HomeMy WebLinkAboutCrescent Cross growth policy amendment
Page 1 of 3
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
SUBJECT: P-11003 Crescent Cross growth policy amendment
MEETING DATE: Monday, December 12, 2011
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action Item
RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: “Having heard and considered public testimony, the materials
presented in the packet, and the review criteria for amendment of the growth policy I move to
approve Application P-11003 with the contingencies provided in the Staff report.”
BACKGROUND: On July 27, 2011 The City received an application to amend Figure 3-1, the future land use map, in the Bozeman Community Plan at the intersection of Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road. The City Commission conducted a public hearing on October 10th to consider
the application. At that meeting the Commission decided that, prior to acting on the individual
application, the Commission wanted to consider options while discussing the larger development
pattern along the Huffine Lane corridor, from Ferguson Avenue westerly to the City limits. On November 14th the City Commission considered several options for the best means to discuss the larger development pattern and directed special noticing over a larger area than minimally
required. The noticing has been completed in preparation for this action item. A map of the
general area under discussion is attached.
Growth policy amendments set basic outlines for land development policy and implementation. Analysis of issues at a broader scale can help ensure consistency in deliberation and action to
advance overall community benefits. Analysis can also identify the need to alter implementation
tools such as zoning districts or design guidelines rather than the growth policy itself. The
decision under this application is limited to the decision to amend or not amend Figure 3-1 of the Bozeman Community Plan.
The future land use map is created to geographically place land uses to advance the policies and
goals adopted in the growth policy. Chapter 3, Land Use, Section 3.2 describes seven core
principles that are central to the Community’s land use goals and their relation to other sections of the document. A copy of the chapter is attached. These seven are:
• Neighborhoods
• Sense of Place
• Natural Amenities
• Centers
425
Page 2 of 3
• Integration of Action
• Urban Density
• Sustainability
Section 3.3 of the Growth Policy establishes land use goals and objectives. Section 3.4 creates
the different future land use designations presented on Figure 3-1 and describes each one and its
characteristics.
The core principle most impacted in this discussion is that of ‘centers’ which is quoted below.
“Centers. Strengthen a pattern of community development oriented on centers. A
corollary principle is for compact development. Commercial activities in mutually
reinforcing centralized areas provide:
• Increased business synergy.
• Greater convenience for people with shorter travel distances to a wide range of
businesses.
• The opportunity to accomplish several tasks with a single trip.
• Facilitates the use of transportation alternatives to single occupant motor vehicles,
with a corresponding reduction in traffic and road congestion and air quality
impacts.
• Enables greater access to employment, services, and recreation with a reduced
dependence on the automobile.
• Greater efficiencies in delivery of public services.
• Corresponding cost savings in both personal and commercial applications.
The center-based concept is expected to require less land for actual business activities
due to efficiency such as shared parking. It also changes the shape of the commercial
areas. The center-based development pattern is supported in this plan by locating centers at the intersection of arterial and collector streets. Such locations allow not only immediately adjacent residents but also passing travelers to support the commercial
activities. Centers are further supported through careful location of higher density
housing in a manner that provides support for commercial operations while providing
amenities to residents.”
The nearest designated large commercial center is the Gallatin Valley Mall/Bozeman Gateway
complex at College Street and Main Street. This is over one mile from the Cottonwood/Huffine
intersection. Based on this distance, designation of the Cottonwood/Huffine intersection as a
center merits consideration. This would provide for a focal point for development in this portion of corridor, as well as a logical westerly terminus for commercial development in the corridor.
The City has endeavored for many years to avoid the Huffine corridor from being a commercial
strip which is generally characterized by shallow depth commercial development fronted by
parking lots with frequent vehicle access points from the street. Methods used to avoid a commercial strip from developing along this corridor include:
• The northern side of the corridor does have continuous commercial future land use
designation and zoning, but these parcels are deeper, varying between 600-1320 feet.
426
Page 3 of 3
This additional depth provides the design flexibility to locate parking areas and
circulation areas to the interior of developments, instead of along the corridor edge.
• The Design Objectives Plan reinforces the intended character of the corridor by encouraging a corridor edge characterized by a shared use pathway and larger landscaped setbacks. This is reinforced by a strong building edge parallel to Huffine, which screens
parking areas and defines the primary entries to developments.
