HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-12068, Mahar Good Medicine Way Zone Map Amendment_Part1
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Tim McHarg, Director
SUBJECT: Z-12068, Mahar Good Medicine Way Zone Map Amendment
MEETING DATE: June 11, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action. (Legislative)
RECOMMENDATION: Approve zone map amendment request Z-12068 and direct Staff to
prepare an implementing ordinance upon completion of the contingencies terms outlined on page
2 of the staff report.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Having heard and considered public testimony, the application
materials, and the staff analysis I find the criteria for a zone map amendment to be met and I
move to approve zone map amendment Z-12068 and direct Staff to prepare an implementing
ordinance upon completion of the contingencies terms outlined on page 2 of the staff report
BACKGROUND: An application was received on April 4, 2012 requesting the City to
approve an initial zone map amendment to R-1 (Residential Single Household Low-Density
District) in conjunction with a request to annex 5.01 acres. The subject property is located at
3601 Good Medicine Way and is presently zoned as Residential Suburban under the Gallatin
County zoning system. The parcel is legally described as Tract 4A, Minor Subdivision 35C,
located in the NE ¼ of S. 25, T. 2S., R. 5E., Gallatin County. The property is situated between
Good Medicine Way and South 3rd Avenue. The annexation of the property is being considered
under application A-12004.
The Development Review Committee considered the application and on May 2, 2012
recommended approval of the ZMA subject to several contingencies which are presented on
page 2 of the staff report. The Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 15, 2012.
There was considerable public comment and after considering the application the motion to
recommend approval of the requested R-1 zoning failed on a vote of 1-2. The minutes of the
meeting and resolution conveying the Zoning Commission’s action are attached.
Subsequent to the Zoning Commission hearing the Planning Department received formal protests
to the zoning application. The effect of a successful protest is to require a 2/3 majority vote of
the present and voting members of the Commission in favor of a motion to approve the
application. A protest does not block processing or approval of the application. A protest is
successful if it is submitted by 20% or more of the owners of property located within 150 feet of
318
the site of the amendment. There are 8 parcels which meet this distance measurement. A map of
the protest area for this application is attached with the other vicinity maps. Several written
protests have been received. Enough of the protests are from owners within the protest boundary
to establish a successful protest and require the 2/3s vote.
The majority of public comment has addressed the character of the area and the fit or lack of fit
of the R-1 zoning district. Most of those who commented expressed a preference for R-S
(Residential Suburban) zoning instead. Copies of the public comment are attached. There is one
audio public comment which could not be included with the printed packet. It has been made
available through the web linked agenda. The purposes, allowed uses, and other standards for
both the RS and R-1 zoning districts are in Article 38.08 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. A
copy of the Article is attached. The staff analysis for character of the district is Criterion J on
page 9 of the staff report.
A related received comment is on the issue of spot zoning. Spot zoning is not a statutory review
criteria like the other criteria from Section 76-2-304 MCA but rather operates from general legal
principles. The following excerpt from Little v. Board of County Commissioners of Flathead
County (decided by the Montana Supreme Court) provides a reasonably concise description.
“There is no single, comprehensive definition of spot zoning applicable to all fact
situations. Generally, however, three factors enter into determining whether spot zoning
exists in any given instance. First, in spot zoning, the requested use is significantly
different from the prevailing use in the area. Second, the area in which the requested use
is to apply is rather small. This test, however, is concerned more with the number of
separate landowners benefited by the requested change than it is with the actual size of
the area benefited. Third, the requested change is more in the nature of special legislation.
In other words, it is designed to benefit only one or a few landowners at the expense of
the surrounding landowners or the general public.”
“In explaining the third test, Hagman gives this qualification:
‘The list is not meant to suggest that the three tests are mutually exclusive. If spot zoning
is invalid, usually all three elements are present or, said another way, the three statements
may merely be nuances of one another." Hagman at 169.
This qualification must be heeded because any definition of spot zoning must be flexible
enough to cover the constantly changing circumstances under which the test may be
applied.”
“Spot zoning” is generally invalid because it discriminates between similar properties, and
creates situations of incompatible land uses. Examples would include allowance of commercial
development in the middle of residential uses, or a least restrictive-most intensive R-4
development adjacent to a most restrictive-least intensive established R-S use. It could also be
considered “spot zoning” to deny a change to commercial for an existing ‘island’ of residential in
the middle of a business district.
Zoning is intended to be a thought out systemic approach rather than a series of ad hoc decisions.
Therefore, there are established criteria for adopting or amending the map or text. Each staff
report analyzes these criteria as part of making a recommendation and the Zoning Commission
and City Commission must evaluate them as well. The City’s zoning program has been
developed over many years. Standards have been crafted to enable the use of land to occur with a
minimum of disruption or injury to others. The question of what it means to be compatible
319
frequently arises. To help answer this question the City Commission has adopted the following
two definitions which are included in the Unified Development Code.
Sec. 38.42.670. - Compatible development.
The use of land and the construction and use of structures which is in harmony with
adjoining development, existing neighborhoods, and the goals and objectives of the city's
adopted growth policy. Elements of compatible development include, but are not limited
to, variety of architectural design; rhythm of architectural elements; scale; intensity;
materials; building siting; lot and building size; hours of operation; and integration with
existing community systems including water and sewer services, natural elements in the
area, motorized and nonmotorized transportation, and open spaces and parks. Compatible
development does not require uniformity or monotony of architectural or site design,
density or use.
(emphasis added)
Sec. 38.42.680. - Compatible land use.
A land use which may by virtue of the characteristics of its discernible outward effects
exist in harmony with an adjoining land use of differing character. Effects often measured
to determine compatibility include, but are not limited to, noise, odor, light and the
presence of physical hazards such as combustible or explosive materials.
An analysis of spot zoning hinges on three factors which must be seen and applied in the specific
context of the individual application.
A) The first prong of the spot zoning test is whether “the requested use is significantly
different from the prevailing use.” This is the compatibility prong. Staff does not believe
that the uses are significantly different between the R-S and R-1, or that R-S and R-1 are
incompatible. Nor are the differences inherently detrimental. R-As shown on the staff
report, staff has concluded that the requested R-1 district complies with the growth policy
which is an essential element in meeting the standard of compatible development.
A review of Section 38.08.010, especially subsections A.1 and A.2, and Table 38.08.020
will show that the uses in the R-S and R-1 districts are very similar; with the R-1 district
being the more restrictive but both being primarily for detached single-household
residences. There are differences in dimensional requirements. All review procedures
available in one district are available in the other. Infrastructure standards are the same.
Both districts are indicated as having the ability to satisfy the growth policy as shown in
Table C-16 of the Bozeman Community Plan, see the attached Section C.8. A more
extensive analysis of compliance with the growth policy is presented in Criterion A
beginning on page 4 of the staff report. Unlike some of the adjacent properties which are
zoned as R-S, the subject site has little environmental constraint; chiefly a watercourse
which under either district is subject to the same setback controls and protections from
development.
B) The second prong relates to diversity of ownership. The size of the parcel is modest in
size and is owned by a single entity. However, this is somewhat unavoidable since the
zoning comes along with annexation of a single parcel. Unless there is a change in City
policy to wait for the landowner to initiate annexation it will remain difficult to
coordinate annexation timing for multiple parcels. An application which applies to a
single parcel is not automatically barred just because it is a single parcel.
C) The third prong questions whether the zoning is special legislation benefitting one or a
few while being to the detriment of the general public. This does not prohibit zoning from
benefitting the applicant so long as the action is not to the detriment of the general public.
320
Examples of detriment could include introduction of industrial uses into residential areas,
significant increases in traffic beyond the capacity of the streets, or adverse impact on the
residential character of an adjoining district. As discussed in the criteria and associated
analysis in the staff report Staff is of the opinion that the proposal complies with the
growth policy. This shows that the application is consistent with the general policies and
goals of the public and therefore not detrimental. Evaluation of the other listed criteria for
a zone map amendment shows that detrimental impacts are either not present or can be
reasonably mitigated in the development process.
Therefore, Staff does not believe that the specific facts of the present application can support a
conclusion of spot zoning.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the zone map amendment as requested.
2) Do not approve the zone map amendment.
3) Make alternate findings to the criteria for a zone map amendment and decide an alternate
zoning district. Per Section 38.37.030.D.2, to do this alternative the City Commission must
continue the application for at least one week to enable the applicant to consider options
regarding the possible alternate district.
4) Other as identified by the City Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: None
Attachments: Staff report with attachments
Zoning Protest Map
Zoning Protest Forms
Zoning Commission resolution
Zoning Commission minutes
Section C.8, Bozeman Community Plan
Article 38.08, BMC
Application materials
Public comment
Report compiled on: May 30, 2012
321
Mahar Good Medicine Way ZMA Staff Report #Z-12068 Page 1 of 11
MAHAR GOOD MEDICINE WAY ZONE MAP AMENDMENT
FILE # Z-12068
CITY COMMISSION AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Item: Zoning Application #Z-12068 – An application to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map to
establish a municipal zoning designation of R-1 (Residential Single Household Low-Density District)
on approximately 5.01 acres.
Owner: Mahar Montana Homes, 1627 W. Main Street, Ste 370, Bozeman, MT 59718.
Representative: C&H Engineering, 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718
Date/Time: Before the Bozeman Zoning Commission on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM in the
Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue Bozeman, Montana; and before the
Bozeman City Commission on Monday, June 11, 2012 at 6:00 PM in the Commission Meeting Room,
City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue Bozeman, Montana
Report By: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Recommendation: Approval of R-1 with contingencies
LOCATION
The subject property is located at 3601Good Medicine Way. The approximately 5.01 acres is legally
described as Lot 4A, Minor Subdivision 35C located in the NE 1/4 of Section 25, T2S, R5E, PMM,
Gallatin County, Montana. Please refer to the vicinity map below.
322
Mahar Good Medicine Way ZMA Staff Report #Z-12068 Page 2 of 11
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 Planning Staff recommends
approval of the requested Zone Map Amendment with the following contingencies:
1. That all documents and exhibits necessary to establish an initial municipal zoning designation
shall be identified as the “Mahar Good Medicine Way Zone Map Amendment”.
2. That the Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be approved until the Annexation
Agreement is signed by the applicant and formally approved by the City Commission. If the
annexation agreement is not approved, the Zone Map Amendment application shall be null and
void.
3. That the applicant submit a zone amendment map, titled “Mahar Good Medicine Way Zone
Map Amendment”, on a 24” by 36” mylar, 8 ½” by 11”, or 8 ½” by 14” paper exhibit, and a
digital copy of the area to be zoned, acceptable to the Director of Public Service, which will be
utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the City of Bozeman Zoning
Map. Said map shall contain a metes and bounds legal description of the perimeter of the
subject property and zoning districts, and total acreage of the property.
4. That the Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant
provides a metes and bounds legal description prepared by a licensed Montana surveyor and
map of the area to be rezoned, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to
officially amend the zone map. The metes and bounds legal description shall match that
prepared for the annexation map.
PROPOSAL
The property owner has made application to the Bozeman Department of Planning and Community
Development for a Zone Map Amendment to establish an initial municipal zoning designation of R-1
(Residential Single Household Low-Density District) on approximately 5.01 acres. The subject
property is not currently located within the corporate limits of the City of Bozeman and this ZMA is
being processed with a concurrent annexation application.
The intent of the R-1 residential single-household low density district is to provide for primarily
single-household residential development and related uses within the city at urban densities, and to
provide for such community facilities and services as will serve the area's residents while respecting
the residential character and quality of the area.
On May 2, 2012 the Development Review Committee (DRC) recommended approval of the
application with the recommended contingencies included above.
LAND CLASSIFICATION AND ZONING
The property is vacant. The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North: Unannexed County Land – Designated “Residential” on the City of Bozeman Future
Land Use Map; presently zoned Residential Suburban in the County and developed as single
detached homes. North across Wagonwheel is annexed property planned for Residential and
developed as R-1, Single Household Low-Density District with single detached homes.
323
Mahar Good Medicine Way ZMA Staff Report #Z-12068 Page 3 of 11
South: Residential; Zoned RS, Residential Suburban, annexed property planned for Residential
and used as open space and for B-1 commercial uses as given special approval through the
Sundance Springs PUD.
