficulty in developing the small lot with 60 feet of right
of way being required for streets. He stated the problem was locating the R-4 against a historic
single-family neighborhood; respect must be shown.
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Mehl stated there had been a Zoning Commission member application but he was unable to
serve on the Ethics Board as well as the Zoning Commission.
88
Page 6 of 6
Zoning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2011
Director McHarg encouraged members of the public to attend the City Commission hearing for
the proposal and noted the date, time, and location of the meeting. He suggested public comment
could be provided in writing as well.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Edward Sypinski, Chairperson Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96