• The City and the Montana Department of Transportation have adopted required access
spacing requirements which limit access to the street corridor. These spacing requirements result in primary access being taken from side streets and shared access points, along with cross access easements between developments.
No new public comment has been received at this time. Additional noticing was provided as
directed by the City Commission. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None
FISCAL EFFECTS: None established at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the application. If implemented by the City Commission, this would have the
effect of changing the designation to Community Commercial Mixed Use and future
development on the site would be subject to a zone map amendment to establish the
standards of a commercial zone, likely the B-2 district. 2. Approve a change in the land use designation for an area of less than the 20 acres requested in the application. A subsequent zone map amendment application would like
follow to establish the standards of a commercial zone, likely the B-2 district.
3. Deny the application. This would have the effect of leaving the Residential future land
use designation in place and future development on the site would be subject to the standards of one or more of the residential zoning options after annexation.
Attachments: Staff Report Application
Planning Board minutes
Planning Board resolution
Chapter 3, Land Use, Bozeman Community Plan Map of corridor Public Comment to date
Report compiled on: November 30, 2011
427
Crescent Cross GPA Staff Report #P-11003 Page 1 of 7
CRESCENT CROSS GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT FILE # P-11003 PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT
Item: Planning Application #P-11003 – An application to amend Figure 3-1 of the Bozeman Community Plan to change the future land use designation on 20 acres from Residential to Community Commercial Mixed Use.
Owner/Applicant: Crescent Cross Limited Partnership, 5550 Blackwood Road, Bozeman MT 59718-
7665.
Representative: Madison Engineering, 895 Technology Blvd. Suite 203, Bozeman MT 59718
Date/Time: Before the Bozeman Planning Board on Tuesday, September 20, 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, October 10, 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: Approval
LOCATION
The property is 20 acres of land located at the South East corner of the intersection of Huffine Lane
and S. Cottonwood Road. The property is legally described as: A portion of Tract 2, Certificate of
Survey 2229 located in the W 1/2 of Section 15, T2S, R5E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana.
Please refer to the vicinity map below.
RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES
Based upon review and consideration by the Development Review Committee and Planning Staff, and
after evaluation of the proposed amendment against the criteria set forth in Chapter 17, Bozeman
Community Plan, the Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested Amendment.
428
Crescent Cross GPA Staff Report #P-11003 Page 2 of 7
In the event that the Planning Board finds differently, Staff recommends the following contingencies to
be included with any recommendation or action of approval:
1) The applicant shall submit, within forty-five (45) days of approval by the City Commission, an 8½- x 11-inch or 8½- x 14-inch exhibit entitled “Crescent Cross Growth Policy Amendment” to
the Planning Department containing an accurate description of the property for which the
growth policy designation is being amended. The exhibit must be acceptable to the Planning
Department.
2) The resolution for the growth policy amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant provides an exhibit of the area to be re-designated, which will be utilized in the preparation of
the resolution to officially amend Figure 3-1, the Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman
Community Plan.
PROPOSAL
The property owner has made application to the Bozeman Department of Planning and Community
Development for a Growth Policy Amendment to amend Figure 3-1 of the Bozeman Community Plan
on approximately 20 acres SE of the intersection of Huffine Lane and South Cottonwood Road. The
subject property is currently located outside the corporate limits of the City of Bozeman. The proposal is made with the intent to annex and zone the property for future development.
LAND CLASSIFICATION AND ZONING
The subject property is presently used for agriculture. A minor subdivision has been proposed in
Gallatin County to divide the area subject to the map amendment from the larger 140+ acre parent tract
the majority of which will remain outside of the City. The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North: Community Commercial Mixes Use; Business Park zone; Bank, offices, car sales,
vacant
South: Residential, located outside the City; agriculture
East: Residential, located outside the City; Solid waste collection and shop, agriculture;
West: Community Commercial Mixed Use, B2 (Community Business), vacant and roofing supplier. Residential; mixed residential districts, single homes and vacant
Please see the maps below to show the vicinity of the Figure 3-1 Future Land Use map overlaid with
existing zoning and a vicinity map with the current land uses as of Dec. 31, 2010.
429
Crescent Cross GPA Staff Report #P-11003 Page 3 of 7
Vicinity Map – Growth Policy Future Land Use and Zoning
430
Crescent Cross GPA Staff Report #P-11003 Page 4 of 7
Vicinity Map – Current Land Use
REVIEW CRITERIA
A change in the growth policy is a legislative act to set policy relating to future development proposals.