East: Unannexed County Land – Designated “Residential” on the City of Bozeman Future
Land Use Map; presently zoned as Residential Suburban in the County and developed as single
detached homes; and annexed property planned for Residential and developed as RS,
Residential Suburban District, used as open space.
West: Unannexed County Land – Designated “Residential” on the City of Bozeman Future
Land Use Map; presently zoned Agricultural Suburban in the County and used as a sod farm.
Existing Zoning and Future Land Use Maps
324
Mahar Good Medicine Way ZMA Staff Report #Z-12068 Page 4 of 11
REVIEW CRITERIA
The establishment of a zoning district is a legislative act to set policy relating to future development
proposals. The Bozeman Planning Office has reviewed the application for a Zone Map Amendment
against the Bozeman Community Plan, the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance (UDO),
and the thirteen (13) criteria established in Section 76-2-304, Montana Codes Annotated, and as a
result offer the following summary-review comments for consideration by the Zoning and City
Commission. If the criteria is met it is noted “Yes”, if it is not met it is noted “No”, and if the criteria is
either inapplicable for some reason or is neither met nor not met it is noted “Neutral”. Explanatory text
follows for each criteria.
A. Be in accordance with a growth policy.
Yes. The subject property is recognized as “Suburban Residential” on Figure 3-1 Future Land Use
Map of the Bozeman Community Plan. The Suburban Residential land use designation of the Bozeman
Community Plan indicates that:
“This category indicates locations generally outside of City limits, but within the planning
area, where a land development pattern has already been set by rural subdivisions.
Subdivisions in this area are generally characterized by lots two acres in size or less. It is
probable that portions of this area may be proposed for annexation within the next twenty
years. The area is able to be served with municipal water and sewer services with appropriate
extensions of main lines. Any further development within this area should be clustered to
preserve functional open space. Individual septic and well services are discouraged. If
325
Mahar Good Medicine Way ZMA Staff Report #Z-12068 Page 5 of 11
development is proposed within reasonable access distances to waste water and water services,
annexation to the City should be completed prior to development.”
The property is concurrently being proposed for annexation which will make municipal water and
sewer service available. Development of the site with on-site well and septic services would be
contrary to the growth policy. Table C-16 on page C-17 of the growth policy presents a general
correlation of the growth policy designations and the various zoning districts in the City. The Suburban
Residential growth policy designation may be implemented by either the RS, Residential Suburban
district or the R-1, Residential Single Household Low-Density district. The property to the east and
immediately to the north is designated as Suburban Residential, further north the area is designated as
Residential. The property to the west across South 3rd
Avenue and a portion of the southern adjacent
property is designated Residential. A small portion of the property adjacent to the south is designated
as Community Commercial Mixed Use. Description of the Residential and Community Commercial
Mixed Use growth policy designations are provided in the attached materials. A portion of Figure 3-1
showing this distribution is included above.
Figure 3-1 (Future Lane Use Map) is not the only element of the growth policy which must be
considered. There are many goals, objectives, and other text which must also be evaluated. While not
every element will apply to every proposal, a broad evaluation of compliance is needed. A proposal
may comply with Figure 3-1 but not the other elements of the plan. To be in accordance with the
growth policy compliance must be to both Figure 3-1 and the other plan elements.
Chapter 3 of the Bozeman Community Plan addresses land uses. Beginning on page 3-3, there are
seven principles laid out which provide a foundation for Bozeman’s land use policies and practices.
There is a description of each of them provided in the provided pages attached to this report. These are
broad concepts which provide a general structure for more detailed goals and objectives. These
principles are:
• Neighborhoods
• Sense of Place
• Natural Amenities
• Centers
• Integration of Action
• Urban Density
• Sustainability
Supportive examples of applicable goals and objectives for this application include:
Chapter 3 Land Use
Goal LU-1: Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, efficiently provides public
and private basic services and facilities in close proximity to where people live and work, and
minimizes sprawl.
Objective LU-1.4: Provide for and support infill development and redevelopment which
provides additional density of use while respecting the context of the existing development
which surrounds it. Respect for context does not automatically prohibit difference in scale or
design.
Chapter 6 Housing
Goal H-1: Promote an adequate supply of safe, quality housing that is diverse in type, density,
cost, and location with an emphasis on maintaining neighborhood character and stability.
326
Mahar Good Medicine Way ZMA Staff Report #Z-12068 Page 6 of 11
Rationale: A community needs a variety of housing stock to accommodate the diversity in
personal circumstances and preferences of its population. The type of housing required may be
different throughout a person’s life. A healthy community has a wide range of citizens with
differing age, education, economic condition, and other factors. Stable neighborhoods
encourage reinvestment, both financial and emotional that strengthens and builds the
community.
Objective 1.1 - Encourage and support the creation of a broad range of housing types in
proximity to services and transportation options.
Goal H-2: Promote the creation of housing which advances the seven guiding land use
principles of Chapter 3.
Rationale: Housing is the land use which consumes the greatest land area in the community. It
is critical in advancing and achieving the community’s aspirations. Choice of housing location
and type strongly influences other issues such as mode of travel and participation in the society
building aspects of the community.
Objective 2.1 - Encourage socially and economically diverse neighborhoods.
The site is vacant and vegetated with grass and this property can be considered an infill development
site with access to all necessary City infrastructure (streets, sewer, water, etc.) to allow infill density.
The city’s policies support development within the utilities service area, preferably taking advantage of
existing service mains to reduce the amount of extensions needed to provide service. Existing
adjoining streets on the eastern and western sides of the property allow vehicular and pedestrian
connections and circulation.
“City policies often are mutually reinforcing and help minimize overall short and long term
expenses. For example, the annexation of land and development at urban density reduces costs
for installation and maintenance of water, sewer, and street compared to low density
development. It also supports public health by supporting pleasant walkable communities
which encourages personal fitness, lower medical expenses, and increased quality of life.” Page
12-2, Bozeman Community Plan
In considering the appropriateness of a particular zoning district for a site, it is appropriate to consider
what district will most fully advance the community plan goals and aspirations. As a zone map
amendment is a legislative, not quasi-judicial, matter the City has broad discretion to decide the course
considered most suitable.
B. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.
Yes. The site has frontage on and access from both South 3rd Avenue which is classified as a collector
street in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (GBATP) Figure 9-2; and from Good
Medicine Way which is a local street developed to a county paved standard. Future development
review will require evaluation of street access depending on the design of the subdivision layout. South
3rd Avenue had a 2009 average daily vehicle trips of 2,500 in the section between Goldenstein and
Graf as counted by the Montana Department of Transportation. The anticipated average daily trips in
2030 is 3,100 from the GBATP. The street is developed as a Collector with marked bike lanes north of
the intersection with Wagonwheel Road and left turn pockets. According to Section 4.4 and Table 4-5
of the GBATP a properly configured roadway of this type and size can accommodate up to 15,000
vehicles per day. Therefore, there appears to be adequate motor vehicle capacity to support additional
development of the subject property.
327
Mahar Good Medicine Way ZMA Staff Report #Z-12068 Page 7 of 11
Good Medicine Way is a dead end local street and serves only local access traffic. No traffic counts are
known however given the small number of homes served, 16, and average numbers of vehicle trips per
day per home, 10, there is additional capacity for service by the street. A detailed analysis will be
conducted with the review of any proposed subdivision or site development and any documented
negative impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the procedures and standards for development
review.
The site is located adjacent to the trail network which connects through the Sundance Springs
development to several other trails. An existing trail connects along the Good Medicine Way right-of-
way. See the attached map. The site is also near the sidewalk/path and bike lane networks along South
3rd Avenue and other city standard developed streets. No negative impacts on the non-motorized
transportation systems are apparent. A map of the non-motorized network in the area is attached.
C. Secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers.
Yes. The regulatory provisions established in all of the zoning designations, in conjunction with
provisions for adequate transportation facilities, properly designed water mains and fire service lines
and adequate emergency exits/escapes, will address safety concerns with any further subdivision
and/or other development of the property. All new structures and development on the subject property
will be required to meet or exceed the minimum zoning requirements for setbacks, lot coverage, height
limitations and lot sizes to ensure the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Per Section
38.01 .050 of the UDC, the City of Bozeman has the authority and power to require more stringent
standards than the minimum requirements if it ensures the best service to the public interest. A detailed
analysis of the specifics of future development proposals will enable the determination of whether a
greater than minimum standard is required. At this time such details are not available for review.
When the property has been annexed it will be provided with municipal services. Average police
response times to the Sundance Springs area for in-progress emergency calls is less than 8 minutes.
Water mains currently exist along the South 3rd Avenue right-of-way which can be readily tapped to
provide fire hydrant supply of water. The City has acquired land to construct a fourth fire station at the
intersection of S.19th Avenue and Graf Street. Construction of the station is not yet scheduled. Signal
pre-emption has been installed on all traffic signals to enable the fire engine to have a green light and
S. 19th Avenue was recently widened to five lanes from Babcock to Kagy which provides a faster
response time. A drive test from the subject site to Station 2 by staff showed a travel time slightly
under 6.5 minutes.
The Insurance Service Office’s Public Protection Classification program evaluates communities
according to a uniform set of criteria defined in the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS). These
criteria incorporate nationally recognized standards developed by the National Fire Protection
Association and the American Water Works Association.
Utilizing the FSRS, ISO objectively reviews the fire suppression capabilities of a community and
assigns a Public Protection Classification- a number from 1 – 10. Class 1 represents exemplary fire
protection, and Class 10 indicates that the area’s fire suppression program does not meet minimum
recognition criteria. The ISO rating for Bozeman is 3. The ISO rating for the Sourdough Fire District
which presently provides service to the property prior to annexation is a 4. These ratings are
independent of the zoning district on a parcel. See also item D.
D. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare.
Yes. The regulatory provisions established through the City’s municipal code under Chapter 38,
Unified Development Code (UDC), BMC, will adequately address the issues of health and general
welfare. Further development of the subject property also requires review and approval by the
328
Mahar Good Medicine Way ZMA Staff Report #Z-12068 Page 8 of 11
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, City Engineer's Office and Director of
Public Service.
The property, upon further development, would be required to come into conformance with all
requirements of the zoning ordinance. Any homes or other buildings constructed on the site will be
subject to review for building codes which will ensure they are constructed in a manner which reduces
risk for fire, loss during earthquake, are structurally sound, and well fit for their purpose. The City’s
adopted zoning requires compliance with building codes by Section 38.34.100.
Additional development issues related to municipal infrastructure (i.e., water and sanitary sewer) and
public services (i.e., police and fire protection) will be addressed with subdivision and/or site plan
review when residential densities and demand can be more closely calculated. Water and sewer
infrastructure are in the vicinity and available to the site. See also Item H.
E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
Yes. The regulatory standards set forth in the City of Bozeman UDC for the requested R-1 zoning
district provides the necessary provisions (i.e., yard setbacks, lot coverage limits, open space and
building height limits), provide for adequate light and air for any proposed development on the subject
property. Residential development will require provision of public parkland per Article 27 of the UDC.
The amount of parkland required is proportional to the number of homes proposed. See also Item F and
G.
F. Prevention of overcrowding of land.
Yes. The minimum yard setbacks established in the R-1 district, as well as the limitations of lot
coverage for principal and accessory structures and off-street parking facilities, would maintain the
desired percent of buildable area. Minimum yard setbacks, height requirements, maximum lot
coverage and required parking are also limiting factors that help prevent the overcrowding of land.
Such regulatory standards prevent the overcrowding of land, and maintain compatibility with the
character of the surrounding area.
Overcrowding is a condition which results when the infrastructure and buildings in an area are
incapable of serving the density of users. A perception of being more intensely used than is preferred
by a particular person or group does not establish an actual condition of overcrowding. As discussed
elsewhere in this report, any development within Bozeman is required to demonstrate that there is
adequate transportation, water, sewer, and other necessary public services to support the development.
This requirement ensures that land will not be overcrowded.
