Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZone Map Amendment Z-11002, Minor Subdivision 295, Spring Creek_Part2file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/ANNX.ZMA.GPA.ZCA.BMC/A...MA/Public%20comment/Public%20Comment%20April%2026,%202011.txt During our 22 years of living both outside the city limits as well as within the city, one consideration of our most recent move was the potential for better access to restaurants, shops and other commercial businesses. From what we understand of the proposed project, we believe that Delaney’s “resort/business use” would be a great addition to the neighborhood and would provide a much-needed variety of neighborhood commercial, retail and restaurant options to an area dominated by a sea of residential homes, townhouses, and condominiums. Using these lots found in high-traffic proximity to Huffine Lane, embodies what we feel to be not only the highest and best use assessment of appropriate zoning for the subject property, but a great source of future tax revenue for the city as well. We find this mixed use “overlay” to be in strong alignment to the City of Bozeman’s stated zoning mission of encompassing a “mixture” of residential with “neighborhood” retail, office, and business space. We have always believed this zoning strategy is better than the alternative and unsightly, mass grid of commercial development found in areas like North 19th, 7th Street, and other similar areas. This proposed usage further promotes a green, pedestrian friendly, alternative to lengthy drives from residential neighborhoods to high traffic areas to shop. We look forward to seeing Mr. Delaney’s project come to completion and respectfully ask that you grant his application. Sincerely, Michael and Kara Libster 234 Stillwater Creek Drive Bozeman Montana 59718 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/ANNX.ZMA....omment/Public%20Comment%20April%2026,%202011.txt (2 of 2) [5/23/2011 10:48:22 AM] 108 109 110 111 From: bozemanjoe@gmail.com  Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 9:00 AM  To: Chris Saunders  Subject: Planning Contact Us  PlanningContactUsID: 54 First Name: Joe Last Name: Billion Phone: (406) 581-2534 Email: bozemanjoe@gmail.com Message: TO: Bozeman City Commission and Mayor Becker RE: Zone Map Amendment (ZMA) Application # Z-11002, Delaney Property, West Main Street Dear Mayor Becker and City Commissioners, Please be advised that the Billion Auto Group and the Billion family supports this application to rezone approximately 20 acres of land owned by the Delaney’s located due East of the Billion Auto Plaza fronting Huffine Lane, known as Lot 4 of the Spring Creek Village Resort. The future development of this property into a commercial project will be consistent with our future plans and the existing properties surrounding the subject property. Very truly yours, Joe Billion Form inserted: 2/25/2012 8:58:38 AM Form updated: 2/25/2012 8:58:38 AM All City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record” per Sect. 2-6-202 and Sect. 2-6-401, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law.   113 Page 1 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2011 ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and ordered the Recording Secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Ed Sypinski Nathan Minnick Nick Lieb David Peck City Commission Liaison Chris Mehl Members Absent: Staff Present: Tim McHarg, Planning Director Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Michael Delaney Ileana Indreland Tony Renslow Jami Morris Cyndy Andrus ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Commission and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Seeing there was no general public comment forthcoming, Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 4. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 2011 114 Page 2 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2011 MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to approve the minutes of February 1 , 2011 as presented. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick, Mr. Lieb, Mr. Peck, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-11002 – (Spring Creek Village Lot 4) A Zone Map Amendment requested by the owner, Spring Creek Village, LLC, and representative, Jami Morris, requesting to allow a change in urban zoning designation from B-P (Business Park District) to B-2 (Community Business District) on 19.9621 acres generally located west of Resort Drive, north of Huffine Lane, and south of Fallon Street and legally described as The Spring Creek Village Resort, Minor Subdivision No. 295, Lot 4, Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Saunders) (Continued from 2/15/11.) Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was to amend the zoning map and directed the Commission to the location of the site. He stated the Growth Policy Designation for the property was Community Commercial Mixed Use. He noted streets adjacent to the site and the location of the Community Commercial growth policy designation in comparison to the subject property. He stated there was a considerable amount of property within the vicinity that had not gone through the development process. He noted the location of the Billion property adjacent to the site and noted adjacent uses. He stated there had not been any public comment received in writing or in person. He stated Staff had been concerned with elements of the proposal and added the primary concern was compliance with the Growth Policy and its conformance with the map, goals, and objectives contained within the document. He stated the meeting had originally been noticed but had been opened and continued to this date while the City Commission was scheduled to review the proposal on March 21, 2011. He stated the Zoning Commission could concur with Staff, make their own findings, or table the proposal to allow time for amendments to the proposal. He stated Staff had met with the applicant and would continue to meet with them regarding design alternatives for the site. He stated he would be available to answer any questions. Mr. Sypinski asked for clarification that there would be a zone change made to include commercial uses as opposed to industrial uses to comply with the Growth Policy designation. Assistant Director Saunders responded there were a number of uses that overlapped in the B-2 district from the BP district and necessity for a zone change would depend on the specific proposal; he added there was a larger diversity of activities in the B-2 than in the B-P. Mr. Lieb asked the allowable uses that would cross over from B-P to B-2 zoning. Assistant Director Saunders responded that some examples of uses would be day care centers, banks, health & exercise establishments, hospitals, research laboratories, light manufacturing, medical clinics, offices, various public buildings, etc. and there would be opportunities to pursue Conditional Uses in the district. Mr. Lieb responded there did not seem to be a considerable difference in the allowable uses. Assistant Director Saunders responded B-P zoning was more restrictive as far as setback requirements were concerned and B-2 was more relaxed; B-2 also allows retail, food service, and housing. 115 Page 3 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2011 Mr. Lieb asked Staff’s concern regarding the proposed design of the site. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff’s concern was the relationship between the goals and objectives of the Growth Policy and the B -2 zoning for this site. This includes vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site; Staff was also concerned with proposed orientation and location of the structures within the site. Mr. Sypinski asked how the B -2 zoning would differ i n impact on the Entryway Corridor than the B-P, UMU, or any other zoning designation. Assistant Director Saunders responded the positioning of the building and parking on the site would allow lesser setbacks where Business Park would simply look like a business park versus the something like the Locati building on East Main Street; office residential mixes would not be allowed in the B -P zoning district. Jami Morris addressed the Zoning Commission. She noted the development adjacent to the site; Allied Waste, Loyal Garden, JC Billion, and Cottonwood Vet Clinic as well as Alpine Orthopedic which was under construction. She noted the site was originally Business Park Growth Policy designation, but was currently Community Commercial Mixed Use Growth Policy designation. She noted the current proposal was for B -2 zoning and it would provide for basic services for residential neighborhoods located to the north of the site. She stated B -2 would afford an opportunity for higher density development and added t hat design and scale would be addressed during site plan review. She stated there were nine viable uses available for the property and a hotel and restaurant were currently interested in the location. She stated the applicant felt the City had indicated Community Commercial would be the best use for the site as they had modified the Growth Policy from its Business Park designation. She stated water and sewer were already being provided to the property and there were already signalized intersections and t here was an existing sort of pork chop limiting access in that location to right in, left in, and right out. She stated the applicant had been given indication by the City Commission that they did not want to see the site developed as a PUD. She stated t here was not much of a market for B-P lots and the general definition of strip development included direct access to a major thoroughfare, which would not occur on the site. She stated the Growth Policy discouraged strip development and all design proposals would be reviewed against the Design Objectives Plan. She stated the applicant chose the B -2 zoning designation option as outlined in the submittal materials outlining their responses to the review criteria. Michael Delaney addressed the Zoning Commission and directed them to a handout of a more specific design layout. He stated the property had been zoned Business Park for 20 years and no matter how they tried they could not develop the property. He stated Billion had used a Planned Unit Development to develop his property to allow his dealership. He stated a PUD had been initiated for the property east of the site known as Valley Commons which had widened the uses of B -P through the PUD. He stated he had been told the game had changed and the City would no longer encourage PUD’s; B -2 properties were developed and those with a different zoning designation that were developed had done so under a PUD. He stated the policy of the City was that there would be no more commercial development west of Fowl er Avenue though the Ridge and other properties had been developed. He stated the City had approved the Urban Mixed Use zoning designation and he had argued the conditions of approval had made it nearly impossible for the site to be developed; a mandate o f a minimum of three stories in height. He stated the 116 Page 4 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2011 City had agreed to zone the Billion property and part of the Loyal Garden subdivision as B -2 so they had attempted to secure the same zoning; he added two tenants were interested in occupying the site; one a bar/restaurant owner as well as a hotel owner. He stated there would be complications with each residential unit including parkland requirements and workforce housing; now the tenants are unwilling to wait beyond next summer. He stated he was encouraged that months from now the requirements for UMU would be changed; the B -2 development he was proposing would be well developed to include a mini Main Street done with style and thoughtfulness with users for at least two of the sites. He asked for the support of the Zoning Commission and suggested they would be proud to use the site in the future. Mr. Lieb asked if the property had the resort designation. Mr. Delaney responded the property did have a resort designation that had been approved through the State of Montana; he added they were in the process of purchasing their own liquor license as they have no guarantee the State of Montana will issue liquor licenses. Mr. Lieb asked if the hotel depicted on the site would be a Wingate. Mr. Delaney responded it would not be a Wingate, but would hopefully be another recognizable hotel. Mr. Lieb asked what uses would be located behind the hotel and restaurant. Mr. Delaney responded there would be mostly retail uses in that location. He