There are no statutory criteria for evaluation of a growth policy amendment other than the general purposes for a growth policy. The City of Bozeman has locally established through its growth policy four specific criteria for amendment. The Bozeman Department of Planning and Community
Development has reviewed the application against the locally established criteria of the Bozeman
Community Plan, and as a result offer the following summary-review comments for consideration.
1. The proposed amendment must cure a deficiency in the growth policy, or improve the growth policy, to better respond to the needs of the general community;
The amendment is for a small area and is unlikely to of itself materially change the growth policy.
However, the proposal does raise questions about the development of the Huffine corridor and what
types of development are appropriate. The needs of the community change from time to time and since
the development of the Bozeman Community Plan the health of the national economy has significantly altered. One of the items recently discussed in various situations has been the need for more accessible
industrial property. The majority of the land planned for industrial use in Bozeman is presently not
accessible due to lack of resources to develop the property and/or environmental restrictions. There is
431
Crescent Cross GPA Staff Report #P-11003 Page 5 of 7
presently a long established an industrial use to the east of the current proposed amendment. It may be
more beneficial to the community as a whole to consider the application site and additional area for industrial rather than commercial uses. This is an analysis and discussion beyond the scope of this individual application. Although Huffine Lane is an entryway corridor there are mechanisms in place
to work with site and subdivision design for industrial development to be suitable to the site.
2. The proposed amendment does not create inconsistencies within the growth policy, either
between the goals and the maps or between different goals and objectives.
The proposed change does not appear to cause any material inconsistencies in the growth policy.
3. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy;
The proposed change does not appear to be inconsistent with the growth policy.
4. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the community as a whole or significant
portion by:
Significantly altering land use patterns and principles in a manner contrary to those established by this plan,
The most significant potential impact is to the residentially planned area to the south. Presently the
Huffine Lane corridor provides a separation from commercial uses. The perimeter area to the east is
adjacent to an existing industrial use and change in impacts is considered negligible in this area. The Huffine corridor is presently an area with numerous projects in various stages of conceptual development which if brought to construction will significantly change the lightly developed character
now along the area. The final character of those developments will be subject to review to the City’s
design standards. The City does have established standards to address the interface between residential
and non-residential development.
Requiring unmitigated larger or more expensive improvements to streets, water, sewer, or other public facilities or services, thereby impacting development of other lands,
The site is located at the intersection of two primary arterials. The intersection is presently signalized.
The evaluation by the DRC indicates that adequate sewer and water can be made available to the
parcel. Other services such as police and fire are already provided to the area north and west of the site. The site is presently planned for urban development. Prior to any urban development the site must be first annexed and zoned. The proposal is for a different category of urban use. It is not expected than
the proposal would negatively affect this criterion. If an unusually service intensive use is proposed for
the development of the site the subdivision and/or site plan review process will allow for identification
and mitigation of such impacts.
Adversely impact existing uses because of unmitigated greater than anticipated impacts on facilities and services, or
No extraordinary impacts on facilities or services are anticipated from the potential change in land use.
Negatively affect the livability of the area or the health and safety of the residents.
432
Crescent Cross GPA Staff Report #P-11003 Page 6 of 7
The development of this site will be subject to the standards of the adopted land use regulations. These
will be adequate to address concerns of health and safety. The livability of the area is unlikely to be materially affected by the change in such a small area. The same land use category is already present on the north and west.
PUBLIC COMMENT
One written comment in favor of the amendment has been submitted, no verbal testimony has been
received as of the writing of this report.
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
The Department of Planning and Community Development and the Development Review Committee,
have reviewed the application and have provided summary review comments as outlined above in the
staff report; and as a result, recommend approval of the application.
The recommendation of the Planning Board will be forwarded to the Bozeman City Commission for consideration at its public hearing scheduled for Monday, October 10, 2011. The City Commission
will make the final decision on the application.
The Planning Board has three possible actions to consider in forming their recommendation to the City
Commission on this application:
1. Recommend to the City Commission to approve the application. If implemented by the City Commission, this would have the effect of changing the designation to Community
Commercial Mixed Use and future development on the site would be subject to the standards of
a commercial zone, likely the B-2 district.
