Loading...
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