G. Avoiding undue concentration of population.
Yes. Future development of the subject property under this proposal will result in an increase in
population and use beyond what currently exists on the vacant property. However, compliance with
the regulatory standards set forth in the UDO and the International Building Code will aid in providing
adequately sized dwelling units to avoid undue concentration of population. According to the census
information for the City of Bozeman the average household size has been declining from 5.74 in 1930
to 2.48 in 2000. This historical trend is anticipated to continue and would indicate that the undue
concentration of the population is not a significant issue with the R-1 zoning district.
The standard does not seek to avoid concentration of population, but rather undue concentration.
Undue is typically understood to mean exceeding that which is appropriate and normal. This is a
standard which is specific to a particular site and is not a specific number or intensity of use. The R-1
district has been considered and adopted with a set of standards for lot sizes, setbacks, and other
standards that in the opinion of the City Commission are not an undue concentration of population. As
329
Mahar Good Medicine Way ZMA Staff Report #Z-12068 Page 9 of 11
applied to this site the property is largely unconstrained being modestly sloped and with good
proximity to infrastructure. See also Items F and J.
H. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and
other public requirements.
Yes. Further assessment of the impacts to infrastructure, public services, schools, park land, and other
community requirements will be evaluated during subdivision and/or site plan review. Dedication of
right-of-way for South 3rd and Good Medicine Way to meet the right-of-way standards of the GBATP
will be provided as part of the annexation process. Any negative impacts identified with development
of the property will be mitigated with recommended conditions of approval by the DRC with a
determination made by the approval authority on adequate provisions.
For this application, the DRC has determined that municipal infrastructure is located in proximity to
the subject property and may be extended into the property by the landowner/developer for further
development of the site. Emergency services are currently serving this area, and municipal police and
fire are within adequate response times of the site. Elementary and middle schools are in close
proximity and can readily be accessed by non-motorized and motorized vehicles. Park land will be
required at the time of development and will be proportionate to the number of homes to be
constructed. The City will have the opportunity to further evaluate the development of the property
during the above-described review procedures.
I. Conserving the value of buildings.
Yes. There are no existing buildings on the property. Adjacent properties to the west and south are
used for open space and agriculture and have no buildings nearby. Adjacent properties to the north and
east are used for single detached homes on lots of varying size. The proposed R-1 zoning is developed
predominantly for single detached homes. See Item J for further discussion.
J. Character of the district.
Yes. The most important factor in determining the suitability of a proposed zoning designation is the
potential for compatibility with existing and proposed adjacent land uses. The area has a diversity of
existing and approved land uses. As envisioned by the Bozeman Community Plan, this area is
designated to continue to develop as “Suburban Residential”. The adjacent uses on three sides are
zoned as RS, Residential Suburban in both the City and County. The R-1 zone in the City is more
restrictive in the allowed uses than the RS zone. The municipal RS zoning district allows a variety of
agriculturally related uses both private and commercial and RV parks in addition to the uses allowed in
the R-1. It must be noted that the adjacent lot at 675 Little Horse Drive, although zoned as RS, has
been approved through the Sundance Springs Planned Unit Development to be developed with the uses
allowed in the B1, Neighborhood Business District.
The minimum lot sizes differ between RS and R-1. Development under the RS district requires review
as a planned unit development. The minimum lot area and yards for the RS district are determined on a
case by case basis and are therefore very unpredictable. Conceivably the lot size and setbacks
established through the PUD process could be similar to those of the R-1 district. The R-1 district has
defined yards and lot area as described in Chapter 38, Article 8 of the Bozeman municipal code. The
R-1 district has a required average dwelling density of five units per net acre, or approximately 8,700
square feet and a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Net acres is the area actually used for
individual lots and excludes any area used for roads, parks, and open spaces.
There is a narrow and deeply incised watercourse at the southeastern corner of the property. The City
has a minimum 50 foot setback from the watercourse. This will restrict the area available for
development on the site and help provide for a matching open area similar to that on the south.
330
Mahar Good Medicine Way ZMA Staff Report #Z-12068 Page 10 of 11
Future planning and review requirements will also give the City the ability to control how the uses on
site would function and relate to the surrounding developed and undeveloped properties. After
considering the various components of zoning character and the diversity of uses in the area it appears
that R-1 and the associated uses are in keeping with the existing and future character of adjacent
properties.
K. Peculiar suitability for particular uses.
Yes. The site is well located for residential uses and the R-1 would permit infill development that
would best take advantage of the existing infrastructure (e.g. streets, sewer, water, etc.) available to
this property. The use of the property for single household detached homes will be the same uses the
adjacent property to the north and east.
L. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area.
Yes. The R-1 zoning designation of this proposal is supportive of the overall intent of the growth
policy in regards to encouraging infill development and the establishment of urban density. As
previously noted, this zoning will also allow this property to develop at a density that takes advantage
of the existing infrastructure available and in near proximity to this location. There are significant areas
of R-1 zoned property within the near vicinity of the subject site. The R-1 uses of predominantly single
detached low-density housing are an appropriate use of this fairly small infill site.
M. Promotion of Compatible Urban Growth.
Yes. The Bozeman Community Plan provides several guiding ideas and principles for the physical
development of the City. Development consistent with these ideas and principles are more likely to be
compatible with adjacent development both within and outside of the City limits. The growth policy
encourages infill development and higher density urban centers. The property is within the geographic
area already receiving municipal services. The area to the west is planned to develop as municipal
density residences. Future review of an actual development proposal will also look at achieving
appropriate compatibility with the surrounding area.
PUBLIC COMMENT
One written comment has been received by the Department of Planning and Community Development
as of the writing of this staff report on May 9 , 2012. The comment requested a delay in the public
hearing as the writer will be out of town. Verbal comments expressing concern with the R-1 request
have been received.
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
The Department of Planning and Community Development and the Development Review Committee,
have reviewed the proposed Zone Map Amendment application and have provided summary review
comments as outlined above in the staff report; and as a result, recommend approval of the application
with contingencies.
The recommendation of the Bozeman Zoning Commission will be forwarded to the Bozeman City
Commission for consideration at its public hearing scheduled for Monday, June 11, 2012. The City
Commission will make the final decision on the application.
IN THE CASE OF WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST SUCH CHANGES SIGNED BY THE
OWNERS OF 20% OR MORE OF THE LOTS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO OR
WITHIN 150 FEET FROM THE STREET FRONTAGE, THE AMENDMENT SHALL NOT
BECOME EFFECTIVE EXCEPT BY THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS OF
THE PRESENT AND VOTING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION.
331
Mahar Good Medicine Way ZMA Staff Report #Z-12068 Page 11 of 11
REPORT SENT TO
Mahar Montana Homes, 1627 W. Main Street, Ste 370, Bozeman, MT 59718.
C&H Engineering, 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718
ATTACHMENTS
Bozeman Community Plan - Chapter 3
Map of adjacent trail network
Applicant’s submittal materials
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
ZONE MAP AMENDMENT CRITERIA
1. Is the new zoning designed in accordance with the comprehensive plan?
A growth policy amendment is being reviewed concurrently with the zoning of the property. The
proposed Residential designation allows for properties zoned R-1.
2. Is the new zoning designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
The property is easily accessed from South 3rd Avenue and from Good Medicine Way. Both
streets are public roadways with sufficient capacity to service this subdivision.
3. Will the new zoning promote health and general welfare?
The proposed zoning change will promote health and general welfare by infilling vacant property
thereby decreasing sprawl and making an efficient use of City services. The property is located
close to amenities, has a beautiful view shed and is adjacent a major trail system. Annexation of
this property into the City will decrease the environmental impact associated with development of
the property in the County with individual wells and septic systems.
4. Will the new zoning secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers?
The new zoning help to secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers by extending existing
municipal facilities and allowing the property to be serviced by City of Bozeman fire & police
department.
5. Will the new zoning provide adequate light and air?
The city zoning is designed with provisions for adequate light and air, such as building height
restrictions, setbacks, etc..
6. Will the new zoning prevent the overcrowding of land?
The proposed zoning change will prevent overcrowding by providing necessary housing and
neighborhood services within City Limits. Restrictions in the zoning regulations provide limits
on the number of units per acre.
7. Will the new zoning avoid the undue concentration of population?
The proposed zoning change will limit the concentration of the population. R-1 zoning limits
340
development concentration through lot size requirements, building setbacks and maximum lot
coverage requirements.
8. Will the new zoning facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer,
schools, parks, fire, police, and other public requirements?
Zoning and development of the property will provide adequate provisions for connecting to all
available City services. Any deficiencies identified during subdivision review will need to be
addressed by the applicant.
9. Does the new zoning give consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for
particular uses?
The property is most suitable for single household low density zoning. The existing facilities and
infrastructure are available to service this use. The property sits adjacent to two low density
residential subdivisions and two lots identified as Community Commercial.
10. Does the new zoning give reasonable consideration to the character of the district?
Single household low density zoning (R-1) is consistent with the adjoining properties. The lots
within Sundance Springs average 15,000 square feet. The lots that have not been annexed to the
north and northeast are slightly larger varying in size from 20,000 square feet to 47,000 square
feet. Two commercial lots are located immediately to the south along South 3rd Avenue. The
character of the district will not change.
11. Was the new zoning adopted with a view to conserving the value of buildings?
Yes, the new zoning regulates the development of the property thereby conserving the value.
12. Will the new zoning encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout such county or
municipal area?
The new zoning will allow for the most appropriate use - low density residential development
within the city adjacent to low density residential county properties.
G:\c&h\11\11489\Zoning Criteria.doc
341
342
Legend
Protest 150 ft limit
Subject Parcel
City Limits
Parcels
This map was created by theCity of BozemanDepartment of Planningand Community Development
¯
1 inch = 150 feet
Intended for Planning purposes onlysome layers may not line up properly.
ZoningProtestArea
343
Legend
Subject Parcel
City LimitsCommunity Plan Future Land Use
Residential
Residential Emphasis Mixed Use
Suburban Residential
Regional Commercial and Services
Community Core
Community Commercial Mixed Use
Business Park Mixed Use
Industrial
Public Institutions
Parks, Open Space and Recreational Lands
Other Public Lands
Golf Course
Present Rural
This map was created by theCity of BozemanDepartment of Planningand Community Development
¯
1 inch = 833 feet
Intended for Planning purposes onlysome layers may not line up properly.
Growth PolicyFig. 3-1Detail
344
Legend
Subject Parcel
City LimitsCommunity Plan Future Land Use
Residential
Residential Emphasis Mixed Use
Suburban Residential
Regional Commercial and Services
Community Core
Community Commercial Mixed Use
Business Park Mixed Use
Industrial
Public Institutions
Parks, Open Space and Recreational Lands
Other Public Lands
Golf Course
Present Rural
This map was created by theCity of BozemanDepartment of Planningand Community Development
¯
1 inch = 300 feet
Intended for Planning purposes onlysome layers may not line up properly.
Growth PolicyFig. 3-1Detail
345
Legend
Subject Parcel
City Limits
City Limits (1/1/11)Land Use (1/1/11)
Mixed Use
Restaurant\Bar
Commercial Retail Sales, Services, Banks
Hotel\Motel
Commercial Auto
Administrative\Professional
Light Manufacturing
Golf Course
Park or Open Space
Conservation Easement
Church
Public Facility
School\Educational Facility
Single-Household Residential
Duplex\Triplex Residential
Multi-Household Residential
Mobile Home\Mobile Park
Right-of-Way
Undeveloped
Vacant
This map was created by theCity of BozemanDepartment of Planningand Community Development
¯
1 inch = 833 feet
Intended for Planning purposes onlysome layers may not line up properly.
Adjacentland use
346
Legend
Subject Parcel
City Limits
Sewer Collection System (current)
This map was created by theCity of BozemanDepartment of Planningand Community Development
¯
1 inch = 833 feet
Intended for Planning purposes onlysome layers may not line up properly.
Existing Sewer Mains
347
Legend
Subject Parcel
City Limits
Water Distribution System (current)
This map was created by theCity of BozemanDepartment of Planningand Community Development
¯
1 inch = 400 feet
Intended for Planning purposes onlysome layers may not line up properly.