2. Recommend to the City Commission to deny the application. If implemented by the City
Commission, this would have the effect of leaving the Residential in place and future development on the site would be subject to the standards of one or more of the residential
zoning options.
3. Recommend to the City Commission that a larger analysis of the Huffine corridor be conducted
to identify the best designation for the site.
All motions should be phrased in the positive. If the motion does not receive a favorable vote by a majority of the quorum present the motion fails. To act on option 2 the Planning Board 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 find the applicant satisfies the applicable criteria and move to recommend that the City Commission approve the growth policy amendment requested in application P-11003 changing
Figure 3-1 of the Bozeman Community Plan subject to the contingencies listed on page 2 of the
staff report.
2. Having heard and considered public comment and all submitted materials and staff findings, I find that the applicable criteria are not met because (insert alternate findings) move to recommend to the City Commission that Figure 3-1 of the Bozeman Community Plan remain as
presently adopted.
3. Having heard and considered public comment and all submitted materials and staff findings, I
hereby find that it is uncertain what is the most appropriate land use designation for the applicant’s site and recommend to the City Commission that they request Staff to conduct a larger study of the Huffine corridor.
433
Crescent Cross GPA Staff Report #P-11003 Page 7 of 7
REPORT SENT TO
Crescent Cross Limited Partnership, 5550 Blackwood Road , Bozeman MT 59718-7665.
Madison Engineering, 895 Technology Blvd. Suite 203, Bozeman MT 59718
ATTACHMENTS
GPA Application & Map
Public Comment
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
Page 1 of 7
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 20, 2011.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2011
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Sypinski called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 6:07 p.m. in the
Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and
directed the secretary to take attendance.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Ed Sypinski, President Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Jodi Leone Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Eugene Graf Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Bill Quinn
Jeff Krauss
Trever McSpadden, Vice President
Members Absent: Guests Present:
Erik Garberg Dayle H. Kountz
Adam Fruh Kaylee Kountz
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on
this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Seeing no general public comment forthcoming, President Sypinski closed the public comment
portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JUNE 7, 2011
MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Graf seconded, to approve the minutes of June 7, 2011 as
presented. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Vice President
McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Graf. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. GENERAL DISCUSSI ON
President Sypinski stated he had sent an e-mail requesting input from the Board regarding their
working with other advisory boards or commissions. He asked for comments from Board
members.
Vice President McSpadden stated that at some point, while going through the work session
meetings, three big topics had been identified. He stated the last of the three was to incentivize
the TIF and Urban Renewal Districts; after that discussion, the President and Vice President had
met with the Northeast Urban Renewal Board as well as the North 7th Avenue Urban Renewal
Board to gauge their interest in discussions with the Planning Board. He stated there would be
456
Page 2 of 7
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 20, 2011.
some information forwarded to the Planning Board for a future meeting.
President Sypinski stated there was a formal invitation for the Urban Renewal Boards to attend
the second Planning Board meeting in October to present their priorities. He stated the big
concern for both Urban Renewal Boards had to do with parking but for different reasons in each
area. He stated the N. 7th Board was also concerned with signage requirements. He stated
setbacks had also been discussed though he knew there were fire safety reasons for separation of
structures.
Mr. Krauss joined the Board.
President Sypinski stated the Northeast Urban Renewal Board were concerned that parking
would no longer be available and some concerns regarding the mixed uses in the neighborhood.
He stated if the Northeast Urban Renewal District could be used as a model and development
standards could be implemented.
Vice President McSpadden stated that he thought the bigger implication would be incentivizing
and bolstering infill development; not creating an administrative nightmare through the creation
of specific development standards. President Sypinski added that it was easier to look at the
specifics when the area was being developed such as North 7th Avenue is. Vice President
McSpadden suggested the Board should attempt to maintain the focus to create a larger infill area
and use the existing districts to that end; were there ways to make it desirable for people to
develop within the district and if there was success, would there be a recipe for a larger district.
President Sypinski suggested using their plan to review proposals while still referring to the
UDO to provide the requirements; more of a streamlining effect.