stated entitl ements for a B -2 zoning were workable while those for a B -P were difficult. Mr. Sypinski thanked Mr. Delaney for his presentation. He stated the Planning Board had recently reviewed the UMU zoning designation and asked why the applicant was not willing to extend the UMU designation to the site instead of requesting the B -2 zoning designation. Mr. Delaney responded they had considered that option and after the City Commission discussion during Informal review it was hard to understand what the City want ed and nearly impossible to develop the site at three story buildings; the killer of the deal according to Dan Burden to ensure long term success for the project and construction of buildings up to three stories in height but not mandated to construct them three stories in height. He stated financing would not be available if users were not acquired. He stated you had to be leery and practical in the current market. He stated that a number of occupants on North 19th Avenue had failed and would be vacatin g their stores; their intended design was based on a smaller and more intimate scale. Mr. Peck asked if public objections had been voiced in earlier iterations of the proposal. Mr. Delaney responded he can think of no public objection in any proposal i n the last 20 years with the exception of one condo development that requested more green space in front of their building; there were no negative comments with the current proposal. Mr. Lieb stated the hotel had proposed 120 rooms and asked the scale of the structure. Mr. Delaney responded it would be somewhere between the Wingate and the Hilton Garden Inn but would be more stylized to fit the development; he added they were debating on whether or not to include a restaurant/bar in the hotel as well. Di rector McHarg suggested the Zoning Commission look more specifically at the zoning criteria while keeping in mind that only one of the many options for B -2 development had been presented at the meeting. Mr. Delaney responded if there was a choice between only UMU and B -P they would choose UMU, but would come back and request the B -2 zoning at a future date. 117 Page 5 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2011 Mr. Mehl stated the Staff Report indicated the intensity of the development might not be supported by Resort Drive. Mr. Delaney responded the State of Montana would require a four way stop. Mr. Mehl asked if Mr. Delaney was worried that right turn only out of the site would cause traffic issues. Mr. Delaney responded there would be two avenues of exit available as well as a possible future access p oint from the bank and medical campus planned for the area to the west ; he added there were a number of right turn only access points along 19th Avenue that did not seem to detour people. Mr. Mehl asked how much of the site needed to be pedestrian friendl y. Mr. Delaney responded if the development wasn’t pedestrian friendly, it would fail; when the property was developed to the east there would be connectivity between the sites and would be accessible by biking or walking. Mr. Mehl asked who had indicated that a PUD was not the preferred option. Mr. Delaney responded the Billion property had been encouraged to develop under the PUD and the City Commission had discouraged repeating the same zoning designation. Ms. Morris added the comment had been provided by Staff after the City Commission hearing for the UMU zoning designation. Mr. Mehl asked why the applicant was concerned that the Zoning Commission would recommend UMU. Ms. Morris responded that after three weeks of DRC review the indication was that Staff would support only UMU on the property and had instead recommended denial of the proposal instead of recommendation of the UMU district; she added Assistant Director Saunders had indicated that the noticing for the proposal would indicate an upzoning that had not been included in the proposal originally. Assistant Director Saunders stated the viability of which would be the best zoning district had been discussed during DRC review; UMU had not been advertised and B -2 had been analyzed with an allowance for the applicant to modify the application. He stated Staff’s concern was that the public was accurately noticed in a character that would allow them to reasonably conceive that there were multiple zoning districts under consideration. Mr. Delaney added he had asked his attorney to respond to Staff’s concerns and the Zoning Commission had been given that information. Director McHarg responded that just because something was legal did not make it the best planning practice. Mr. Sypinski stated he wi shed Greg Sullivan or Tim Cooper had given an opinion on Mr. Gallik’s letter of response. Mr. Mehl responded he thought Staff had already provided for the options available regarding a decision on the proposal. Mr. Mehl stated Mr. Delaney had the optio n of going before the City Commission to present the design that would be facing Huffine Lane. Mr. Delaney responded all the properties surrounding the site were effectively being used as B -2 properties; there was so much big retail in Bozeman that it was almost impossible to get it financed. He stated every ugly thing that could have been built in the City had been built and that was not their game anyway. Ms. Indreland asked the Zoning Commission to review how the site would comply with the goals and objectives of the Growth Policy; she added the answers would demonstrate how the site would comply. Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick opened the public comment period of the meeting. Seeing none forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. Mr. Lieb stated he had reservations with the approval of the proposal. He stated the City had not wanted B -2 zoning in that location as they had wanted services more centralized. He stated he 118 Page 6 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2011 didn’t think it would be a good location for the hotel right along Huffine L ane. He stated he had a problem allowing B -2 for adjacent sites and not the site in question. Assistant Director Saunders responded the adjacent zoning designations included B -P but the new Billion development north of Fallon Street was zoned B -2. Mr. L ieb responded he was in support of the proposed B -2 zoning designation. Mr. Peck stated he was so new to the project and the Zoning Commission that he hesitated to say much. He stated he liked the proposal and he felt as though the owner had put a lot of thought into the development of the property. He stated the layout was a little too symmetrical as he preferred asymmetrical design. He stated he was not crystal clear on Staff’s concerns with regard to the Growth Policy. He stated he was supportive of the proposal. Mr. Sypinski stated the review criteria must be addressed as set forth in the ordinance. He stated he was concerned with the B -2 zoning and would prefer to see the UMU zoning designation expanded; it seemed like the applicant wanted a second bite at the apple as the tenants originally proposed for the UMU had been relocated to the B -2 zoning area. He stated he did not find the application to be in keeping with the review criteria as set forth in the ordinance. He stated he was not supportive of the B-2 and noted three areas west of the property that were already zoned B-P. He stated he was not supportive of the application as proposed and suggested the Zoning Commission recommend the UMU zoning designation as opposed to the B -2 zoning. Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick stated that it seemed like there would be a better vehicle to allow Mr. Delaney to develop the property. He stated the worst case scenario is that the property would change hands and not be developed to the same quality. He stated his concern was whether or not the PUD could be the vehicle used to guarantee the proposed quality of design. Mr. Sypinski responded there would be no guarantee that the proposal would be built out as shown on the applicant’s drawing; he added it sounded great, but zoning potential did not allow for knowing exactly what the project would be. Mr. Lieb asked how the B -2 could be restricted. Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick responded development was economically driven and he did not think there was going to be a demand for that type of use for some time. Director McHarg responded he thought a PUD was always an option, though not one was necessarily theoretically supportive of; the Zoning Commission was charged with reviewing a vacant piece of property for allowable uses. Mr. Sypinski stated there were three options; denial, approval, or a recommended alternative to the zoning designation. Director McHarg responded he did not think it was good practice to recommend a different designation than that proposed unless the project was remanded back to Staff for further review and discussion with the applicant . MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Zone Map Amendment Applicat ion #Z -11002 as proposed. The motion carried 3-1. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick, Mr. Peck, and Mr. Lieb. Those voting nay being Mr. Sypinski. 119 Page 7 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2011 ITEM 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick nominated Mr. Sypinski as the Chairperson due to his experience. Mr. Sypinski stated he would humbly accept the nomination. MOTION: Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to appoint Mr. Sypinski as Chairperson. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairper son Pro Tem Minnick, Mr. Lieb, Mr. Peck, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none. MOTION: Chairperson Sypinski moved, Mr. Lieb seconded to appoint Mr. Minnick as Vice Chairperson. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Lieb, Mr. Peck, and Mr. Minnick. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Sypinski welcomed David Peck to the Zoning Commission. Assistant Director Saunders clarified what a majority of the Zoning Commission would be and what would constitute a quorum of members. I TEM 7. ADJOURNMENT The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Edward Sypinski, Chairperson Tim McHarg, Planning Director Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 120 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION #Z-11002 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING MAP TO ALLOW A CHANGE IN A MUNICIPAL ZONING DESIGNATION ON APPROXIMATELY 19.9621± ACRES OF LAND FROM “BP” (BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT) TO “B-2” (COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT) ON PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 4, MINOR SUBDIVISION 295, LOCATED IN SECTION 10, T2S, R5E, PMM CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted zoning regulations and a zoning map pursuant to Sections 76-2-301 and 76-2-302, M.C.A.; and WHEREAS, Section 76-2-305, M.C.A. allows local governments to amend zoning maps if a public hearing is held and official notice is provided; and WHEREAS, Section 76-2-307, M.C.A. states that the Zoning Commission must conduct a public hearing and submit a report to the City Commission for all zoning map amendment requests; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission has been created by ordinance and resolution of the Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Section 76-2-307, M.C.A.; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18.70 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance sets forth the procedures and review criteria for zoning map amendments; and WHEREAS, C&H Engineering., on behalf of Spring Creek Village LLC, applied for a zoning map amendment, pursuant to Chapter 18.70 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, to amend the Bozeman zoning map to allow a change in a municipal zoning designation on approximately 19.9621± acres of land from “BP” (Business Park District) to “B- 2”, (Community Business District); and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment request has been properly submitted, reviewed and advertised in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.70 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance and Title 76, Chapter 2, Part 3, M.C.A.; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission continued the public hearing originally advertised for February 15, 2011 to March 1, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 1, 2011, to formally receive and review all written and oral testimony on the proposed zoning map amendment; and WHEREAS, no public testimony was received at the public hearing on the matter of the zone map amendment; and 121 Page 2 of 2 WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission discussed the Community Commercial Mixed Use land use designation, long term use of the property, entryway corridor requirements, the difference between BP and B-2 zoning districts, and the growth policy; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment generally complies with the 13 criteria for consideration established in Chapter 18.70 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission, on a vote of 3-1, officially recommends to the Bozeman City Commission approval of zoning application #Z-11002 to allow a change in a municipal zoning designation on approximately 19.9621± acres of land from “BP” (Business Park District) to “B-2”, (Community Business District), on property legally described as Lot 4, Minor Subdivision 295, located in Section 10, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana subject to the following contingencies: 1. That the applicant submit a zone amendment map, titled “Spring Creek Village Resort ‘BP’ to ‘B-2’ Zone Map Amendment”, on a 24” by 36” mylar, 8 ½” by 11” or 8 ½” by 14” paper exhibit, and a digital copy of the area to be zoned, acceptable to the Director of Public Service, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the City of Bozeman Zoning Map. Said map shall containing a metes and bounds legal description of the perimeter of the subject property, total acreage of the property and adjoining rights-of-way and/or street access easements. 