Existing WaterMains
348
Legend
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Subject Parcel
City Limits This map was created by theCity of BozemanDepartment of Planningand Community Development
¯
1 inch = 833 feet
Intended for Planning purposes onlysome layers may not line up properly.
Present andFutureMajor StreetNetwork
349
S 3RD AVE GOLDENSTEIN LN
PEACE PIPE DR
WAGO N W H E E L RD
ST
A
N
F
O
R
D
D
R
LITTLE H
O
R
S
E
DR
G
O
O
D
M
E
D
I
C
I
N
E
W
A
Y
T R A I L S E ND RD
FI
E
L
D
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
W
CE
N
T
E
N
N
I
A
L
T
R
L
W
H
I
T
E
E
A
G
L
E
C
I
R
Legend
Subject Parcel
City Limits
Trails
Parcels
Parks
Open Space
This map was created by theCity of BozemanDepartment of Planningand Community Development
¯
1 inch = 400 feet
Intended for Planning purposes onlysome layers may not line up properly.
Parks,Open Space,Trails
350
Legend
Subject Parcel
City Limits
Streams
Lakes
GLWQD Wetlands
GLWQD Riparian Areas
NRCS Artificial Wetlands
NRCS Natural Wetlands
This map was created by theCity of BozemanDepartment of Planningand Community Development
¯
1 inch = 300 feet
Intended for Planning purposes onlysome layers may not line up properly.
Water Features andAnticipated Wetlands
351
Legend
Subject Parcel
City Limits
This map was created by theCity of BozemanDepartment of Planningand Community Development
¯
1 inch = 200 feet
Intended for Planning purposes onlysome layers may not line up properly.
Topography
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
Chapter 3: Land use Intent and Background
CHAPTER 3
Land Use
Bozeman residents enjoy a high quality of life: the attractive and
functional built environment is an important component. The
citizens envision a community with good employment opportunities,
ample parks, attractive housing, and a good civic structure to meet
the needs of all citizens. The City’s mission: maintain Bozeman as
a desirable and sustainable place to live, work, and play within a
diverse and rich natural environment.
3.1 Intent and Background
The Bozeman Community Plan establishes the over-arching
direction for decisions on many aspects of the City, including land
use patterns and standards. The cumulative result of many private
and public decisions interacting with the geography of a certain
place is a land use pattern. Bozeman’s land use pattern has been a
dynamic and developing work in progress since the first settler
arrived. Land use interacts directly with many other City services,
standards and plans such as transportation, fire, water, and parks.
Many of those have independent plans which examine the details
of:
Background information Policy direction
Detailed inventories Analysis
Assessments of existing conditions Recommendations
Potential funding sources Implementation actions
This chapter does not repeat those actions but does rely upon
them. The process of developing this chapter included a great deal
of public involvement. Appendix C gives a detailed description of
the land use inventories and projections for future needs.
Population growth results in a corresponding increase in the
demand for services and residences within the City. The City’s land
use and transportation policies encourage well executed increased
density in order to ensure the most efficient and cost-effective use
of land and public services.
Bozeman Community Plan Page 3-1
“Then I say the earth
belongs to each generation
during its own course, fully
and in its own right, but no
generation can contract
debts greater than can be
paid during the course of its
own existence."
Thomas Jefferson
The City’s planning for land
uses is focused on these
principles:
• Neighborhoods.
• Sense of Place
• Natural Amenities.
• Centers
• Integration of Action.
• Urban Density.
• Sustainability.
359
Major Themes and Related Chapters Chapter 3: Land Use
The land use patterns, policies, and concepts discussed in this
chapter apply to the Planning Area shown on Figure 2-1. This area
covers 42,463 acres, of which 12,477 are located within the
municipal boundaries of Bozeman. Areas outside of the legal City
limits, which change from time to time with annexations, are
shown to inform private and public parties of the desired patterns
for development as the City grows. Land use designations shown
are advisory in nature and are not binding until lands are within
municipal boundaries. In areas of County jurisdiction, the County
Commission retains final authority for approval or denial of
projects. The process of looking outside the City and to the future
will facilitate City-County cooperation in land use planning and
related issues and provides a greater level of predictability to
landowners and interested parties.
3.2 Major Themes and Related Chapters
The following matrix lists the major planning concepts that this
chapter addresses and directs readers to other sections of the plan
where similar planning concepts are discussed.
Chapter Title
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
n
c
e
p
t
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
Se
n
s
e
o
f
P
l
a
c
e
Na
t
u
r
a
l
Am
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Ce
n
t
e
r
s
In
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
Ac
t
i
o
n
Ur
b
a
n
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Growth & Change X X
Land Use X X X X X X X
Community Quality X X X X X X X
Historic Preservation X X X X
Arts & Culture X X
Housing X X X X X
Economic Development X X X X X X
Environmental Quality X X X X
Parks & Recreation X X
Transportation X X X X X
Pub. Services & Facilities X X X X
Disaster and Emergency X X
Regional Coordination X X X X
The City used different events and types
of outreach to gather public input for the
update of the growth policy.
Page 3-2 Bozeman Community Plan
360
Chapter 3: Land use Intent and Background
Land Use Principles
There are seven core ideas which form a foundation for many of
the land use policies of the Bozeman Community Plan:
Neighborhoods. There is strong public support for the
preservation of existing neighborhoods and new development
being part of a larger whole, rather than just anonymous
subdivisions. This idea includes the strengthening and support of
existing neighborhoods through adequate infrastructure
maintenance and other actions. As the population of Bozeman
grows, it is harder to keep the same “small town” feel because
residents cannot be on familiar terms with everyone. The
neighborhood unit helps provide the sense of familiarity and
intimacy which can be lacking in larger communities. The
neighborhood commercial/activity center and local parks provide
opportunities to casually interact with other nearby residents. Not
all neighborhoods are of equal size or character.
Sense of Place. The second idea builds on those of Centers and
Neighborhoods. Part of the appeal of Bozeman is its distinct
character. A portion of this character comes from the natural
setting of the town. Bozeman’s character includes the sense of
place created by constructed landmarks such as Downtown and
MSU. Preserving Bozeman as a unique place rather than
Anywhere, USA is important. This concept was strongly supported
throughout the public outreach process. The existing Downtown
business core was the overwhelming choice for the location which
best represented the “heart” of Bozeman.
The preservation and strengthening of the unique features and
built environment which give a sense of place is important for
Bozeman’s individual identity to continue in the future.
Incorporating community and architectural design features which
provide organization and landmarks, such as parks and commercial
centers, in new development will help to anchor and extend this
sense of place as Bozeman grows. The sense of place will be
strengthened through development which fills in existing gaps in
the City and helps to reinforce the compact pattern of historic
Bozeman.
Natural Amenities. Bozeman is located in a beautiful natural
environment. The natural amenities surrounding Bozeman are a
significant component of the high quality of life and support the
economy. As Bozeman changes and grows, opportunities to
carefully integrate development with natural features such as
streams arise. Ensuring that development is responsive to the
natural amenities will help to keep Bozeman beautiful and vibrant.
Bozeman Community Plan Page 3-3
The built and natural environments
shape our sense of place. Neighborhoods
are often the places with which we are
most familiar. Bozeman provides many
memorable images and places.
361
Major Themes and Related Chapters Chapter 3: Land Use
Centers. Strengthen a pattern of community development
oriented on centers. A corollary principle is for compact
development. Commercial activities in mutually reinforcing
centralized areas provide:
· Increased business synergy.
· Greater convenience for people with shorter travel distances to a
wide range of businesses
The opportunity to accomplish several tasks with a single trip.
· Facilitates the use of transportation alternatives to single
occupant motor vehicles, with a corresponding reduction in
traffic and road congestion and air quality impacts.
· Enables greater access to employment, services, and recreation
with a reduced dependence on the automobile
· Greater efficiencies in delivery of public services,
· Corresponding cost savings in both personal and commercial
applications.
The center-based concept is expected to require less land for actual
business activities due to efficiency such as shared parking. It also
changes the shape of the commercial areas. The center-based
development pattern is supported in this plan by locating centers
at the intersection of arterial and collector streets. Such locations
allow not only immediately adjacent residents but also passing
travelers to support the commercial activities. Centers are further
supported through careful location of higher density housing in a
manner that provides support for commercial operations while
providing amenities to residents.
Integration of Action. Land use policy should be integrated with
and supported by all other City policies and programs, including
facility planning and construction for services such as wastewater
and transportation. This ensures that the community objectives
identified through this plan are attained efficiently. The application
is that capital improvements, maintenance programs, and plan
implementation tools are regularly evaluated for their compliance
with the goals and objectives of this plan. This level of integration
is intended to prevent contradictory actions. By ensuring a
consistent set of guiding principles, the City will be able to provide
a higher level of service to its citizens, minimize contradictory or
conflicting policies which waste financial and other resources, and
enable a more equitable evaluation of public stewardships.
Urban Density. Although a wide range of commercial and
housing styles, types, and densities are provided in Bozeman, not
every option is provided. Bozeman is a city, and the housing
densities are not those of the rural areas of Gallatin County.
Newly constructed commercial center at
Kagy and S. 3rd Avenue
Watercourse setbacks and stormwater
management protects water quality which
in turn preserves our sense of place and
helps constrain financial expense to public
services.
Page 3-4 Bozeman Community Plan
362
Chapter 3: Land use Intent and Background
Fundamental to the efficient and cost-effective provision of urban
services, multi-modal transportation oriented development, and a
compact development pattern is a concentration of persons and
activities. Density of development must also be balanced against
community character, parks and open spaces, and the housing
choices of citizens. Quality site and architectural design will
materially affect the success and acceptability of urban density and
scale of development.
Sustainability. Providing for the needs of today’s residents and
visitors should be done in a manner that does not jeopardize the
quality of life, including the natural environment, of future
residents. Careful community design and thoughtful development
can serve the community well both now and in the future.
Sustainability is a holistic issue and should be interwoven through
the City’s operations and regulations.
Drawing on the seven basic ideas discussed above, the following
principles were used to prepare the land use designations, policies,
and map:
• Development should be based on neighborhoods, including
commercial neighborhoods.
• Neighborhoods should have easily identified centers and
edges.
• Neighborhoods should be reasonably compact and serve a
variety of housing needs.
• Transportation systems should support the desired land use
pattern and be interconnected multi-modal networks (e.g.
bicycles, pedestrian, transit, automobiles or other vehicles)
rather than focusing solely on automobiles.
• A diverse mix of activities should occur within proximity to
each other, but not necessarily have everything happening
everywhere.
• Urban design should integrate multi-modal transportation,
open spaces, land use activity, and quality of life.
• Open spaces, including parks, trails, and other gathering places,
should be in convenient locations.
• Development should be integrated into neighborhoods and the
larger community rather than as a series of unconnected stand
alone projects.
• A variety of housing and employment opportunities is
important.
• Land development should be compatible with and further
other community goals.
• Land use designations must respond to a broad range of
factors, including natural constraints, economic constraints,
and other community priorities.
Bozeman Community Plan Page 3-5
Constructing future development in a
sustainable manner will help protect the
natural amenities which draw people to
Bozeman.
363
Major Themes and Related Chapters Chapter 3: Land Use
• The needs of new and existing development must coexist and
remain in balance.
• Infill development and redevelopment which encourages the
efficient utilization of land and existing infrastructure systems
is preferred.
• Future development patterns should not be detrimental to the
existing community, with special attention to be given to the
support of the existing Historic Core and Downtown of the
community.
3.3 Land Use Goals and Objectives
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-1.1: The land use map and attendant
policies shall be the official guide for the development of
the City and shall be implemented through zoning
regulations, capital improvements, subdivision regulations,
coordination with other governmental entities, and other
implementation strategies.
Objective LU-1.2: Review and revise regulatory standards
and City policies to ensure that develop advances the
vision, goals, and objectives of this plan, and sprawl, as
defined in Appendix K, is discouraged.
Objective LU-1.3: Encourage positive citizen
involvement in their neighborhood and 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 design.
Implementation Policies: 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 25, 28,
64,
Our sense of place comes from both the
natural and built environment.