Mr. Krauss apologized for being late. He stated he had met with the N. 7th Board and noted they
were a little more advanced in their plans due to one of the members being an ex planner. He
stated the N. 7th Avenue would not mind becoming a zoning district; it had a plan, a board, and a
funding source. He stated a set of regulations could be designed to relax parking requirements,
relax setbacks, and ultimately provide general regulations and guidelines as well as offer funds
for projects within the district. He suggested a specific plan for the district could also include
bonuses for excellence in design. He suggested the Board members had a laundry list of the
items they would like to see addressed but would like to have a separate zoning district that was
performance based; it seemed to be the Board’s biggest concern at the meeting. He asked the
Planning Director to comment.
Director McHarg stated he thought Mr. Krauss was correct in his recollection of the concerns of
the N. 7th Board. He stated it would be important to provide a plan for the corridor. President
Sypinski responded there was already a plan in place and it had been implemented which would
make it easier to implement an official N. 7th district. Vice President McSpadden noted that the
N. 7th and Northeast Districts had a leg up as they already had plans in place as neighborhood
plans and were not far from a regulatory document. Director McHarg stated there was a level of
planning and the character of the zoning district would be more straightforward; the goal of the
discussion would be to determine how different the district would be. Mr. Krauss added the
457
Page 3 of 7
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 20, 2011.
grant for the study of the intersection of 7th Avenue and Griffin Drive was a good example and
noted they had been under the jurisdiction of two conflicting design standards. President
Sypinski added two competing codes required a decision on which would take precedent. Mr.
Krauss suggested trying incentives on N. 7th Avenue and if it worked there, it would work
anywhere; he added he was not opposed to implementing the same all over the City if it was
successful.
Mr. Graf asked for clarification of whether the N. 7th plan would be developed by the N. 7th
Board itself. Director McHarg responded the plan was developed by the N. 7th Board and had
been adopted by the City Commission. Mr. Graf stated he saw no problem with the district
governing itself.
Vice President McSpadden agreed with Mr. Graf and suggested it wasn’t just a couple of places
in the community and he did not see why the district couldn’t be the test subject. He stated he
was supportive of the recommendation.
President Sypinski stated Ms. Riggs of the N. 7th Board would be forwarding their laundry list to
the Planning Board members. He suggested the Northeast Board could follow the same template
to solve some of their own problems. Vice President McSpadden suggested his only concern
was adding another layer of guidelines and suggested caution should be exercised and the
advisory body could be the only review agency prior to the City Commission.
Mr. Krauss stated both Boards were staffed with an engineer and a planner to help them through
the process but they did not want to change the regulations for the City as a whole; it would be a
good test case for self governance and character based zoning districts. He stated N. 7th was not
nearly as mixed use as the Northeast District.
Mr. Quinn suggested the Planning Board should recuse themselves from the process to prevent
making layers of requirements. He asked if anyone had a plan or idea of what the sticking points
were in the Districts. Mr. Krauss responded there were some ideas regarding sticking points such
as parking concerns he had mentioned earlier; he added urban landscaping requirements,
setbacks, signs, and right of way requirements had also been mentioned. Vice President Sypinski
added signs had been discussed with regard to sidewalk expansion as well; some existing signs
were located in the right of way for the sidewalk. Mr. Quinn stated it was not the Planning
Board’s rule to choose between a sidewalk and a sign; he added he was having a hard time
figuring out where the Planning Board fit into the discussion.
Director McHarg responded the way it had been presented would be for the Planning Board to
listen to the proposal and decide whether or not to support their suggestions and to forward a
decision to the City Commission. If a separate zoning district was decided upon, the Zoning
Commission would play a stronger role than the Planning Board.
President Sypinski suggested other Board members should develop relationships with other
advisory boards or commissions to bring to the Planning Board to help move things along. He
stated he had invited both Boards to submit information for the Planning Board meeting on
458
Page 4 of 7
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 20, 2011.
October 18, 2011.
Vice President McSpadden suggested that if the whole thing was pursued, they should consider
input from the City Engineering Department would be wise during review some of the laundry
list items.
President Sypinski stated the Watershed Council would also be presenting to the Planning Board
the first meeting in November.
The Board took a ten minutes recess.
ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Growth Policy Amendment #P-11003 (Crescent Cross) – A Growth Policy Amendment
Application requested by the property owners, Crescent Cross Limited Partnership, 5550
Blackwood Road, Bozeman, MT 59718, and representative, Madison Engineeri ng, 895
Technology Blvd., Suite 203, Bozeman, MT 59718, requesting a change in Land Use
Designation on ~20 acres from Residential to Community Commercial Mixed Use for property
legally described as a portion of Tract 2, Certificate of Survey 2229 located in the W 1/2 of
Section 15, T2S, R5E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana and generally located southeast of the
intersection of Cottonwood Road and Huffine Lane. (Saunders)
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was
for a change in Land Use Designation that would modify the Land Use Map on ~20 acres from
Residential to Community Commercial Mixed Use. He noted the adjacent properties were a
blend of uses and noted those uses. He directed the Board to the current Land Use Map and
noted adjacent land use designations. He noted the property to the north was zoned primarily as
Business Park and noted the University owned much of the property to the east ; the University
did not know what would be developed in that location. He noted the adjacent agricultural uses
as well as the Loyal Garden Subdivision that was currently building out. He stated there had
been two public comments received; one letter in favor and one in opposition. He stated Staff
was supportive of the proposal as 20 acres would not substantially impact the Growth Policy. He
stated the biggest concern was for the corridor as a whole; the best way to proceed was somewhat
undefined at this time though they did not think the application should wait until the other issues
were sorted out along Huffine Lane. He stated Staff was supportive of the proposal as presented
but there would be larger issues that would need sorted out with regard to Huffine Lane.
Mr. Krauss stated he thought the City Commission would like to have a discussion about the
development along Huffine Lane and he suggested property owners should be invited to the
discussion. Director McHarg suggested he thought sooner would be better than later and asked
for clarification on whether or not a round table setting should be pursued. Mr. Krauss suggested
a larger discussion concerning the plans for West Main Street would be added to a future City
Commission agenda.
Chris Budeski, Madison Engineering, addressed the Planning Board. He stated he was the
representative of the owner for the current proposal. He stated it was fairly well known that a
459
Page 5 of 7
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 20, 2011.
potential client was looking at purchasing the property for commercial development and was
driving the request. He stated that currently three of the four corners at the intersection were
commercial development and there was quite a lot of activity at the intersection. He stated he
understood the concerns put forth in the negative public comment, but there would be a buffer of
open space between the residents in Loyal Garden Subdivision and the commercial development.
He stated the 20 acres had been requested specifically due to the minimum requirements of the
County for subdivision of land. He stated the fourth leg of the intersection would be appropriate
for commercial zoning on the corner.
Ms. Leone asked if the owner would disclose the company seeking the land. Dayle Kountz, 5550
Blackwood Road, responded that Town Pump was looking at the property.
President Sypinski opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the public
comment period was closed.
Mr. Krauss stated that, as he had asked of Staff, the City Commission was reviewing what they
wanted to see as far as development along Huffine Lane. He stated they had attempted to avoid
the appearance of strip mall development in the corridor but it would be difficult due to the
nature of the corridor. He stated the Community Commercial designation was vastly different
than those land use designations adjacent. He stated the Commission had long said they did not
want to see commercial development in that area. He stated he saw a sufficiency of Community
Commercial designated property in that location; there was a lot of this type of development. He
stated he did not know that he could see a need to put a Community Commercial designation in
that part of Bozeman; he was looking for something compatible with the way the rest of the
neighborhood was being developed until a larger discussion has taken place.
President Sypinski stated he concurred with Mr. Krauss that commercial development had not
been intended for along Huffine Lane. He stated the review criteria for Growth Policy
Amendments included changes that should only occur in five year intervals and care should be
taken in reviewing the amendments unless an extremely compelling case was brought forth
which he did not see in this instance. He stated he was supportive of the 3rd option to have the
City Commission investigate further the development types they would like to see along Huffine
Lane.
Vice President McSpadden stated the proposal was still in the early stages of review. He stated
he had gone through the charrette process for the review of the Growth Policy and suggested that
smaller commercial nodes to support surrounding residential uses had been intentionally
included. He stated the individual application was creating a commercial node at an intersection
as the Community Plan had anticipated. He stated some items would be discussed during zoning
and annexation application review.
Mr. Graf stated he just appreciated someone wanting to build in Bozeman and contribute to the
community. President Sypinski clarified that the property was currently in the County. Mr.
Krauss added that their assumption was that the interested party wanted to annex into the City.
460
Page 6 of 7
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 20, 2011.