2. That the Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant provides a metes and bounds legal description and map of the area to be rezoned, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the zone map. DATED THIS DAY OF , 2011, Resolution #Z-11002 _____________________________ ____________________________ Tim McHarg, Planning Director Ed Sypinski, Chairperson Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman Zoning Commission 122 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 1 of 13 SPRING CREEK VILLAGE RESORT LOT 4 REZONE ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FILE # Z-11002 CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Item: Zoning Application #Z-11002 – An application to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map to allow a change in municipal zoning designation from B-P (Business Park) to B-2 (Community Business) on 19.9621 acres. Owner: Spring Creek Village, LLC, 101 East Main Street, Suite D, Bozeman MT 59715. Applicant: Delaney & Co., Inc., 101 East Main Street, Suite D, Bozeman MT 59715. Representative: C&H Engineering and Surveying, 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman MT 59718 Date/Time: Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, February 27, 2011 at 6:00 PM in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue Bozeman, Montana Report By: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Recommendation: Denial LOCATION The property is 19.9621 acres of land located northwest of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Resort Drive. The property is Lot 4, Minor Subdivision 295, Section 10, Township 2 South Range 5 East, Gallatin County. Please refer to the vicinity map below. 123 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 2 of 13 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 38.01.040.C of the Unified Development Code and Section 76-2-304 Montana Codes Annotated, the Staff recommends denial of the requested Zone Map Amendment. In the event that the City Commission finds differently, Staff recommends the following contingencies to be included with any action of approval: 1. That the applicant submit a zone amendment map, titled “Spring Creek Village Resort ‘BP’ to ‘B-2’ Zone Map Amendment”, on a 24” by 36” mylar, and a 8 ½” by 11” or 8 ½” by 14” paper exhibit, and a digital copy of the area to be zoned, acceptable to the Director of Public Service, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the City of Bozeman Zoning Map. Said map shall containing a metes and bounds legal description of the perimeter of the subject property, total acreage of the property and adjoining rights-of-way and/or street access easements. The map and accompanying legal description shall be provided within 45 working days after Commission action to approve the application. 2. That the Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant provides a metes and bounds legal description and map of the area to be rezoned, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the zone map. PROPOSAL and BACKGROUND The property owner has made application to the City of Bozeman for a Zone Map Amendment to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map to change municipal zoning designation from B-P (Business Park) to B-2 (Community Business) on 19.9621 acres located northwest of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Resort Drive. The property is Lot 4, Minor Subdivision 295, Section 10, Township 2 South Range 5 East, Gallatin County. The subject property is currently located within the corporate limits of the City of Bozeman. The intent of the B-2 community business district is to provide for a broad range of mutually supportive retail and service functions located in clustered areas bordered on one or more sides by limited access arterial streets as described in Section 38.10.010, BMC. The original application was received on January 5, 2011. This zone map amendment was originally scheduled to be considered by the Zoning Commission on February 15, 2011 and City Commission on March 7, 2011. It was continued for two weeks. The Zoning Commission heard the application on March 1st. They recommended favorably on the application. After several continuances were requested by the applicant the application was placed on hold by the applicant via letter on May 26, 2011. On June 6, 2012 the City Commission tabled the application until a revised notice could be provided. Revised notice materials were provided on January 5, 2012 and the application is again being brought to the City Commission for consideration. During the intervening period the applicant submitted a subdivision pre-application and a planned unit development concept plan for consideration on May 17, 2011. The PUD file indicates the application was to demonstrate the ability to provide a higher quality level of development performance and be able to comply with City standards. The staff reviewed these items and the two applications were considered by the City Commission on July 25, 2011. A letter incorporating the comments from Staff and the Commission was provided on August 10, 2011. Follow up applications for subdivision preliminary plat and PUD preliminary plan review has not been received at this time. 124 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 3 of 13 A schematic design showing separation of B-2 and BP uses on the site was submitted on February 14, 2012. A copy is included with the City Commission packet materials. There were three applications submitted by other applicants for nearby properties in the past couple of years. On December 13, 2011, the City Commission approved an amendment for approximately 10 acres to Figure 3-1 in the growth policy for the southeast corner of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road. This application approval has not yet been finalized by resolution. No application for annexation or initial zoning has yet been received. Two separate applications submitted for rezoning of three lots located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road. The two applications collectively were slightly less than five acres in size. This change in zoning is shown on the second map below. The staff report has been updated due to the passage of time since the initiation of the application, the outcome of decisions made on other applications, and renumbering of municipal code references during the codification process completed last fall. LAND CLASSIFICATION AND ZONING The subject property has been subdivided and is presently vacant. The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property: North: Residential, R-O (Residential-Office district) vacant, multi-household residences; South: Residential, located outside the City, agriculture; Community Commercial Mixed Use (pending) located outside the City, agriculture; East: Community Commercial Mixed Use, UMU (Urban Mixed Use), vacant; West: Community Commercial Mixed Use, BP (Business Park), bank, medical and veterinary clinics , automotive dealership and support businesses. B-2 (Community Business) to the NW and SW with warehouse, vacant, and automotive dealership. Please see the two maps below: 125 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 4 of 13 126 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 5 of 13 REVIEW CRITERIA A change in zoning district is a legislative act to set policy relating to future development proposals. The Bozeman Planning Office has reviewed the application for a Zone Map Amendment against the Bozeman Community Plan, the City of Bozeman municipal code, 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 City Commission. A. Be in accordance with a growth policy. No. The recent update to the growth policy, the Bozeman Community Plan, changed the future land use map, Figure 3-1, for this area from business park mixed use to community commercial mixed use. A map of the area is presented above. The B-2 district is one of several possible implementing zoning districts for the community commercial mixed use designation. However, Figure 3-1 is not the only element of the growth policy which must be considered. There are many goals, objectives, and other text which must also be evaluated. While not every element will apply to every proposal, a broad evaluation of compliance is needed. A proposal may comply with Figure 3-1 but not the other elements of the plan. To be in accordance with the growth policy compliance must be to both Figure 3-1 and the other relevant plan elements. The City has adopted paragraph 38.01.040.E, BMC which specifically states that Chapter 38, Unified Development Code, which includes the zoning map, are intended to implement the goals and objectives of the adopted growth policy. Further, the growth policy is given precedence in the event of a conflict or difference between the growth policy and Chapter 38, BMC. Chapter 3 of the Bozeman Community Plan addresses land uses. Beginning on page 3-3, there are seven ideas laid out which provide a foundation for Bozeman’s land use policies and practices. There is a description of each of them provided in the provided pages attached to this report. These are: • Neighborhoods • Sense of Place • Natural Amenities • Centers • Integration of Action • Urban Density • Sustainability The description of the different land use categories depicted on Figure 3-1 are described in Section 3.4 of the growth policy. The definition of the community commercial mixed use designation begins on page 3-10. “Community Commercial Mixed Use. Activities within this land use category are the basic employment and services necessary for a vibrant community. Establishments located within these categories draw from the community as a whole for their employee and customer base and are sized accordingly. A broad range of functions including retail, education, professional and personal services, offices, residences, and general service activities typify this designation. In the “center-based” land use pattern, Community Commercial Mixed Use areas are integrated with significant transportation corridors, including transit and non-automotive routes, to facilitate efficient travel opportunities. The density of development is expected to be higher than currently seen in most commercial areas in Bozeman and should include multi-story buildings. A Floor Area Ratio in excess of .5 is desired. It is desirable to allow residences on upper floors, in appropriate circumstances. Urban streetscapes, plazas, outdoor seating, public art, and hardscaped open space and park amenities are anticipated, appropriately designed for an urban character. Placed in proximity to significant streets and intersections, an equal 127 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 6 of 13 emphasis on vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation shall be provided. High density residential areas are expected in close proximity. Including residential units on sites within this category, typically on upper floors, will facilitate the provision of services and opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an