The only way to find
creative, forward-looking
solutions is by involving the
community, reaching across
traditional divides and
setting aside partisan
politics.
Bill Ritter Jr.
Page 3-6 Bozeman Community Plan
364
Chapter 3: Land use Intent and Background
Goal LU-2: Designate centers for commercial
development rather than corridors to encourage
cohesive neighborhood development in
conjunction with non-motorized transportation
options.
Rationale: Transportation and land use are closely
connected. A center based development pattern is more
land and resource efficient and supports the goals of
community and neighborhood development and
sustainability. Future growth will cause additional demand
for and use of transportation facilities. A center based
development pattern can reduce future demand.
Objective LU-2.1: Locate high density community scale
service centers on a one mile radius, and neighborhood service
centers on a one-half mile radius, to facilitate the efficient use
of transportation and public services in providing employment,
residential, and other essential uses.
Objective LU-2.2: Provide for a limited number of carefully
sited regional service centers which are appropriately sized and
serviced by adequate infrastructure.
Objective LU-2.3: Encourage redevelopment and
intensification, especially with mixed uses, of brownfields and
underutilized property within the City consistent with the
City’s adopted standards. Using this approach rehabilitate
corridor based commercial uses into a pattern more supportive
of the principles supported by commercial centers.
Implementation Policies: 6, 10, 11, 19, 50, 70, 81, 83
Goal LU-3: Strengthen the Historic Core of
Bozeman to preserve the community character,
economic resource, and historical connection
represented by this area.
Rationale: The Historic Core, as defined in the glossary, is
one of Bozeman’s most distinctive and valued features. Loss of
or injury to this area would lessen the community’s cultural,
economic, and social assets and reduce the sense of place
Bozeman holds within the community, state, and nation.
Commercial center examples
Civic uses such as parks and churches
provide landmarks which help build a
sense of place.
Bozeman Community Plan Page 3-7
365
Major Themes and Related Chapters Chapter 3: Land Use
Objective LU-3.1: Ensure that development and redevelopment
of this area, including the adaptive reuse of historic buildings, is
done in a manner which enhances, and is compatible with, the
current community fabric.
Objective LU-3.2: Encourage the use and redevelopment of
underutilized and brownfield sites to provide employment and
housing which will help to maintain the vibrancy and vitality of the
Historic Core area.
Objective LU-3.3: Encourage a traditional mix of diverse
commercial and residential uses within the downtown to instill an
active atmosphere and twenty-four hour presence.
Objective LU-3.4: Give particular emphasis to encourage living
opportunities within walking distance of the downtown
employment, retail, and neighborhood services.
Objective LU-3.5: Support maintaining local, state and federal
government, the County Courthouse, City Hall, and other existing
social service providers in downtown locations and encourage
expansions of facilities to also remain downtown.
Implementation Policies: 3, 5, 7-12, 16, 19, 20-22, 44, 49, 56,
70, 81,
Goal LU-4: Sustainability, Natural Environment and
Aesthetics – Ensure adequate review of individual
and cumulative environmental and aesthetic effects
of development to preserve the viewsheds, natural
functions, and beauty which are a fundamental
element of Bozeman’s character. Design and
development in a quantifiably sustainable manner
are desirable.
Rationale: The natural environment is a key aspect of
Bozeman’s appeal. Accidental or deliberate injury to the
natural environment can be very costly to repair and can have
substantial impacts on City functions. Individual actions can
cause incremental change which is unacceptable. Human use
of resources will cause impacts. Development within the City
can provide significant protection for valued natural resources
within the larger community of Gallatin County.
Objective LU-4.1: Protect important wildlife habitats, and natural
areas which provide for beneficial functions, such as floodplains.
Strengthening the Historic Core includes
many types of investment including
appropriate additions (top), new buildings
(middle), and renovation and
rehabilitation of existing structures
(bottom).
Page 3-8 Bozeman Community Plan
366
Chapter 3: Land use Intent and Background
Sustainability is the intersection of the
built and natural environments.
Sustainability is a major goal of the City
of Bozeman but individual actions are
also critical to success.
Objective LU-4.2: Protect the viewshed, including ridgelines,
surrounding and within Bozeman to preserve the natural character
and mountain setting which helps to make Bozeman unique.
Objective LU-4.3: Encourage the creation of well-defined
residential neighborhoods. Each neighborhood should have a clear
focal point, such as a park, school, other open space or community
facility, and shall be designed to promote pedestrian convenience.
To this end, the City shall encourage the use of historic Bozeman
neighborhoods, including a significantly interconnected street
system, as models for the planning and design of new residential
neighborhoods.
Objective LU-4.4: Review and revise the City’s regulations to
encourage and support sustainability in new construction and
rehabilitation or redevelopment of existing areas.
Objective LU-4.5: Generation of renewable energy including
solar and wind power as an accessory use is encouraged with
proper design and compatibility to adjacent uses.
Objective LU-4.6: All mixed use areas should be developed on a
grid of connectivity, including streets, alleys, driveways, and
parking areas that contain multimodal facilities and a high level of
connectivity to adjacent development. Shared use, underground, or
other structured parking is recommended to reduce surface
parking area.
Objective LU-4.7: Stormwater systems should be designed using
Low Impact Development principles.
Objective LU-4.8: Promote the efficient use of water, energy,
land, human resources, and natural resources and protect water
supply quantity and quality.
Objective LU-4.9: Recognize the cumulative effects of changes in
land use and develop equitable means to evaluate, avoid, and/or
respond to negative cumulative impacts. Recognize the value of
well designed and implemented urban development in minimizing
impacts from existing and future development.
Objective LU-4.10: Encourage development throughout Gallatin
County to occur within existing municipalities and support the
local ability to address and manage change and growth.
Implementation Policies: 2-4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 25-31, 49,
53, 57-68, 70-72, 74, 75, 80, 90, 91
Bozeman Community Plan Page 3-9
367
Major Themes and Related Chapters Chapter 3: Land Use
3.4 Land Use Category Descriptions
Residential. This category designates places where the primary
activity is urban density dwellings. Other uses which complement
residences are also acceptable such as parks, low intensity home
based occupations, fire stations, churches, and schools. High
density residential areas should be established in close proximity to
commercial centers to facilitate the provision of services and
employment opportunities to persons without requiring the use of
an automobile. Implementation of this category by residential
zoning should provide for and coordinate intensive residential uses
in proximity to commercial centers. The residential designation
indicates that it is expected that development will occur within
municipal boundaries, which may require annexation prior to
development.
The dwelling unit density expected within this classification varies
between 6 and 32 dwellings per net acre. A higher density may be
considered in some locations and circumstances. A variety of
housing types can be blended to achieve the desired density. Large
areas of single type housing are discouraged. In limited instances
the strong presence of constraints and natural features such as
floodplains may cause an area to be designated for development at
a lower density than normally expected within this category. All
residential housing should be arranged with consideration of
compatibility with adjacent development, natural constraints such
as watercourses or steep slopes, and in a fashion which advances
the overall goals of the Bozeman growth policy. The residential
designation is intended to provide the primary locations for
additional housing within the planning area.
Residential Emphasis Mixed Use. The Residential Mixed-Use
category promotes neighborhoods with supporting services that
are substantially dominated by housing. A diversity of residential
housing types should be built on the majority of any area within
this category. Housing choice for a variety of households is desired
and can include attached and small detached single-household
dwellings, apartments, and live-work units. Residences should be
included on the upper floors of buildings with ground floor
commercial uses. Variation in building massing, height, and other
design characteristics should contribute to a complete and
interesting streetscape and may be larger than in the Residential
category.
Secondary supporting uses, such as retail, offices, and civic uses,
are permitted at the ground floor. All uses should complement
existing and planned residential uses. Non-residential uses are
expected to be pedestrian oriented and emphasize the human scale
with modulation as needed in larger structures. Stand alone, large,
Quality, safe, and affordable housing can
occur in many ways. Housing can also be
mixed with commercial uses with
appropriate design and careful planning.
Three examples of buildings in a mixed
residential/commercial area are above.
Residential Emphasis
Mixed Use Purposes
· Compact Walkable
neighborhoods
· Vertical and horizontal
mixed uses
· Creation and support of
vibrant community centers
· Enhanced sense of place
· Promotion of sustainable
Communities
· Diversity of housing
options
Page 3-10 Bozeman Community Plan
368
Chapter 3: Land use Intent and Background
non-residential uses are discouraged. Non-residential spaces
should provide an interesting pedestrian experience with quality
urban design for buildings, sites, and open spaces.
This category is implemented at different scales. The details of
implementing standards will vary with the scale. The category is
appropriate near commercial centers and larger areas should have
access on collector and arterial streets. Multi-household higher
density urban development is expected. Any development within
this category should have a well integrated transportation and open
space network which encourages pedestrian activity and provides
ready access within and to adjacent development.
Suburban Residential. This category indicates locations generally
outside of City limits, but within the planning area, where a land
development pattern has already been set by rural subdivisions.
Subdivisions in this area are generally characterized by lots two
acres in size or less. It is probable that portions of this area may
be proposed for annexation within the next twenty years. The area
is able to be served with municipal water and sewer services with
appropriate extensions of main lines. Any further development
within this area should be clustered to preserve functional open
space. Individual septic and well services are discouraged. If
development is proposed within reasonable access distances to
waste water and water services, annexation to the City should be
completed prior to development.
Regional Commercial and Services. Bozeman is a retail,
education, health services, public administration, and tourism hub
and provides opportunities for these activities for a multi-county
region. Often the scale of these services is larger than would be
required for Bozeman alone. Because of the draw from outside
Bozeman, it is necessary that these types of facilities be located in
proximity to significant transportation routes. Since these are large
and prominent facilities within the community and region, it is
appropriate that design guidelines be established to ensure
compatibility with the remainder of the community. Opportunity
for a mix of uses which encourages a robust and broad activity
level is to be provided. Residential space should not be a primary
use and should only be included as an accessory use above the first
floor. Any development within this category should have a well
integrated transportation and open space network which
encourages pedestrian activity, and provides ready access within
and to adjacent development.
Community Core. The traditional core of Bozeman is the historic
downtown. This area has an extensive mutually supportive
diversity of uses, a strong pedestrian and multi-modal
transportation network, and a rich architectural character. Essential
Figure 3-1, Future Land Use Map
section
The future land use map depicts each
category of land use in different colors.
The map is in the pocket at the back of
the Bozeman Community Plan.
Bozeman Community Plan Page 3-11
369
Major Themes and Related Chapters Chapter 3: Land Use
government services, places of public assembly, and open spaces
provide the civic and social core of town. Residential development
on upper floors is well established. New residential uses should be
high density. The area along Main Street should be preserved as a
place for high pedestrian activity uses, with strong pedestrian
connectivity to other uses on nearby streets. Users are drawn from
the entire planning area and beyond. The intensity of development
is high with a Floor Area Ratio well over 1. Future development
should continue to be intense while providing areas of transition to
adjacent areas and preserving the historic character of Main Street.
Community Commercial Mixed Use. Activities within this land
use category are the basic employment and services necessary for a
vibrant community. Establishments located within these
categories draw from the community as a whole for their employee
and customer base and are sized accordingly. A broad range of
functions including retail, education, professional and personal
services, offices, residences, and general service activities typify this
designation.
In the “center-based” land use pattern, Community Commercial
Mixed Use areas are integrated with significant transportation
corridors, including transit and non-automotive routes, to facilitate
efficient travel opportunities. The density of development is
expected to be higher than currently seen in most commercial
areas in Bozeman and should include multi-story buildings. A
Floor Area Ratio in excess of .5 is desired. It is desirable to allow
residences on upper floors, in appropriate circumstances. Urban
streetscapes, plazas, outdoor seating, public art, and hardscaped
open space and park amenities are anticipated, appropriately
designed for an urban character. Placed in proximity to significant
streets and intersections, an equal emphasis on vehicle, pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit circulation shall be provided. High density
residential areas are expected in close proximity. Including
residential units on sites within this category, typically on upper
floors, will facilitate the provision of services and opportunities to
persons without requiring the use of an automobile.