MOTION: Mr. Graf moved, Vice President McSpadden seconded, to forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Growth Policy Amendment #P-11003
with Staff findings as outlined in the Staff Report. The motion failed 2-4. Those voting aye
being Vice President McSpadden and Mr. Graf. Those voting nay being Mr. Krauss, Ms. Leone,
Mr. Quinn, and President Sypinski.
MOTION: Mr. Krauss moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to forward a recommendation to the City
Commission to discuss the type of development planned for the Huffine Lane corridor.
Mr. Graf suggested a time frame be included in fairness to the applicant. Mr. Krauss responded
he was at the first week of November on City Commission agendas. Mr. Graf countered that Mr.
Krauss could schedule the City Commission discussion without the Planning Board being
involved and suggested the hearing could take place on the date the application had been
scheduled to be heard.
Vice President McSpadden stated he agreed with Mr. Graf and added that the motion was sort of
open ended. Mr. Krauss responded he could check into getting the discussion on an October
agenda. Vice President McSpadden stated the Board was tasked with reviewing the application
on its merits alone; he could not begin to think about what could happen to the east or west of the
site. He stated his view was that a Community Commercial node was being created and Staff
had recognized that the review criteria had been met. President Sypinski responded the Board
should not be relying on Staff’s recommendation and he found that the application did not meet
one of those criteria.
Mr. Graf suggested the Board should not inhibit an application to provide for a study that should
have been done in anticipation of future development.
Ms. Leone stated she owned a lot in Loyal Garden Subdivision and asked if she should recuse
herself from the decision. President Sypinski clarified that it would not be necessary if she did
not have a specific interest in the project site.
The motion carried 3-2. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Krauss, and Mr. Quinn.
Those voting nay being Vice President McSpadden and Mr. Graf with Ms. Leone abstaining.
Mr. Krauss added that though the project was in limbo, it had not been denied and he would
place the item on the November 7, 2011 agenda.
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
No items were forthcoming.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
Seeing there was no further business before the Planning Board, President Sypinski adjourned the
461
Page 7 of 7
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 20, 2011.
meeting at 7:38 p.m.
Ed Sypinski, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
462
Crescent Cross Growth Policy Amendment
1
RESOLUTION #P-11003
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD REGARDING AN
AMENDMENT TO FIGURE 3-1, FUTURE LAND USE MAP, BOZEMAN
COMMUNITY PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES WHICH IS A PORTION OF
TRACT 2, CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 2229 LOCATED IN THE W 1/2 OF SECTION 15, T2S, R5E, PMM, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA AND GENERALLY LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF COTTONWOOD
ROAD AND HUFFINE LANE.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted a growth policy pursuant to Section 76-1-
601, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board has been created by ordinance by the
Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Title 76-1-101, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, the property owners, Crescent Cross Limited Partnership and their
representative, Madison Engineering submitted a growth policy amendment to change the future
land use designation depicted on Figure 3-1 Bozeman Community Plan on 20 acres at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road from Residential to
Community Commercial Mixed Use; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Growth Policy Amendment Application has been properly
submitted, reviewed, and advertised in accordance with the required procedures; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board held a public hearing on Tuesday,
September 20, 2011, to review the application and any written public testimony on the
application; and
WHEREAS, two members of the general public provided written testimony, one in favor
and one opposed to the application but no oral public testimony was received on the matter of the
preliminary plat application; and
WHEREAS, members of the City of Bozeman Planning Board discussed the proposed
change and its possible effects on the community; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board reviewed the application against the
criteria for amendments established in Chapter 17 of the Bozeman Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board considered three possible alternative
actions outlined in the staff report by the Planning Staff; and
463
Crescent Cross Growth Policy Amendment
2
WHEREAS, a motion having been made to recommend approval of the application the
City of Bozeman Planning Board voted 2-4 on the motion which therefore failed; and
WHEREAS, a motion was made to forward a recommendation to the City Commission
to discuss the type of development planned for the Huffine Lane corridor which passed upon a
vote of 3-2;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Bozeman Planning Board,
having heard and considered public comment, application materials, and staff recommendations,
recommends that the City Commission consider the future development for the overall Huffine
Lane corridor prior to acting upon application P-11003.
DATED THIS DAY OF , 2011 Resolution #P-11003
_____________________________ ____________________________
Tim McHarg, Planning Director Ed Sypinski, President
Department of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board
464
465
466
467
468