automobile. The Community Commercial Mixed Use category is distributed at two different scales to serve different purposes. Large Community Commercial Mixed Use areas are significant in size and are activity centers for an area of several square miles surrounding them. These are intended to service the larger community as well as adjacent neighborhoods and are typically distributed on a one mile radius. Smaller Community Commercial areas are usually in the 10-15 acre size range and are intended to provide primarily local service to an area of approximately one-half mile radius. These commercial centers support and help give identity to individual neighborhoods by providing a visible and distinctive focal point. They should typically be located on one or two quadrants of intersections of arterials and/or collectors. Although a broad range of uses may be appropriate in both types of locations the size and scale is to be smaller within the local service placements. Mixed use areas should be developed in an integrated, pedestrian friendly manner and should not be overly dominated by any single land use. Higher intensity employment and residential uses are encouraged in the core of the area or adjacent to significant streets and intersections. As needed, building height transitions should be provided to be compatible with adjacent development.” Examples of applicable goals and objectives from the Bozeman Community Plan: Chapter 3 Land Use Goal LU-1: Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, efficiently provides public and private basic services and facilities in close proximity to where people live and work, and minimizes sprawl. Rationale: A sense of community is strengthened by distinctive areas which facilitate neighborhood identity. This is strengthened when essential services are available and encourage informal interactions. Full featured neighborhoods allow extensive interaction and build identity with a specific part of the community. A sense of place does not prohibit change or continued evolution of the community. Objective LU-1.4: Provide for and support infill development and redevelopment which provides additional density of use while respecting the context of the existing development which surrounds it. Respect for context does not automatically prohibit difference in scale or designLU-2 centers LU-2.3 Chapter 4 Community Quality Goal C-1: Human Scale and Compatibility — Create a community composed of neighborhoods designed for the human scale and compatibility in which the streets and buildings are properly sized within their context, services and amenities are convenient, visually pleasing, and properly integrated. Rationale: A community’s physical form, rather than its land uses, is its most enduring characteristic. We should design places for people as the primary user. Good design looks good and feels good. The spatial relationships in our environment in large part determine our experience of the place. Scale and context should be the beginning point of any discussion of community quality. 128 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 7 of 13 Goal C-3: Neighborhood Design – New neighborhoods shall be pedestrian oriented, contain a variety of housing types and densities, contain parks and other public spaces, have a commercial center and defined boundaries. Rationale: Good neighborhoods allow choices in housing, recreation, modes of transportation, options for commerce, work, and entertainment while providing a healthy environment and a sense of place and identity that residents can call home. Objective C-3.4: Create neighborhood Commercial Centers that will provide uses to meet consumer demands from surrounding Residential Districts for everyday goods and services, and will be a pedestrian oriented place that serves as a focal point for the surrounding neighborhoods. The site of the requested rezoning is currently vacant. The site is regular in shape with no odd boundaries. There are no existing buildings or internal infrastructure constraining the future use of the site. This is different than much of the adjacent commercial development which in some cases has been developed for many years or has constraining physical configuration. In considering the appropriateness of a particular zoning district for the site it is appropriate to consider which district will most fully advance the community plan goals and aspirations, not just what accomplishes minimal compliance. As a zone map amendment is a legislative and policy oriented, not quasi-judicial, matter the City Commission has discretion to decide the course considered most suitable to advance the growth policy . There are B-2 areas within the vicinity, but not adjacent to, the proposed site. The B-2 areas within the vicinity have different physical locations and configurations which lessen the likelihood of strip commercial development or other development that would be contrary to the growth policy. The application site is therefore distinguishable from these other areas even though they all have an underlying community commercial mixed use growth policy designation. Locations in near proximity that have developed with B-2 uses that are not also listed in the BP district were developed through a planned unit development process which provides additional flexibility in implementing the adopted growth policy and zoning standards. The applicant also has the opportunity to pursue development of their property as a planned unit development as set out in Chapter 38, BMC. After examining the guiding principles for the land use chapter and the goals of the Bozeman Community Plan, Staff has concluded that a change to B-2, while conforming to Figure 3-1, does not meet the other elements of the plan for the following reasons. 1) There is a transition in existing and proposed development character along W. Main Street/Huffine lane beginning at Fowler Avenue and intensifying at Ferguson Avenue to a more coherent and coordinated development character. The UMU zoning district at the corner of Ferguson Avenue and Huffine provides a potential for development advancing the Centers and Urban Density themes described in Section 3.2 of the Bozeman Community Plan. The requested rezoning site is immediately to the west of the UMU area and would provide a natural expansion for the UMU district. The larger UMU area would advance the ideas of Centers and a Sense of Place in the community and help avoid the appearance and function of commercial strip along Huffine Lane which is discouraged. The requested B-2 designation for the site would not accomplish this with surety. The City is not permitted to engage in contract zoning where a zone change is granted in reliance upon a specific design proposal. If it were so allowed, a negotiated arrangement might be possible where the applicant could demonstrate compliance at a more detailed level in 129 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 8 of 13 exchange for the map amendment. Until such an approach is possible, the City must evaluate zone map amendments independent of specific proposals. 2) The particular parcel under consideration is adjacent to an arterial but is not located at the intersection of arterials and collectors. There are intervening properties to the west and east. Location at intersections is a specifically desired location as described in the Community Commercial Mixed Use text quoted above. This separation makes it more difficult to integrate the proposed site into traffic flow and development character and increases the likelihood of an undesirable land use development pattern. 3) The centers principle implemented in the growth policy provides for a spacing separation between commercial areas. Lack of separation continues the corridor development pattern which is undesired. The details are provided in the excerpt from the plan quoted above. Large scale commercial centers are typically distributed on a one mile radius. There is an existing large scale center at the intersection of Fowler Avenue and Huffine Lane. This is located one mile to the east. The separation therefore is less than intended for a large scale. The smaller scale centers are expected to be 10-15 acres in size. The smaller centers are also located on major intersections but at a half a ½ mile radius. The proposed site is 20 acres. This in itself is larger than the anticiatped size for a small commercial center without taking into account the existing and probable development on properties which are actually located at the intersection of Cottonwood Road and Huffine Lane or the intersection of Babcock Street and Cottonwood Road. The proposal therefore does not appear to satisfy either the location or size elements for a large scale center nor the size element for a small scale center. The applicant has verbally stated that they would accept a smaller area which may address some of these concerns. However, no written statement or amended application has been made to this effect. The sketch submitted on February 14th does show a reduced area. Again, the City is left to make an inference and as noted under objection one above, the City may not engage in contract zoning. If the applicant wishes to amend their application they should do so specifically and not expect the City to guess at intentions. Therefore, Staff does not find this criterion met for the requested change to B-2. See also Criterion J. B. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems. Neutral. The site is bounded on three sides by public streets; one arterial and two local streets. The site is in between Cottonwood Avenue and Ferguson Avenue which are signalized at their intersections with Huffine Lane. Resort Drive has limited access to Huffine Lane. The full right of way widths exist for these streets. The standard street sections as depicted in the long range transportation plan all include provisions for both motorized and non-motorized transportation. The standard sections are not altered by the change in zoning. The B-2 district allows for more intensive development than the BP district by allowing smaller setbacks, less open space required, and greater allowed building heights. If fully utilized, these would allow a greater number of destination trips to be generated by development of the site. The review procedures for site and subdivision proposals provide a means to measure and if needed mitigate impacts on the transportation systems. The B-2 district allows a greater diversity of uses than the BP district. A diversity of uses has the potential to support internal trip capture within the site. Either the BP or B-2 districts would allow a single use development of the proposed site. 130 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 9 of 13 C. Secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers. Neutral. The site is within the response times for emergency services regardless of the zoning in place. The building codes will be applied to address necessary building exiting requirements and similar issues. No significant flood hazard has been identified. Other hazards are throughout the Bozeman area and will occur regardless of zoning district. Proper security of the public will be affected by the timely installation of needed infrastructure. Site and subdivision development standards will address timing with any development proposal. D. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare. No. Public health and safety will be addressed by the development standards of the Bozeman Municipal Code, construction codes, and similar guidance for development. The general welfare is promoted by maintaining and increasing the consistency of the zoning map with the Bozeman Community Plan. As described in Criterion A above the proposal does not appear to conform to the Bozeman Community Plan. Therefore, the application does not meet this criteria. E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air. Neutral. Either the BP or B-2 districts have provisions in place to ensure adequate light and air for the uses allowed within the district. The maximum surface area of a lot allowed to be covered with buildings and other impervious in the BP district is limited to 60%. The B-2 district allows all of the lot except for required yards to be impervious surface. This means that the BP district provides greater quantities of light and air. There are many possible development scenarios where one district could develop more intensely than the other. The B-2 district allows residences under certain circumstances that may require dedication of parkland, BP does not. Different districts may have different open space standards and still meet this criterion. The Commission has determined that both the BP and B-2 zoning districts provide adequate light and air in conjunction with the rest of the standards in that district. F. Prevention of overcrowding of land. Neutral. These amendments are not altering requirements for lot coverage or building density. Objectively, overcrowding is a condition where the use of land overwhelms the ability of infrastructure and buildings to meet the needs of users. This functional problem is addressed by ensuring the installation of water, sewer, transportation, and other services in accordance with adopted City standards. Installation will be assured through the subdivision and site planning processes. Please note the constraint on sewer in Criterion H. G. Avoiding undue concentration of population. Neutral. The proposed amendments do not change standards for density of population. The B-2 district does allow for apartment buildings and accessory residences in conjunction with other principle uses. There is no minimum lot area requirement for residences in the B-2 district. The BP district does not allow residences. Undue concentration is a subjective measure but can most objectively be measured by whether there are adequate facilities to provide services to the persons within the area. H. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirement. Neutral. This amendments do not alter the City’s standards for public facilities. The parkland dedication, water rights provision, and other provision of infrastructure standards apply within both the B-2 and BP districts. Compliance with these standards will be required with any subdivision or zoning review when development intensity is more known. Development may occur over extended time periods and the availability of infrastructure may change over time as well. 131 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 10 of 13 The site is within an area where sewer service is limited. The available service capacity has been allocated to those within the service area. If additional service is demanded there are considerable additional trunk sewers to be installed as described in the wastewater facility plan. The additional intensity of development allowed by the B-2 district may have additional demand for service beyond what could be done under the BP district and may exceed the available capacity for sewer service for the parcel. As shown in the citation below, the designation of a site with a particular zoning designation is not a certification that infrastructure is immediately available. “18.14.010.C. Placement of any given zoning district on an area depicted on the zoning map indicates a judgment on the part of the City that the range of uses allowed within that district are generally acceptable in that location. It is not a guarantee of approval for any given use prior to the completion of the appropriate review procedure and compliance with all of the applicable requirements and development standards of this title and other applicable policies, laws and ordinances. It is also not a guarantee of immediate infrastructure availability or a commitment on the part of the City to bear the cost of extending services.” I. Conserving the value of buildings. Neutral. There are no buildings presently on the property proposed to be rezoned. Some adjacent properties are vacant. Properties to the west are developed with a bank, offices, and retail which uses are not in conflict with either the B-2 or BP zoning districts. The site is separated from other properties on the north, east, and south boundaries by streets. J. Character of the district. No. The site of the requested rezoning is currently vacant. The site is regular in shape with no odd boundaries. There are no existing buildings or internal infrastructure constraining the future use of the site. The adjacent parcel to the east is zoned as Urban Mixed Use. Property to the east along the north side of Huffine Lane were developed in a coordinated manner using the planned unit development process to establish consistent development character and integrated circulation systems. The parcels to the west are zoned Business Park. Development on those parcels to the west includes a veterinary clinic, banks, and medical offices. Further west, across Cottonwood Avenue and within the BP zoning district, is existing development which was created through a PUD process several decades ago. There is property zoned as B-2 to the NW across Cottonwood Avenue and recently amended to the SW. In circumstances of the SW the site is physically configured in a restrictive manner and there are multiple existing buildings. To the NW the land uses proposed are a good fit for the B-2 district as an auto dealership complex which is presently being constructed. The applicant’s submittal map erroneously shows the parcels immediately to the west of Cottonwood Road as B-2, and the property NW of the intersection of Fallon Street and Cottonwood Avenue as R-4. Please see the vicinity map on page four above for a correct map of the adjacent zoning. As noted earlier, there are vacant parcels adjacent to the subject site. Coordination with one of the adjoining zoning designations, like UMU, would be more consistent than placing B-2 at this location which has no adjoining B-2 zoning. At this point, there has not been a submitted proposal for possible development of the subject site and the zone map amendment must be reviewed with its potential for all uses and configurations allowed by the B-2 district. The historical B-2 development tends to be low height auto dominated single use development which doesn’t advance the desired more intensive, multi-use, high quality development sought in the growth policy. Unless a more specific proposal is made the City must consider the full range of allowable uses and character in a proposed zoning. A planned unit development approach would allow for both additional design flexibility and a coordinated development character where compliance with the goals and policies of the growth policy can be more definitively determined. The applicant has not made application for entitlement review of 132 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 11 of 13 a planned unit development at this time. As noted in the background section, a conceptual review has been completed. The southern portion of the site lies within the West Main Entryway Corridor and the site is therefore subject to the standards of the Design Objectives Plan. These standards remain the same whether or not the zoning is changed. K. Peculiar suitability for particular uses. Neutral. See discussion under the items A and J. The site has no physical characteristics which would make it especially suitable for particular uses. L. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. Neutral. The Bozeman Community Plan future land use map, Figure 3-1, identifies the general character of the area as commercial mixed uses with residential to the north and south. The present uses authorized in the BP district have some overlap with the uses authorized in the B-2 district. Examples of overlap include offices and medical clinics. A full comparison can be made by examining Table 38.10.020 in Chapter 10 and Table 38.12.020 in Chapter 12 of the Unified Development Code. Depending on the uses actually proposed for construction within the site, development could comply with the description of the community commercial mixed use district under either BP or B-2. M. Promotion of Compatible Urban Growth. No. The Bozeman Community Plan provides several guiding ideas and principles for the physical development of the City. Development consistent with these ideas and principles are more likely to be compatible with adjacent development both within and outside of the City limits. The growth policy discourages strip commercial development and encourages higher density urban centers. Development inconsistent with the growth policy would not satisfy this criteria. There are multiple objectives and goals established for development through the growth policy and through the zoning standards. For more discussion of this see Criteria A and J above. PUBLIC COMMENT Written testimony in opposition and support has been received. A zoning protest was received. The protest did not have enough participants to require a super-majority Commission action. Copies of the comment are included with the Commission packet. SUMMARY & CONCLUSION The Department of Planning and Community Development and the Development Review Committee, have reviewed the proposed Zone Map Amendment application and have provided summary review comments as outlined above in the staff report; and as a result, recommend denial of the application. The Zoning Commission recommended approval of the application at their public hearing on March 1, 2011. The minutes of the Zoning Commission and a resolution forwarding their recommendation are attached. Prior to the initially scheduled City Commission action the applicant requested the application be held from further processing. Since that time the applicant has requested the Commission reactivate the application. A revised notice has been issued with the current public hearing date. 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 OR UNITS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO OR WITHIN 150 FEET FROM THE STREET FRONTAGE, THE AMENDMENT 133 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 12 of 13 SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE EXCEPT BY THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF TWO- THIRDS OF THE PRESENT AND VOTING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION. A protest petition was received by the City during the initial portion of the review period. A copy is included in the public comment attached to this report. Staff evaluated the protest and it did not reach the threshold of protest required by Section 76-2-305 to trigger a super-majority decision by the City Commission. The City Commission has three possible actions to consider in deciding on this application: 1. Approve the application. This would change the zoning to B-2 (Community Business) on the entire parcel of land and future development on the site would be subject to the standards of the B-2 district and other relevant City standards. 2. Deny the application. This would leave the existing BP (Business Park) zoning in place and future development on the site would be subject to the standards of the BP district and the other relevant City standards. 3. Approve a portion of the application to change the zoning for less than the entire area of the property. The approval could be for any sized portion as the notice has included the entire property. If the Commission chooses this option, any motion should be clear in establishing the area such stating a distance in feet from the Huffine Lane right of way line which will be the northern boundary of the B-2 area. Per Section 38.37.030.D.2, BMC if the Commission desires to approve rezoning of less than the full area of the lot as requested in the initial application, the Commission should continue the item for one week to allow the applicant to consider if they wish to protest the Commission’s action. A protest by the applicant will require a super-majority to approve in the same form as other protests. All motions should be phrased in the positive. If the motion does not receive at least three favorable votes the motion fails. Suggested motion language for the three options listed above follows. 1. Having heard and considered public comment and all submitted materials and staff findings, I hereby move to approve the zone map amendment requested in application Z-11002 authorizing a zone map amendment for the subject property from “BP” (Business Park District) to “B-2” (Community Business District) subject to the contingencies listed on page 2 of the staff report and find [insert alternate findings for criteria A, D, J and M]. 2. Having heard and considered public comment and all submitted materials and staff findings, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report and move to retain the existing zoning district of “BP” (Business Park District) on Lot 4, Minor Subdivision 295, Spring Creek Village Resort. 