The Community Commercial Mixed Use category is distributed at
two different scales to serve different purposes. Large Community
Commercial Mixed Use areas are significant in size and are activity
centers for an area of several square miles surrounding them.
These are intended to service the larger community as well as
adjacent neighborhoods and are typically distributed on a one mile
radius. Smaller Community Commercial areas are usually in the 10
15 acre size range and are intended to provide primarily local
service to an area of approximately one-half mile radius. These
commercial centers support and help give identity to individual
neighborhoods by providing a visible and distinctive focal point.
The historic Bozeman Hotel now hosts
many different businesses in the
Downtown heart of Bozeman.
Floor area ratio (FAR) is a
measure of the area of
building to area of land. A
10,000 square foot
building on a 40,000
square foot lot has a FAR
of 0.25. A higher FAR
represents more intensive
development.
Non-residential site plans
submitted to Bozeman had
a median FAR in
2004 of 0.225,
2007 of 0.413
Page 3-12 Bozeman Community Plan
370
Chapter 3: Land use Intent and Background
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.
Public Institutions. A variety of activities are undertaken in this
land use classification. Schools are a dominant use including
Montana State University. Other typical uses are libraries, fire
stations, and publicly operated utilities. A significant portion of
Bozeman’s employment occurs within this category.
Parks, Open Space, and Recreational Lands. All publicly
owned recreational lands, including parks, are included within this
category, as well as certain private lands. These areas are generally
open in character and may or may not be developed for active
recreational purposes. This category includes conservation
easements which may not be open for public use.
Golf Courses. This category designates properties operated by
public or private parties in order to support the playing of golf.
Golf courses may also include restaurants, retail sales, and other
accessory activities.
Business Park Mixed Use. This classification provides for
employment areas with a variety of land uses typified by office uses
and technology-oriented light industrial uses. Civic uses may also
be included. Retail, residential, services, or industrial uses may also
be included in an accessory or local service role. Accessory uses
should occupy 20% or less of the planned Business Park Mixed
Use areas. These areas are often a buffer between uses, and the
scale and intensity should be carefully considered to ensure
compatibility with adjacent developments. The developments
should provide integrated open spaces, plazas, and pedestrian
pathways to facilitate circulation and a pleasant environment. Uses
may be mixed both vertically and horizontally with vertically mixed
uses being encouraged. Higher intensity uses are encouraged in the
core of the area or adjacent to significant streets and intersections.
As needed, building height or other transitions should be provided
to be compatible with adjacent development.
Top to bottom; mixed use infill on E.
Main Street, shared parking,
pedestrian/bicycle paths integrated with
commercial development, outdoor spaces
and site integration, conceptual public
gathering space
Bozeman Community Plan Page 3-13
371
Major Themes and Related Chapters Chapter 3: Land Use
Industrial. This classification provides areas for the uses which
support an urban environment such as manufacturing,
warehousing, and transportation hubs. Development within these
areas is intensive and is connected to significant transportation
corridors. In order to protect the economic base and necessary
services represented by industrial uses, uses which would be
detrimentally impacted by industrial activities are discouraged.
Although use in these areas is intensive, these areas are part of the
larger community and shall meet basic standards for landscaping
and other site design issues and be integrated with the larger
community. In some circumstances, uses other than those typically
considered industrial have been historically present in areas which
were given an industrial designation in this growth policy. Careful
consideration must be given to public policies to allow these mixed
uses to coexist in harmony.
Present Rural. This category designates areas where development
is considered to be generally inappropriate over the 20 year term of
the Bozeman Community Plan, either because of natural features,
negative impacts on the desired development pattern, or significant
difficulty in providing urban services. The Residential and
Residential Mixed Use categories contain adequate area to
accommodate residential development over the 20 year horizon of
the Bozeman Community Plan. Development within the Present
Rural area would be generally disruptive to the desired compact
urban land use pattern depicted in the Plan. As Bozeman develops
over time, it is expected that the City will expand outward into
areas previously designated as Present Rural. As the City’s growth
policy is updated from time to time, some areas currently classified
as Present Rural are expected to be reclassified to urban
designations. Reclassification shall occur prior to development.
The land shown with a Present Rural designation is comprised of
parcels in a variety of different sizes, but typically in larger
acreages. Suburban or rural density subdivisions adjacent to the
City may impede an orderly and cost effective expansion of the
City.
In order to prevent such conflicts and problems in the future, use
of land in the Present Rural land use designation should follow
one of three paths, which are listed in order of the City’s
preference:
1. Remain as currently utilized, until annexed and municipal
services are available to support a Residential or other
urban land use category development as described in this
plan. The change in designation will require an amendment
to the growth policy; (See Chapter 17)
Industrial buildings take many forms.
Low density rural development can
interfere with efficient extension of urban
services and development.
Page 3-14 Bozeman Community Plan
372
Chapter 3: Land use Intent and Background
2. Develop at a density of a single dwelling per existing
parcel, with consolidation of smaller parcels into single
ownership prior to development; or
3. If further subdivision is proposed, to develop at urban
densities and standards with provisions for connection to
City services when they become available.
Annexation of most Present Rural areas is unlikely over the term
of the Bozeman Community Plan and final authority to deny or
approve development in county areas shown with this designation
remains with the County Commission. The City has adopted
facility plans which address the provision of services within all the
planning area. These will enable coordination with Gallatin
County. In the event that an intergovernmental agreement is
developed that addresses these areas, development shall meet such
terms as the agreement states.
3.5 Future Land Use Map
Figure 3-1 (pocket in back) is the future land use map for the
Bozeman Community Plan. It is a synthesis of many different
ideas, public input, existing conditions, and existing and desired
land use patterns for the future. The map is the visual
representation of the land use patterns and ideas discussed in this
chapter, and elsewhere throughout this document. The map shows
in a very broad manner acceptable uses and locations throughout
the community. It does not represent a commitment by the City
to approve every development proposed within each category.
Neither does a designation indicate that a property is free from
constraints to development
The map and other elements of this plan must be weighed and
evaluated in conjunction with the specific details of a proposed
project which are beyond the scope of this plan but will be
addressed through the implementation tools discussed in Chapter
16 and Appendix I. The provisions of any intergovernmental
agreement between the City and County regarding land use will
influence the final development pattern with the defined planning
area.
The boundaries shown on the map are of necessity at a large scale.
As a result some interpretation may be required in the future. It is
the intent of the map to follow natural and visible boundaries such
as streams or right-of-ways where possible. Within developed
areas, boundaries generally follow parcel boundaries established by
recorded plats or certificates of survey. Where such natural or legal
boundaries do not exist, some minor flexibility in the
interpretation of the boundary is allowed to the Director of the
Department of Planning and Community Development so long
A compact development pattern
minimizes intrusion into agriculturally
productive areas
The health and well-being
of Bozeman’s residents are
impacted by how the
community is planned and
built. Development
patterns affect dependency
on motor vehicles.
Communities that provide
options for living close to
work and services, as well
as the choice to walk or
bike as part of normal daily
life can facilitate mental
and physical health.
Health issues associated
with development patterns
include:
· Air pollution
· Obesity
· Cardiovascular disease
· Diabetes
· Stress
· Blood pressure
The City of Bozeman is
committed to creating a
safe, well designed
community that promotes
the health of its residents.
Bozeman Community Plan Page 3-15
373
Major Themes and Related Chapters Chapter 3: Land Use
as the exercise of that flexibility is not contrary to the intent,
purposes, or goals of this plan and does not materially alter the
desired land pattern in an area. If significant alterations or
modifications are desired, an amendment to this plan must be
undertaken.
This plan looks at a twenty-year horizon as well as the current
situation, so it is to be expected that some areas which are not in
conformance with the plan will be identified. This plan recognizes
the presence of these uses without specifically mapping or
otherwise identifying them. It is desired that these anomalies be
resolved over the term of this plan so that the land use pattern
identified herein may be completed.
3.6 Future Land Use Needs
Appendix C provides a description of the expected additional acres
of land required to satisfy anticipated demand for urban uses by
2025. A detailed discussion of inventory and future land use
projections is in Appendix C. A total of 18,058 urban use acres are
depicted on the future land use map.
3.7 Implementation and Administration
The creation of the land use pattern shown in Figure 3 will only
result from concerted efforts by many people. The construction
of buildings and conducting of commercial and residential
activities is done by the private sector. Their willingness to invest
money and personal commitment into the community has a huge
influence on the community’s ability to realize its goals. The
public sector, especially the City of Bozeman, also has a significant
role to play. Bozeman’s role is the development of its growth
policy and corresponding implementation tools such as zoning and
subdivision standards, and facility planning and maintenance. By
crafting its actions to further the goals of this plan, and then
consistently carrying out those actions, the City can influence
private parties and form effective partnerships to further the
achievement of the identified community goals.
Following the adoption of the Bozeman Community Plan, the
zoning and subdivision ordinances must be reviewed and revised
as needed. These are required by law to be in compliance with the
growth policy. There are many specific issues which those two
implementation tools address. Street design, open space
requirements, and density of development and others have the
potential to substantially advance or impede the ideals and goals of
the Bozeman Community Plan. These ordinances are
implementation tools for the plan. It is important that community
involvement continue and inform the revisions to zoning and
All persons are born free
and have certain inalienable
rights. They include the
right to a clean and
healthful environment and
the rights of pursuing life's
basic necessities, enjoying
and defending their lives
and liberties, acquiring,
possessing and protecting
property, and seeking their
safety, health and
happiness in all lawful
ways. In enjoying these
rights, all persons recognize
corresponding
responsibilities.
MT Constitution, Article II
Section 3. Inalienable
rights.
Page 3-16 Bozeman Community Plan
374
Chapter 3: Land use Intent and Background
There is no such thing as
justice in the abstract; it is
merely a compact between
men.
Epicurus, 341 BC
subdivision standards. These implementation tools are those most
commonly encountered by the public. It is important that the
revisions happen soon and without unnecessary delay.
Continued development of the community brings change. These
changes will bring mutual costs and benefits, as well as some
detriments and benefits from the actions of others which are felt
more individually. In preparing and executing implementation it is
important to preserve fairness and reasonableness. Regulations
may be expected to seek mitigation of substantial actual impacts,
not minor or only perceived impact on preferences which are not
supported by evidence. The established review criteria are an effort
to provide balance and consideration for all the affected parties in
the evaluation of development impacts. The use of public facilities
in conformance with the standards and programs adopted by the
City is not an unreasonable or burdensome impact of
development. The City’s standards, while respectful of the
community values and diversity of interests, will not yield
outcomes which satisfy every person in each situation.
Specific implementation tasks are described in Chapter 16.
Bozeman Community Plan Page 3-17
375
Mahar Good Medicine Way ZMA
1
RESOLUTION #Z-12068
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CITY OF
BOZEMAN ZONING MAP TO ESTABLISH AN INITIAL ZONING DESIGNATION OF
R-1 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE HOUSEHOLD LOW-DENSITY DISTRICT) ON 5.01+-
ACRES OF PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS LOT 4A, MINOR SUBDIVISION
35C IN THE NW ¼, SEC. 5, T2S, R5E, PMM, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted zoning regulations and a zoning map
pursuant to Sections 76-2-301 and 76-2-302, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-305, M.C.A. allows local governments to amend zoning maps
if a public hearing is held and official notice is provided; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-307, M.C.A. states that the Zoning Commission must conduct
a public hearing and submit a report to the City Commission for all zoning map amendment
requests; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission has been created by Resolution of
the Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Section 76-2-307, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 38, Article 37 of the Bozeman Unified Development Code sets
forth the procedures and review criteria for zoning map amendments; and
WHEREAS, Mahar Montana Homes owner and applicant through their representative C
& H Engineering, applied for a zoning map amendment, pursuant to Chapter 38, Article 37 of
the Bozeman Unified Development Code, to amend the Bozeman zoning map to establish an
initial zoning designation of R-1 (Residential Single Household Low-Density District) for 5.01+-
acres; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment request has been properly submitted,
reviewed and advertised in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 38, Article 37 of
the Bozeman Unified Development Code and Title 76, Chapter 2, Part 3, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 15,
2012, to formally receive and review all written and oral testimony on the proposed zoning map
amendment; and
WHEREAS, written public comment was received and public comment was expressed at
the public hearing which public comment was in opposition to the R-1 zoning and primarily
376
Mahar Good Medicine Way ZMA
2
focused on traffic impacts to Good Medicine Way and the character of the R-1 zoning in contrast
to the Residential Suburban zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission finds that the proposed zoning
map amendment generally complies with the thirteen criteria for consideration established in
Chapter 38, Article 37 of the Bozeman Unified Development Code but does not meet criteria J;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Bozeman Zoning
Commission, on a 1-2 vote, do not recommend to the Bozeman City Commission approval of
zoning application #Z-12068 to amend the Bozeman zoning map to establish an initial zoning
designation of R-1 (Residential Single Household Low-Density District) on 5.01+- acres
contingent upon annexation of said property which is described as Lot 4A, Minor Subdivision
35C, in the NE ¼ of T2S, R5E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana.
DATED THIS DAY OF , 2012, Resolution #Z-12068
_____________________________ ____________________________
Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Ed Sypinski, Chairperson
Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman Zoning Commission
377
Page 1 of 11
Zoning Commission Minutes – May 15, 2012
ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Sypinski called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and ordered the Recording
Secretary to take attendance.
Members Present:
Ed Sypinski, Chairperson
David Peck
Erik Garberg
City Commission Liaison:
Members Absent:
Nathan Minnick, Vice Chairperson
Staff Present:
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
David Skelton, Senior Planner
Doug Riley, Associate Planner
Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Tim Cooper, City Attorney
Guests Present:
Martha Lonner
Kay Newman
Terry M. Lonner
Dan Beeman
Diane Beeman
Mike Campbell
Dan Archer
Kristin Campbell
Al Springer
Paula Carstenson
John Carstenson
David Kraft
Brad O’Grosky
Dave Crawford
Scott Spratt
Cindy Spratt
Martin Studer
Mary Sudowski
378
Page 2 of 11
Zoning Commission Minutes – May 15, 2012
Danny Klewin
Sarah Robson
Gloria Lindemeier
Kevin Barre
Terrace M. Smith
Kerry Reif
Bob McKenzie
E.J. Litle
Don Murdock
Ken Jacobs
Dawn Dingman
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the
Zoning Commission and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Seeing there was no general public comment forthcoming, Chairperson Sypinski closed this
portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MAY 1, 2012
Chairperson Sypinski stated that on page 3, paragraph 2, the word “they” should be “their”.
MOTION: Mr. Garberg moved, Mr. Peck seconded, to approve the minutes of May 1, 2012 as
amended. The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Peck, and
Mr. Garberg. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
MOTION: Mr. Garberg moved, Mr. Peck seconded, to open and continue the item to the next
meeting of the ZC or until there is a quorum of members of the ZC attending. The motion
carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Peck, and Mr. Garberg. Those
voting nay being none.
ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-12068 – (Mahar Lot 4A) A Zone Map Amendment
requested by the owner and applicant, Mahar Montana Homes, 1627 W. Main St., Ste. 370,
Bozeman, MT 59715, and representative, C&H Engineering, 1091 Stoneridge Dr., Bozeman,
MT 59718, requesting to establish an urban zoning designation of R-1 (Residential Single
Household Low Density District) on 5.01 acres in conjunction with annexation. The property
is located at 3601 Good Medicine Way and legally described as Lot 4A of Minor Subdivision
No. 35C, located in the NE ¼, Sec. 25, T2S, R5E, Gallatin County, Montana. (Saunders)
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting the application was
to establish an initial zoning designation of R-1. He indicated the location of the property and
directed the Zoning Commission members to a map of the location. He stated the criteria for
379
Page 3 of 11
Zoning Commission Minutes – May 15, 2012
approving a Zone Map Amendment were established in statute and carried out through the
ordinance. He directed the Zoning Commission members to the definitions of Compatible
Development and Compatible Land Use in the U.D.C. and noted the adjacent land uses existing
around the property. He noted the area to the south of Goldenstein Lane was not expected to see
substantial development within the next 20 years. He noted the City limits boundary to the north
and south of the subject property as well as a little bit to the east.
Assistant Director Saunders stated that as part of the subdivision PUD for Sundance Springs
there were allowable uses to the south of the property that included an area where allowable uses
were those allowed in the B-1 zoning district. He stated the property was immediately adjacent
to parks, open space, and trails. He noted S. 3rd Avenue was a collector street designed to handle
higher traffic volumes than a local street so there may be additional improvements that would be
required. He noted the watercourse and wetland areas within the site and added the applicant
would be required to map the wetland areas. He stated the banks of the watercourse were steep,
but the majority of the site was flat.
Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff had looked at the Growth Policy designation and had
found the proposed zoning designation to be in keeping with those objectives. He stated Staff
was supportive of the application as presented and added there was opportunity for other
alternatives but the application in front of the Zoning Commission was for R-1. He stated a
petition had been received regarding the zoning designation and Staff would determine if an
adequate protest had been filed. He stated there were four provisions applied to the approval
which were all procedural requirements that were needed to prepare ordinances, etc. He stated if
the Zoning Commission read through the requirements the outer boundary and adjacent right of
way for the property should be included and that was the reason for the condition. He stated he
would be happy to answer any questions the Zoning Commission members had.
Chairperson Sypinski asked Assistant Director Saunders about access to the site and noted he had
not seen any accesses depicted. Assistant Director Saunders responded that S. 3rd Avenue was a
collector street and therefore had an access restriction of 330 feet between accesses; he noted
there was adequate separation to provide an access off of S. 3rd Ave. He added access
restrictions were dedicated solely to the development of the property and those standards were
the same regardless of the zoning district so they would address accesses once an application was
submitted. Chairperson Sypinski asked what zoning designation would allow a church as
previously proposed. Assistant Director Saunders responded any zoning district would allow a
church.
Matt Cotterman of C&H Engineering, representative of Mahar Montana Homes, stated the
property was perfectly suited for annexation into the City and would allow growth within the
City without the expansion of infrastructure such as water and sewer. He stated R-1 was the
lowest density designation that provided suitable urban density with a gross density of three
dwelling units per acre. He stated he had received a number of written comments from adjacent
property owners regarding the proposed density. He stated he couldn’t blame the neighbors for
wanting to see the R-S zoning district. He stated that under the intent and purpose of the
Residential Suburban district; the district is for properties unable to meet the minimum
380
Page 4 of 11
Zoning Commission Minutes – May 15, 2012
requirements of the City. He noted a lower density would propagate sprawl and those impacts
should be considered now instead of later. He stated he did not know if the proposal was “spot
zoning” as he was not an attorney.
Susan Swimley, 1807 W. Dickerson St., representative of some of the neighbors stated she had
submitted public comment and asked that it be part of the record. She noted the parcel had been
divided with the intention of having a zoning designation of R-S. She stated she had done the
analysis and believed she was correct in claiming that the proposal was for “spot zoning”. She
stated the petitions included over 85 signatures indicating they did not think R-1 was an
appropriate zoning district for the site. She stated she would further research the potential access
to the site from S. 3rd Avenue. She stated that under the City’s Growth Policy there was no
indication that R-S was for properties that could not meet the R-1 requirements; the Growth
Policy allowed for review of the density to see if it was compatible within a given area. She
stated the language in the U.D.C. with regard to Planned Unit Developments encouraged
development of vacant properties; the site was the last of a group of parcels developed in the
1980’s. She stated the City had conscientiously planned the area and Sundance Springs had been
told to go through the review process as R-S; R-1 would not be the most appropriate zoning for
the site. She asked the Zoning Commission to forward a recommendation that would be good for
the neighbors and the community.
Eldon Al Springer, 3404 Wagon Wheel Road, stated he and his wife had lived in their location
since 1974 and had wetlands bordering on the eastern side of their lot. He stated their lots were
larger and the site would not be consistent with the adjacent lots. He stated he felt spot zoning of
R-1 was not appropriate for the area considering the wetlands and open space areas and that R-S
would be more compatible for the area. He suggested the zoning be changed to R-S.
Martha Lonner, 3602 Good Medicine Way, stated that almost 40 years ago they had built their
home and worked to maintain their property. She stated her two children were brought home
there after their births and she and her husband might die there. She stated the Zoning
Commission could consider the history of the land; it was purchased in 1966 and was 340 acres
of agricultural land. She stated the property was then divided until in 1971 and 1973 the existing
subdivisions were established. She stated the Sourdough Community Plan had been introduced
at that time and they were one of the first ones in the area. She stated in 1979 a minor
subdivision was platted and was designated as a church property with three additional lots; the
noted included no direct access from S. 3rd Avenue, the site was to be used for a church and
associated church structures, and access was to be a 30 foot access off of South 3rd Avenue. She
stated in 1996 Sundance Springs was annexed and a PUD was developed with a quality trail
system and Good Medicine Way being a primary access to the trail system. She stated that all
three of the Final Plat notes were absent on the current plat when only one note was to be
removed. She stated the residents had come to stay and live out their lives there; Lot 4 was not a
piece of land that had never been zoned and had been slated for R-S development. She stated
they had invested in the property and had spent years making it a great place to live. She asked
the Zoning Commission to deny the proposal and preserve their standard of living.
381
Page 5 of 11
Zoning Commission Minutes – May 15, 2012
Terry Lonner, 3602 Good Medicine Way, stated he would play a recording from the County
Commission hearing on April 11, 2006 regarding removal of the Final Plat notes for the site and
amending the plat. His recorded testimony indicated that he would oppose, no matter who
bought it, any application not in harmony with the existing development and the subdivision
would work with the new owner to a certain extent. He indicated he did not want to see six units
per acre out on the site. Nancy Hildner, 3505 Good Medicine Way, was included in the recorded
testimony and indicated she concurred with Mr. Lonner with regard to the density of the site.
The County Commission stated they would be committed to not allowing the six units per acres
designation with the exception of the annexation.
Terrace Smith, 528 Peace Pipe Drive, stated he lived directly across the street from the subject
property and that he agreed with Ms. Swimley.
Sarah Robson, 528 Peace Pipe Drive, stated she agreed with all previous public comment and
was in opposition of the proposed zoning designation.
Mary Sudowski, 3414 Wagon Wheel Rd, stated she had purchased the property in February of
this year and she was a newcomer to the subdivision. She stated she had lived up Bridger
Canyon and she appreciated the mature vegetation and natural wildlife in the area. She stated
there was an incredible historic precedent set for the area and she would like to see it stay zoned
R-S. She stated she was working 3 jobs to make it possible for her and her family to live in the
area. She stated the traffic load on S. 3rd Ave. was a big deal; traffic had been backed up from
Kagy Blvd. past the curve on Wagon Wheel due to the school. She noted there was incredible
traffic congestion and the traffic study needed to be updated.
Ken Jacobs stated he was one of the homes within 1500 feet of the lot. He stated he had been
there since 1974 when the landscaping was just big open fields. He stated his primary concern
was the traffic that would be generated on Good Medicine Way with the density of the
development. He stated “spot zoning” would set an ugly precedent for similar spots all over the
City. He urged the Zoning Commission to deny the R-1 zoning district.
Ed Litle, 3416 Wagon Wheel Road, stated he was at a disadvantage pointing out the obvious and
he wished he could walk the members through the subdivision. He stated the trail system in an
R-1 neighborhood would just be wrong; the trails got heavy use with 100’s of people every day.
He stated there would be 25 to 30 houses on the site and would be obviously wrong. It would
enhance one person at the expense of the rest of the community.
Scott Spratt, 3604 Good Medicine Way, stated he concurred with all previous public comments,
especially Ms. Swimley’s. He stated he had moved back to Bozeman in 2001 and had purchased
a lot in Harvest Creek Phase 1 next to open space; the next year more phases of the development
were completed and he was looking at a fence in his rear yard. He stated he had asked his realtor
what had been planned for the subject site and he had been told the site was platted for a church.
He stated the R-1 subdivision, just what he had not done his homework on before, was now
being proposed. He stated he was in strong opposition of the proposal.