3. Having heard and considered public comment and all submitted materials and staff findings, I hereby find that it is best to change the zoning from Business Park to B-2, Community Business District for less than the entirety of the subject site and move to approve B-2, Community Business beginning from the Huffine Lane right-of-way line and going north [insert distance] and find [insert alternate findings for criteria A, D, J and M]. I further move to continue this application for one week to enable the applicant to consider whether or not to protest this proposed action as set forth in Section 38.37.030.D.2 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. REPORT SENT TO Spring Creek Village, LLC, 101 East Main Street, Suite D, Bozeman MT 59715. 134 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 13 of 13 Delaney & Co., Inc., 101 East Main Street, Suite D, Bozeman MT 59715. C&H Engineering and Surveying, 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman MT 59718 ATTACHMENTS Zoning Commission minutes Zoning Commission resolution Zoning Commission staff report ZMA Application & Map Applicant’s response to ZMA criteria Letter from Applicant dated February 10, 2011 Map of possible site development from applicant received February 14, 2012 Bozeman Community Plan selections DRC Comments Public Comments received to date 135 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 1 of 13 SPRING CREEK VILLAGE RESORT LOT 4 REZONE ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FILE # Z-11002 CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Item: Zoning Application #Z-11002 – An application to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map to allow a change in municipal zoning designation from B-P (Business Park) to B-2 (Community Business) on 19.9621 acres. Owner: Spring Creek Village, LLC, 101 East Main Street, Suite D, Bozeman MT 59715. Applicant: Delaney & Co., Inc., 101 East Main Street, Suite D, Bozeman MT 59715. Representative: C&H Engineering and Surveying, 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman MT 59718 Date/Time: Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, February 27, 2011 at 6:00 PM in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue Bozeman, Montana Report By: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Recommendation: Denial LOCATION The property is 19.9621 acres of land located northwest of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Resort Drive. The property is Lot 4, Minor Subdivision 295, Section 10, Township 2 South Range 5 East, Gallatin County. Please refer to the vicinity map below. 136 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 2 of 13 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 38.01.040.C of the Unified Development Code and Section 76-2-304 Montana Codes Annotated, the Staff recommends denial of the requested Zone Map Amendment. In the event that the City Commission finds differently, Staff recommends the following contingencies to be included with any action of approval: 1. That the applicant submit a zone amendment map, titled “Spring Creek Village Resort ‘BP’ to ‘B-2’ Zone Map Amendment”, on a 24” by 36” mylar, and a 8 ½” by 11” or 8 ½” by 14” paper exhibit, and a digital copy of the area to be zoned, acceptable to the Director of Public Service, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the City of Bozeman Zoning Map. Said map shall containing a metes and bounds legal description of the perimeter of the subject property, total acreage of the property and adjoining rights-of-way and/or street access easements. The map and accompanying legal description shall be provided within 45 working days after Commission action to approve the application. 2. That the Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant provides a metes and bounds legal description and map of the area to be rezoned, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the zone map. PROPOSAL and BACKGROUND The property owner has made application to the City of Bozeman for a Zone Map Amendment to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map to change municipal zoning designation from B-P (Business Park) to B-2 (Community Business) on 19.9621 acres located northwest of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Resort Drive. The property is Lot 4, Minor Subdivision 295, Section 10, Township 2 South Range 5 East, Gallatin County. The subject property is currently located within the corporate limits of the City of Bozeman. The intent of the B-2 community business district is to provide for a broad range of mutually supportive retail and service functions located in clustered areas bordered on one or more sides by limited access arterial streets as described in Section 38.10.010, BMC. The original application was received on January 5, 2011. This zone map amendment was originally scheduled to be considered by the Zoning Commission on February 15, 2011 and City Commission on March 7, 2011. It was continued for two weeks. The Zoning Commission heard the application on March 1st. They recommended favorably on the application. After several continuances were requested by the applicant the application was placed on hold by the applicant via letter on May 26, 2011. On June 6, 2012 the City Commission tabled the application until a revised notice could be provided. Revised notice materials were provided on January 5, 2012 and the application is again being brought to the City Commission for consideration. During the intervening period the applicant submitted a subdivision pre-application and a planned unit development concept plan for consideration on May 17, 2011. The PUD file indicates the application was to demonstrate the ability to provide a higher quality level of development performance and be able to comply with City standards. The staff reviewed these items and the two applications were considered by the City Commission on July 25, 2011. A letter incorporating the comments from Staff and the Commission was provided on August 10, 2011. Follow up applications for subdivision preliminary plat and PUD preliminary plan review has not been received at this time. 137 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 3 of 13 A schematic design showing separation of B-2 and BP uses on the site was submitted on February 14, 2012. A copy is included with the City Commission packet materials. There were three applications submitted by other applicants for nearby properties in the past couple of years. On December 13, 2011, the City Commission approved an amendment for approximately 10 acres to Figure 3-1 in the growth policy for the southeast corner of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road. This application approval has not yet been finalized by resolution. No application for annexation or initial zoning has yet been received. Two separate applications submitted for rezoning of three lots located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road. The two applications collectively were slightly less than five acres in size. This change in zoning is shown on the second map below. The staff report has been updated due to the passage of time since the initiation of the application, the outcome of decisions made on other applications, and renumbering of municipal code references during the codification process completed last fall. LAND CLASSIFICATION AND ZONING The subject property has been subdivided and is presently vacant. The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property: North: Residential, R-O (Residential-Office district) vacant, multi-household residences; South: Residential, located outside the City, agriculture; Community Commercial Mixed Use (pending) located outside the City, agriculture; East: Community Commercial Mixed Use, UMU (Urban Mixed Use), vacant; West: Community Commercial Mixed Use, BP (Business Park), bank, medical and veterinary clinics , automotive dealership and support businesses. B-2 (Community Business) to the NW and SW with warehouse, vacant, and automotive dealership. Please see the two maps below: 138 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 4 of 13 139 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 5 of 13 REVIEW CRITERIA A change in zoning district is a legislative act to set policy relating to future development proposals. The Bozeman Planning Office has reviewed the application for a Zone Map Amendment against the Bozeman Community Plan, the City of Bozeman municipal code, 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 City Commission. A. Be in accordance with a growth policy. No. The recent update to the growth policy, the Bozeman Community Plan, changed the future land use map, Figure 3-1, for this area from business park mixed use to community commercial mixed use. A map of the area is presented above. The B-2 district is one of several possible implementing zoning districts for the community commercial mixed use designation. However, Figure 3-1 is not the only element of the growth policy which must be considered. There are many goals, objectives, and other text which must also be evaluated. While not every element will apply to every proposal, a broad evaluation of compliance is needed. A proposal may comply with Figure 3-1 but not the other elements of the plan. To be in accordance with the growth policy compliance must be to both Figure 3-1 and the other relevant plan elements. The City has adopted paragraph 38.01.040.E, BMC which specifically states that Chapter 38, Unified Development Code, which includes the zoning map, are intended to implement the goals and objectives of the adopted growth policy. Further, the growth policy is given precedence in the event of a conflict or difference between the growth policy and Chapter 38, BMC. Chapter 3 of the Bozeman Community Plan addresses land uses. Beginning on page 3-3, there are seven ideas laid out which provide a foundation for Bozeman’s land use policies and practices. There is a description of each of them provided in the provided pages attached to this report. These are: • Neighborhoods • Sense of Place • Natural Amenities • Centers • Integration of Action • Urban Density • Sustainability The description of the different land use categories depicted on Figure 3-1 are described in Section 3.4 of the growth policy. The definition of the community commercial mixed use designation begins on page 3-10. “Community Commercial Mixed Use. Activities within this land use category are the basic employment and services necessary for a vibrant community. Establishments located within these categories draw from the community as a whole for their employee and customer base and are sized accordingly. A broad range of functions including retail, education, professional and personal services, offices, residences, and general service activities typify this designation. In the “center-based” land use pattern, Community Commercial Mixed Use areas are integrated with significant transportation corridors, including transit and non-automotive routes, to facilitate efficient travel opportunities. The density of development is expected to be higher than currently seen in most commercial areas in Bozeman and should include multi-story buildings. A Floor Area Ratio in excess of .5 is desired. It is desirable to allow residences on upper floors, in appropriate circumstances. Urban streetscapes, plazas, outdoor seating, public art, and hardscaped open space and park amenities are anticipated, appropriately designed for an urban character. Placed in proximity to significant streets and intersections, an equal 140 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 6 of 13 emphasis on vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation shall be provided. High density residential areas are expected in close proximity. Including residential units on sites within this category, typically on upper floors, will facilitate the provision of services and opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an automobile. The Community Commercial Mixed Use category is distributed at two different scales to serve different purposes. Large Community Commercial Mixed Use areas are significant in size and are activity centers for an area of several square miles surrounding them. These are intended to service the larger community as well as adjacent neighborhoods and are typically distributed on a one mile radius. Smaller Community Commercial areas are usually in the 10-15 acre size range and are intended to provide primarily local service to an area of approximately one-half mile radius. These commercial centers support and help give identity to individual neighborhoods by providing a visible and distinctive focal point. They should typically be located on one or two quadrants of intersections of arterials and/or collectors. Although a broad range of uses may be appropriate in both types of locations the size and scale is to be smaller within the local service placements. Mixed use areas should be developed in an integrated, pedestrian