382
Page 6 of 11
Zoning Commission Minutes – May 15, 2012
Martin Studor, 3425 Good Medicine Way, stated the neighbors (Hildner’s and Hatterly’s) had
asked him to share their opposition to the proposal. He stated his was the last house developed in
the neighborhood though they had been there for eight years. He stated Good Medicine Way is
virtually an extension of the trail system and they saw a wide variety of people utilizing the
access. He stated he appreciated the neighborhood and the neighbors themselves. He noted that
after they had moved in, the church had sold the property. The 20 unit density proposal had been
opposed by the neighborhood at that time and afterwards was purchased by Mr. Mahar. He
stated Mr. Mahar had likely paid too much for the property and had been sitting on it
undeveloped. He stated there was plenty of other property that could be developed as R-1 and he
felt it was inconsistent with the surrounding sites. He stated even if 15 units were included on
the 5 acres it would be too dense. He asked for members of the audience to indicate if they were
supportive and none in support were forthcoming.
Brad O’ Grosky, 2343 Graf Street, stated he moved to Sundance Springs last year with his wife.
He stated the only benefit that would be provided would be a profit for the developer. He stated
he was in opposition to the proposal.
Gloria Lindemeier, 168 Peace Pipe Drive, stated she opposed the proposed R-1 zoning district
and she would favor R-S.
Don Beeman, 425 Peace Pipe Drive, stated he opposed the R-1 zoning and prefer to see the
property maintain the R-S zoning district.
Kerry Reif, 90 Trails End Road, stated she had lived there for 31 years and had purchased the
property because it was low traffic and low light. She stated the R-1 zoning would impact those
features significantly.
Bob Mackenzie, 90 Trails End Road, stated he had moved from Colorado with the express
purpose of escaping high population and density. He encouraged the Zoning Commission to
maintain the R-S zoning district.
Mike Campbell, 106 Trails End Road, stated he also represented his wife. He stated his wife had
grown up on Wagon Wheel Road and were in opposition of the R-1 zoning district but were
supportive of the R-S. He presented a letter from his father in law in opposition of the proposed
R-1 zoning district as it would superimpose a higher density than the surrounding districts.
Verna Booth, 58 Trails End Road, stated she had bought their home because they lived in a
district that was just too crowded. She asked the Zoning Commission to deny the proposed
zoning.
Paula Carstenson, 74 Trails End Road, stated she had relocated from a high density area and had
tried to make ends meet to be able to move to that location. She stated she would like to see it
remain as it is and she was opposed to the proposed zoning district.
Danny Klewin, 2251 Wagon Wheel Road, stated he and his wife had lived there for 20 years. He
383
Page 7 of 11
Zoning Commission Minutes – May 15, 2012
stated the R-1 classification was not consistent with the subdivision and he was opposed to the
proposed zoning district.
Don Murdock, 91 Trails End Road, stated he was a Bozeman native that grew up on the south
side of Bozeman. He stated he had parted the state for four decades and returned four years ago
to live in his residence today. He encouraged the Zoning Commission to keep the property zoned
R-S and oppose the R-1 zoning district.
Chairperson Sypinski asked the applicant if he would like to rebut comments and concerns made
by the public.
Mr. Cotterman reiterated that the access was a subdivision issue and not a zoning issue as
Assistant Director Saunders had indicated previously.
Mr. Peck asked if three dwellings per acre was a reasonable estimate. Assistant Director
Saunders explained that there were items such as streets, open space, etc. were excluded from the
unit per acre calculation and using the gross area would be inaccurate.
Chairperson Sypinski asked for clarification of “spot zoning”. Attorney Cooper responded the
Zoning Commission should look at it as “anti-zoning” in the way that the uses next to each other
were incompatible such as a commercial use within a residential area. He added the benefit to
the landowner and detriment to the surrounding neighborhood should be gauged not by the
neighborhood or a specific property, but to the community as a whole. He stated the zoning itself
was a legislative act and proof of validity; a “spot zoning” analysis would center on the
compatibility of the land use.
MOTION: Mr. Garberg moved, Mr. Peck seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval
to the City Commission for Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-12068 with Staff findings as
outlined in the Staff Report and public comment received at the meeting.
Mr. Garberg stated it was a challenging decision and the real issue was the history of the
neighborhood. He stated he thought there were lots of issues that would come up, but it was
pretty clear that people had invested a lot of time and money prior to the subject property being
purchased.
Mr. Peck stated he was sensitive to the views of the neighbors though he did not give a lot of
validity to the history with regard to the review criteria. He stated he battled with the same
issues; a high school would be coming to his neighborhood so he understood it was unfair to the
community and society to attempt to slow development down. He stated he doubted 2 or 3 of the
criteria so he would have to say no instead of yes.
Chairperson Sypinski stated the findings of the Zoning Commission had to be in keeping with
the review criteria as set forth in the U.D.C. to make judgment on proposals. He stated there
isn’t necessarily incompatibility in land uses from R-S to R-1. He stated the City could support
the R-1 designation given the capacity of S. 3rd Avenue though there were congested times
384
Page 8 of 11
Zoning Commission Minutes – May 15, 2012
during rush hour traffic. He stated the development would be required to have setbacks from the
trails, wetlands, lot boundaries, etc. and there was already a mix going on in the vicinity. He
stated he felt the application met the review criteria as set forth in the U.D.C.
The motion failed 1-3. Those voting aye being Chairperson Sypinski. Those voting nay being
Mr. Peck, and Mr. Garberg.
Mr. Garberg stated he would prefer to see the site zoned R-S and the fundamental question was
the character of the district and what existed around it.
Mr. Peck stated that by rejecting the R-1, it would be R-S by default. Chairperson Sypinski
suggested a formal recommendation to the City Commission. Mr. Peck recommended the R-S
district but did not make a motion.
2. Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-12055 – (8th Elementary School) A Zone Map
Amendment requested by the owner, Baxter Ranch Holding, Vesta Fern Anderson, P.O. Box
3253, Billings, MT 59103, applicant, Bozeman School District #7, Kevin Barre, 404 W. Main
St., Bozeman, MT 59715, and representative, TD&H Engineering, 108 W. Babcock St.,
Bozeman, MT 59715, requesting to establish an urban zoning designation of PLI (Public
Lands and Institutions) on 42.93 acres in conjunction with annexation. The property is located
on the north side of Durston Road between Cottonwood Road and Flanders Mill Road and is
legally described as Future COS, Part of Tract 2, COS 2554, SW ¼, Section 3, T2S, R5E,
Gallatin County, Montana. (Riley)
Associate Planner Doug Riley presented the Staff Report noting there had been a recent bond
election to purchase the property. He noted the proposal was for a zoning designation of PLI in
conjunction with annexation. He stated schools were a principal permitted use within the
district. He noted that there were two designated arterial streets adjacent to the site along with
one local street and the future extension of Annie Street along the northern property boundary.
He stated the majority of the adjacent area was designated for residential development. He noted
the surrounding zoning designations and added the site was pretty well bound by annexed
properties zoned residentially. He stated there were already some PLI zoning districts within the
vicinity of the property and directed the Zoning Commission to those locations. He stated the
Growth Policy indicated PLI was an acceptable zoning in the residential land use category; PLI is
considered a complimentary land use. He stated no public comment had been received and Staff
was supportive of the proposal as presented with Staff findings as outlined in the Staff Report.
Chairperson Sypinski asked if safe routes to school would be incorporated with the increased
traffic. Planner Riley responded the applicant had been in discussions with those groups and
those items would be addressed in the annexation review.
Dave Crawford, TD&H Engineering, stated he was there to help the School District and was
available to take questions.
385
Page 9 of 11
Zoning Commission Minutes – May 15, 2012
Kevin Barre, Director of Bozeman Public Schools Facilities, stated he was available for public
comment.
Mr. Garberg stated the firm he worked for was currently employed under a contract, but he
himself was not currently employed by the School District. Director McHarg suggested that Mr.
Garberg should recuse himself and step down as there is a current contract with his employer and
the School District.
Mr. Peck added he was on the steering committee for a group that wanted to procure land for
soccer fields potentially north of this site. Mr. McHarg responded if there had been no action and
no direct negotiations with the School District he would not need to recuse himself and suggested
treading carefully when moving forward.
MOTION: Mr. Peck moved, Chairperson Sypinski seconded, to forward a recommendation of
approval to the City Commission for Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-12055 and that
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 38.37.020 of the
Unified Development Code and Section 76-2-304 Montana Code Annotated with contingencies
as outlined in the Staff Report. The motion carried 2-0. Those voting aye being Mr. Peck and
Chairperson Sypinski with Mr. Garberg abstaining. Those voting nay being none.
3. Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-12056 – (Ditton) A Zone Map Amendment requested
by the owner and applicant, Clara O. Ditton Living Trust, C/O Randy Ditton, 4126 Story
Creek Dr., Fort Collins, CO 80525, and representative, David M. Albert, PLS, 404 E.
Madison Ave., Belgrade, MT 59714, requesting to establish an urban zoning designation of
R-S (Residential Suburban District) on 20 acres in conjunction with annexation. The property
is located at 2210 Bridger Drive and legally described as Tract B-1 of COS No. 2392-B,
Section 32, T1S, R6E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana. (Skelton)
Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the location of the site along
Highway 86 which was more commonly referred to as Bridger Drive. He stated that typically
when you see annexations, it was for the purposes of further development but there were
instances where the septic system had failed or the owner wanted access to public infrastructure
or fire protection. He noted adjacent land uses to the east and south held agricultural uses and
were still within the County jurisdiction. He stated the applicant intended to maintain the
existing buildings on a five acres parcel while deeding the remaining land. He stated that with
the exception of a tributary of Bridger Creek, the majority of the site was pasture and native
grasses. He stated the existing buildings had been there for many years. He directed the Zoning
Commission to a rendering of the vicinity zoning districts as well as the land use map. He stated
an individual could entertain a Growth Policy Amendment in the future but under the current
Growth Policy Staff would not be supportive of that amendment. He stated no public comment
had been received for the proposal though two members of the public were in attendance
regarding the property.
David Albert, 404 E. Madison Ave, Belgrade, MT, stated he was the owner’s representative, and
386
Page 10 of 11
Zoning Commission Minutes – May 15, 2012
the owner wanted to develop the land as necessary revenue. He stated the owner was in an
assisted living facility and could get no help in keeping their existing home on the site. He stated
Randy Ditton was attempting to support his mother’s needs from his own money and would end
up bankrupt if he kept on doing that. He stated they had attempted to divide the land through a
variance request with the County and after they’d gone through the process they had been denied.
He stated they wanted to create a five acre piece to retain the house and the remainder would be
sold to Mr. Barnard to be developed. He stated they had no issue with Staff contingencies and
there was no current intent of further development of the property.
Kay Newman, 2200 Bridger Drive, stated she was just to the west of the property. She stated she
was not concerned or opposed to the annexation, but was instead concerned with the existing
ditch; the head gate was about to fail and no one seemed to be concerned that the area would be
flooded.
Dan Archer, 2204 Bridger Drive, stated he was within the width of a road to the site. He stated
he had no objection to the annexation but echoed her concerns that the property would be flooded
at some point in the future.
Chairperson Sypinski asked if the applicant or Planner Skelton would like to address the flood
gate concern. Planner Skelton directed the Zoning Commission to a map of the floodplain and
noted that the property was not in a floodplain or wetland area though the flood gate was a
potential problem. Chairperson Sypinski asked who was responsible for the maintenance of the
flood gate. Planner Skelton responded it was generally the Farmer’s Canal Company. Mr.
McHarg responded he did not know the answer, but would forward the information to the City
Attorney and City Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Garberg moved, Mr. Peck seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval
to the City Commission for Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-12056 with Staff
contingencies as outlined in the Staff Report. The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being
Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Peck, and Mr. Garberg. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
Chairperso n Sypinski stated that as of tonight he was tendering his resignation from the Zoning
Commission. He extended his appreciation for current and past members of the Zoning
Commission. Director McHarg extended Staff’s appreciation to Mr. Sypinski for his services.
Director McHarg stated the Planning Board members would be extended an invitation to
participate in the Zoning Commission review.
I TEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
387