friendly manner and should not be overly dominated by any single land use. Higher intensity employment and residential uses are encouraged in the core of the area or adjacent to significant streets and intersections. As needed, building height transitions should be provided to be compatible with adjacent development.” Examples of applicable goals and objectives from the Bozeman Community Plan: Chapter 3 Land Use Goal LU-1: Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, efficiently provides public and private basic services and facilities in close proximity to where people live and work, and minimizes sprawl. Rationale: A sense of community is strengthened by distinctive areas which facilitate neighborhood identity. This is strengthened when essential services are available and encourage informal interactions. Full featured neighborhoods allow extensive interaction and build identity with a specific part of the community. A sense of place does not prohibit change or continued evolution of the community. Objective LU-1.4: Provide for and support infill development and redevelopment which provides additional density of use while respecting the context of the existing development which surrounds it. Respect for context does not automatically prohibit difference in scale or designLU-2 centers LU-2.3 Chapter 4 Community Quality Goal C-1: Human Scale and Compatibility — Create a community composed of neighborhoods designed for the human scale and compatibility in which the streets and buildings are properly sized within their context, services and amenities are convenient, visually pleasing, and properly integrated. Rationale: A community’s physical form, rather than its land uses, is its most enduring characteristic. We should design places for people as the primary user. Good design looks good and feels good. The spatial relationships in our environment in large part determine our experience of the place. Scale and context should be the beginning point of any discussion of community quality. 141 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 7 of 13 Goal C-3: Neighborhood Design – New neighborhoods shall be pedestrian oriented, contain a variety of housing types and densities, contain parks and other public spaces, have a commercial center and defined boundaries. Rationale: Good neighborhoods allow choices in housing, recreation, modes of transportation, options for commerce, work, and entertainment while providing a healthy environment and a sense of place and identity that residents can call home. Objective C-3.4: Create neighborhood Commercial Centers that will provide uses to meet consumer demands from surrounding Residential Districts for everyday goods and services, and will be a pedestrian oriented place that serves as a focal point for the surrounding neighborhoods. The site of the requested rezoning is currently vacant. The site is regular in shape with no odd boundaries. There are no existing buildings or internal infrastructure constraining the future use of the site. This is different than much of the adjacent commercial development which in some cases has been developed for many years or has constraining physical configuration. In considering the appropriateness of a particular zoning district for the site it is appropriate to consider which district will most fully advance the community plan goals and aspirations, not just what accomplishes minimal compliance. As a zone map amendment is a legislative and policy oriented, not quasi-judicial, matter the City Commission has discretion to decide the course considered most suitable to advance the growth policy . There are B-2 areas within the vicinity, but not adjacent to, the proposed site. The B-2 areas within the vicinity have different physical locations and configurations which lessen the likelihood of strip commercial development or other development that would be contrary to the growth policy. The application site is therefore distinguishable from these other areas even though they all have an underlying community commercial mixed use growth policy designation. Locations in near proximity that have developed with B-2 uses that are not also listed in the BP district were developed through a planned unit development process which provides additional flexibility in implementing the adopted growth policy and zoning standards. The applicant also has the opportunity to pursue development of their property as a planned unit development as set out in Chapter 38, BMC. After examining the guiding principles for the land use chapter and the goals of the Bozeman Community Plan, Staff has concluded that a change to B-2, while conforming to Figure 3-1, does not meet the other elements of the plan for the following reasons. 1) There is a transition in existing and proposed development character along W. Main Street/Huffine lane beginning at Fowler Avenue and intensifying at Ferguson Avenue to a more coherent and coordinated development character. The UMU zoning district at the corner of Ferguson Avenue and Huffine provides a potential for development advancing the Centers and Urban Density themes described in Section 3.2 of the Bozeman Community Plan. The requested rezoning site is immediately to the west of the UMU area and would provide a natural expansion for the UMU district. The larger UMU area would advance the ideas of Centers and a Sense of Place in the community and help avoid the appearance and function of commercial strip along Huffine Lane which is discouraged. The requested B-2 designation for the site would not accomplish this with surety. The City is not permitted to engage in contract zoning where a zone change is granted in reliance upon a specific design proposal. If it were so allowed, a negotiated arrangement might be possible where the applicant could demonstrate compliance at a more detailed level in 142 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 8 of 13 exchange for the map amendment. Until such an approach is possible, the City must evaluate zone map amendments independent of specific proposals. 2) The particular parcel under consideration is adjacent to an arterial but is not located at the intersection of arterials and collectors. There are intervening properties to the west and east. Location at intersections is a specifically desired location as described in the Community Commercial Mixed Use text quoted above. This separation makes it more difficult to integrate the proposed site into traffic flow and development character and increases the likelihood of an undesirable land use development pattern. 3) The centers principle implemented in the growth policy provides for a spacing separation between commercial areas. Lack of separation continues the corridor development pattern which is undesired. The details are provided in the excerpt from the plan quoted above. Large scale commercial centers are typically distributed on a one mile radius. There is an existing large scale center at the intersection of Fowler Avenue and Huffine Lane. This is located one mile to the east. The separation therefore is less than intended for a large scale. The smaller scale centers are expected to be 10-15 acres in size. The smaller centers are also located on major intersections but at a half a ½ mile radius. The proposed site is 20 acres. This in itself is larger than the anticiatped size for a small commercial center without taking into account the existing and probable development on properties which are actually located at the intersection of Cottonwood Road and Huffine Lane or the intersection of Babcock Street and Cottonwood Road. The proposal therefore does not appear to satisfy either the location or size elements for a large scale center nor the size element for a small scale center. The applicant has verbally stated that they would accept a smaller area which may address some of these concerns. However, no written statement or amended application has been made to this effect. The sketch submitted on February 14th does show a reduced area. Again, the City is left to make an inference and as noted under objection one above, the City may not engage in contract zoning. If the applicant wishes to amend their application they should do so specifically and not expect the City to guess at intentions. Therefore, Staff does not find this criterion met for the requested change to B-2. See also Criterion J. B. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems. Neutral. The site is bounded on three sides by public streets; one arterial and two local streets. The site is in between Cottonwood Avenue and Ferguson Avenue which are signalized at their intersections with Huffine Lane. Resort Drive has limited access to Huffine Lane. The full right of way widths exist for these streets. The standard street sections as depicted in the long range transportation plan all include provisions for both motorized and non-motorized transportation. The standard sections are not altered by the change in zoning. The B-2 district allows for more intensive development than the BP district by allowing smaller setbacks, less open space required, and greater allowed building heights. If fully utilized, these would allow a greater number of destination trips to be generated by development of the site. The review procedures for site and subdivision proposals provide a means to measure and if needed mitigate impacts on the transportation systems. The B-2 district allows a greater diversity of uses than the BP district. A diversity of uses has the potential to support internal trip capture within the site. Either the BP or B-2 districts would allow a single use development of the proposed site. 143 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 9 of 13 C. Secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers. Neutral. The site is within the response times for emergency services regardless of the zoning in place. The building codes will be applied to address necessary building exiting requirements and similar issues. No significant flood hazard has been identified. Other hazards are throughout the Bozeman area and will occur regardless of zoning district. Proper security of the public will be affected by the timely installation of needed infrastructure. Site and subdivision development standards will address timing with any development proposal. D. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare. No. Public health and safety will be addressed by the development standards of the Bozeman Municipal Code, construction codes, and similar guidance for development. The general welfare is promoted by maintaining and increasing the consistency of the zoning map with the Bozeman Community Plan. As described in Criterion A above the proposal does not appear to conform to the Bozeman Community Plan. Therefore, the application does not meet this criteria. E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air. Neutral. Either the BP or B-2 districts have provisions in place to ensure adequate light and air for the uses allowed within the district. The maximum surface area of a lot allowed to be covered with buildings and other impervious in the BP district is limited to 60%. The B-2 district allows all of the lot except for required yards to be impervious surface. This means that the BP district provides greater quantities of light and air. There are many possible development scenarios where one district could develop more intensely than the other. The B-2 district allows residences under certain circumstances that may require dedication of parkland, BP does not. Different districts may have different open space standards and still meet this criterion. The Commission has determined that both the BP and B-2 zoning districts provide adequate light and air in conjunction with the rest of the standards in that district. F. Prevention of overcrowding of land. Neutral. These amendments are not altering requirements for lot coverage or building density. Objectively, overcrowding is a condition where the use of land overwhelms the ability of infrastructure and buildings to meet the needs of users. This functional problem is addressed by ensuring the installation of water, sewer, transportation, and other services in accordance with adopted City standards. Installation will be assured through the subdivision and site planning processes. Please note the constraint on sewer in Criterion H. G. Avoiding undue concentration of population. Neutral. The proposed amendments do not change standards for density of population. The B-2 district does allow for apartment buildings and accessory residences in conjunction with other principle uses. There is no minimum lot area requirement for residences in the B-2 district. The BP district does not allow residences. Undue concentration is a subjective measure but can most objectively be measured by whether there are adequate facilities to provide services to the persons within the area. H. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirement. Neutral. This amendments do not alter the City’s standards for public facilities. The parkland dedication, water rights provision, and other provision of infrastructure standards apply within both the B-2 and BP districts. Compliance with these standards will be required with any subdivision or zoning review when development intensity is more known. Development may occur over extended time periods and the availability of infrastructure may change over time as well. 144 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 10 of 13 The site is within an area where sewer service is limited. The available service capacity has been allocated to those within the service area. If additional service is demanded there are considerable additional trunk sewers to be installed as described in the wastewater facility plan. The additional intensity of development allowed by the B-2 district may have additional demand for service beyond what could be done under the BP district and may exceed the available capacity for sewer service for the parcel. As shown in the citation below, the designation of a site with a particular zoning designation is not a certification that infrastructure is immediately available. “18.14.010.C. Placement of any given zoning district on an area depicted on the zoning map indicates a judgment on the part of the City that the range of uses allowed within that district are generally acceptable in that location. It is not a guarantee of approval for any given use prior to the completion of the appropriate review procedure and compliance with all of the applicable requirements and development standards of this title and other applicable policies, laws and ordinances. It is also not a guarantee of immediate infrastructure availability or a commitment on the part of the City to bear the cost of extending services.” I. Conserving the value of buildings. Neutral. There are no buildings presently on the property proposed to be rezoned. Some adjacent properties are vacant. Properties to the west are developed with a bank, offices, and retail which uses are not in conflict with either the B-2 or BP zoning districts. The site is separated from other properties on the north, east, and south boundaries by streets. J. Character of the district. No. The site of the requested rezoning is currently vacant. The site is regular in shape with no odd boundaries. There are no existing buildings or internal infrastructure constraining the future use of the site. The adjacent parcel to the east is zoned as Urban Mixed Use. Property to the east along the north side of Huffine Lane were developed in a coordinated manner using the planned unit development process to establish consistent development character and integrated circulation systems. The parcels to the west are zoned Business Park. Development on those parcels to the west includes a veterinary clinic, banks, and medical offices. Further west, across Cottonwood Avenue and within the BP zoning district, is existing development which was created through a PUD process several decades ago. There is property zoned as B-2 to the NW across Cottonwood Avenue and recently amended to the SW. In circumstances of the SW the site is physically configured in a restrictive manner and there are multiple existing buildings. To the NW the land uses proposed are a good fit for the B-2 district as an auto dealership complex which is presently being constructed. The applicant’s submittal map erroneously shows the parcels immediately to the west of Cottonwood Road as B-2, and the property NW of the intersection of Fallon Street and Cottonwood Avenue as R-4. Please see the vicinity map on page four above for a correct map of the adjacent zoning. As noted earlier, there are vacant parcels adjacent to the subject site. Coordination with one of the adjoining zoning designations, like UMU, would be more consistent than placing B-2 at this location which has no adjoining B-2 zoning. At this point, there has not been a submitted proposal for possible development of the subject site and the zone map amendment must be reviewed with its potential for all uses and configurations allowed by the B-2 district. The historical B-2 development tends to be low height auto dominated single use development which doesn’t advance the desired more intensive, multi-use, high quality development sought in the growth policy. Unless a more specific proposal is made the City must consider the full range of allowable uses and character in a proposed zoning. A planned unit development approach would allow for both additional design flexibility and a coordinated development character where compliance with the goals and policies of the growth policy can be more definitively determined. The applicant has not made application for entitlement review of 145 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 11 of 13 a planned unit development at this time. As noted in the background section, a conceptual review has been completed. The southern portion of the site lies within the West Main Entryway Corridor and the site is therefore subject to the standards of the Design Objectives Plan. These standards remain the same whether or not the zoning is changed. K. Peculiar suitability for particular uses. Neutral. See discussion under the items A and J. The site has no physical characteristics which would make it especially suitable for particular uses. L. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. Neutral. The Bozeman Community Plan future land use map, Figure 3-1, identifies the general character of the area as commercial mixed uses with residential to the north and south. The present uses authorized in the BP district have some overlap with the uses authorized in the B-2 district. Examples of overlap include offices and medical clinics. A full comparison can be made by examining Table 38.10.020 in Chapter 10 and Table 38.12.020 in Chapter 12 of the Unified Development Code. Depending on the uses actually proposed for construction within the site, development could comply with the description of the community commercial mixed use district under either BP or B-2. M. Promotion of Compatible Urban Growth. No. The Bozeman Community Plan provides several guiding ideas and principles for the physical development of the City. Development consistent with these ideas and principles are more likely to be compatible with adjacent development both within and outside of the City limits. The growth policy discourages strip commercial development and encourages higher density urban centers. Development inconsistent with the growth policy would not satisfy this criteria. There are multiple objectives and goals established for development through the growth policy and through the zoning standards. For more discussion of this see Criteria A and J above. PUBLIC COMMENT Written testimony in opposition and support has been received. A zoning protest was received. The protest did not have enough participants to require a super-majority Commission action. Copies of the comment are included with the Commission packet. SUMMARY & CONCLUSION The Department of Planning and Community Development and the Development Review Committee, have reviewed the proposed Zone Map Amendment application and have provided summary review comments as outlined above in the staff report; and as a result, recommend denial of the application. The Zoning Commission recommended approval of the application at their public hearing on March 1, 2011. The minutes of the Zoning Commission and a resolution forwarding their recommendation are attached. Prior to the initially scheduled City Commission action the applicant requested the application be held from further processing. Since that time the applicant has requested the Commission reactivate the application. A revised notice has been issued with the current public hearing date. 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 OR UNITS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO OR WITHIN 150 FEET FROM THE STREET FRONTAGE, THE AMENDMENT 146 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 12 of 13 SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE EXCEPT BY THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF TWO- THIRDS OF THE PRESENT AND VOTING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION. A protest petition was received by the City during the initial portion of the review period. A copy is included in the public comment attached to this report. Staff evaluated the protest and it did not reach the threshold of protest required by Section 76-2-305 to trigger a super-majority decision by the City Commission. The City Commission has three possible actions to consider in deciding on this application: 1. Approve the application. This would change the zoning to B-2 (Community Business) on the entire parcel of land and future development on the site would be subject to the standards of the B-2 district and other relevant City standards. 2. Deny the application. This would leave the existing BP (Business Park) zoning in place and future development on the site would be subject to the standards of the BP district and the other relevant City standards. 3. Approve a portion of the application to change the zoning for less than the entire area of the property. The approval could be for any sized portion as the notice has included the entire property. If the Commission chooses this option, any motion should be clear in establishing the area such stating a distance in feet from the Huffine Lane right of way line which will be the northern boundary of the B-2 area. Per Section 38.37.030.D.2, BMC if the Commission desires to approve rezoning of less than the full area of the lot as requested in the initial application, the Commission should continue the item for one week to allow the applicant to consider if they wish to protest the Commission’s action. A protest by the applicant will require a super-majority to approve in the same form as other protests. All motions should be phrased in the positive. If the motion does not receive at least three favorable votes the motion fails. Suggested motion language for the three options listed above follows. 1. Having heard and considered public comment and all submitted materials and staff findings, I hereby move to approve the zone map amendment requested in application Z-11002 authorizing a zone map amendment for the subject property from “BP” (Business Park District) to “B-2” (Community Business District) subject to the contingencies listed on page 2 of the staff report and find [insert alternate findings for criteria A, D, J and M]. 2. Having heard and considered public comment and all submitted materials and staff findings, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report and move to retain the existing zoning district of “BP” (Business Park District) on Lot 4, Minor Subdivision 295, Spring Creek Village Resort. 3. Having heard and considered public comment and all submitted materials and staff findings, I hereby find that it is best to change the zoning from Business Park to B-2, Community Business District for less than the entirety of the subject site and move to approve B-2, Community Business beginning from the Huffine Lane right-of-way line and going north [insert distance] and find [insert alternate findings for criteria A, D, J and M]. I further move to continue this application for one week to enable the applicant to consider whether or not to protest this proposed action as set forth in Section 38.37.030.D.2 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. REPORT SENT TO Spring Creek Village, LLC, 101 East Main Street, Suite D, Bozeman MT 59715. 147 Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 4 Rezone ZMA Staff Report 2 #Z-11002 Page 13 of 13 Delaney & Co., Inc., 101 East Main Street, Suite D, Bozeman MT 59715. C&H Engineering and Surveying, 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman MT 59718 ATTACHMENTS Zoning Commission minutes Zoning Commission resolution Zoning Commission staff report ZMA Application & Map Applicant’s response to ZMA criteria Letter from Applicant dated February 10, 2011 Map of possible site development from applicant received February 14, 2012 Bozeman Community Plan selections DRC Comments Public Comments received to date 148