Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFirst Baptist Church Zone Map Amendment, Z-12219 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Tim McHarg, Planning Director SUBJECT: First Baptist Church Zone Map Amendment #Z-12219 MEETING DATE: November 5, 2012 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action (Legislative) RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission reviews the application materials, considers public comment and, as recommended in the staff report and by the Zoning Commission, approves the zone map amendment from R-3 to R-4 for Tract C of Van Horn Subdivision with contingencies listed in the staff report; and denial of the R-4 request for Lot 3 and Lot 4 of Minor Subdivision No. 233, with recommendation for approval of alternative R-3 zoning.” RECOMMENDED MOTION: Having reviewed the application materials, considered public comment, and considered all of the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for file #Z-12219 and Zoning Commission Resolution #Z-12219, and move to approve the zone map amendment of R-4 for Tract C of Van Horn Subdivision with contingencies listed in the staff report; and denial of the R-4 request for Lot 3 and Lot 4 of Minor Subdivision No. 233, and direct Staff to prepare an ordinance for the zone map amendment. BACKGROUND: The property owner, First Baptist Church of Bozeman, represented by Madison Engineering, LLC, has made application to the Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development for a Zone Map Amendment (ZMA) to amend the City Zone Map from R-3 (Residential Medium Density) to R-4, Residential High Density District) on approximately 12.3± acres of undeveloped land. The subject property is currently located in the corporate limits of the City of Bozeman being part of the original Van Horn Subdivision. The intent of the R-4 (Residential High Density District) is to provide for high-density residential development through a variety of housing types within the city with associated service functions. This will provide for a variety of compatible housing types to serve the varying needs of the community's residents. Although some office use is permitted, it shall remain as a secondary use to residential development. Secondary status shall be as measured by percentage of total building area. This rezoning application includes properties that have been historically developed as larger rual and suburban lots under the jurisdiction of the Gallatin County as part of County Zoning District #1. As surrounding lands have annexed to the corporate limits of the City of Bozeman and developed at urban densities the area has developed with a broad range of residential land use 167 types and become very eclectic in nature. This includes the public lands of the West Babcock Park to the west, Bozeman Ponds to the south, new Hyalite elementary school further to the west, and the Gallatin Valley Mall to the southeast. While Objective LU-1.3 of the Bozeman Community Plan encourages provisions to provide for and support infill development and redevelopment which provides additional density of use it also calls for respecting the context of the existing development which surrounds it. This is further emphasized under the “Residential” land use category description where 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 that advances the overall goals of the Bozeman growth policy. Based on the findings provided in the staff report as noted in the Review Criteria section beginning on page four the Planning Department is recommending a partial approval for only the west half of the site and denial of the east half as provided above in the recommended motion. The Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 16, 2012 to formally receive and review the application and all written and oral testimony on the proposal. The Zoning Commission voted 3-0 to recommend approval of the requested R-4 zoning to the City Commission for only the west parcel (Tract C of the Van Horn Subdivision) with the recommended contingencies included in the staff report and denial of the east two parcels (Lot 3 and Lot 4 of Minor Subdivision No. 223). The Zoning Commission discussion and public comment received at the hearing are found in the attached minutes from their meeting, as well as the attached Zoning Commission Resolution No. Z-12219. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the zone map amendment as recommended by Staff, the Development Review Committee and Zoning Commission. 2) Deny the zone amendment request. 3) Make alternate findings to the criteria for a zone map amendment and decide an alternative zoning district. Per Section 38.37.030.D.2, to consider the 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 b the City Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS: Rezoning the property will not have any immediate fiscal effects to the City. Future development/redevelopment of the properties under the requested R-4 zoning may increase tax values and corresponding revenue from the properties. Attachments: Staff Report, Applicant’s submittal materials, Zoning Commission Resolution #Z-12219, Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 10-16-12 Report compiled on: October 24, 2012 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 First Baptist Church ZMA Staff Report #Z-12219 Page 1 of 11 First Baptist Church Zone Map Amendment File # Z-12219 Zoning Commission and City Commission Staff Report Item: Zoning Application #Z-12219 – An application to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map from R-3 (Residential Medium Density District) to R-4 (Residential, High Density District) on approximately 12.3 acres. Owner/Applicant: First Baptist Church of Bozeman, 120 South Grand Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59718 Representative: Madison Engineering, LLC, 895 Technology Blvd., Suite 203, Bozeman, MT 59718 Date/Time: Before the Bozeman Zoning Commission on Tuesday, October 16, 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, November 5, 2012 at 6:00 PM in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue Bozeman, Montana Report By: Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Recommendation: Approval of R-4 for Tract C of Van Horn Subdivision with contingencies; and denial of R-4 request for Lot 3 and Lot 4 of Minor Subdivision No. 233 with recommendation for approval of alternative R-3 zoning. __________________________________________________________________________________ LOCATION The subject property is situated southeast of the intersection of Fowler Avenue and West Babcock Street and is generally located east of Fowler Avenue, approximately 350± feet south of West Babcock Street and west of Wilda Lane. The subject property is 12.3± acres in size and is legally described Tract C of the Van Horn Subdivision and Lot 3 and Lot 4 of Minor Subdivision No. 233 located in the Southwest One-Quarter of Section 11, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. Said properties are more commonly referred to as 131 and 132 Pond Row and the 3300 and 3400 Block of Ravalli Street extended. Please refer to the vicinity map on the following page. RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES The Planning Department’s recommended motion for consideration by the Zoning Commission for this Zone Map Amendment application is as follows: “Having reviewed the application materials, considered public comment, and considered all of the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application #Z-12219 and move to recommend approval of the requested Zone Map Amendment to the City Commission of R-4 for Tract C of Van Horn Subdivision with contingencies listed in the staff report; and denial of the R-4 request for Lot 3 and Lot 4 of Minor Subdivision No. 233, with recommendation for approval of alternative R-3 zoning.” 190 First Baptist Church ZMA Staff Report #Z-12219 Page 2 of 11 Recommended contingencies: 1. That all documents and exhibits necessary to rezone the property(s) shall be identified as the “First Baptist Church Zone Map Amendment”. 2. That the applicant submit a zone amendment map, titled “First Baptist Church 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(s) and zoning districts, and total acreage of the property(s). 3. That the Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant provides a metes and bounds legal description prepared by a licensed Montana surveyor and map of the area to be rezoned, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the zone map. PROPOSAL The property owner, First Baptist Church of Bozeman, represented by Madison Engineering, LLC, has made application to the Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development for a Zone Map Amendment (ZMA) to amend the City Zone Map from R-3 (Residential Medium Density) to R-4, Residential High Density District) on approximately 12.3± acres of undeveloped land. The subject property is currently located in the corporate limits of the City of Bozeman being part of the original Van Horn Subdivision. The applicant’s narrative is requesting the zone map amendment for the purposes to allow for a more efficient use and development of the property for the purposes for marketing the subject property. The applicant is also requesting the City to grant a relaxation for street frontage improvements to Fowler Avenue when the property is developed until such time that the remainder of the minor arterial between West Babcock Street and West Main Street is constructed. Said request to consider the scheduling of street improvements to Fowler Avenue with this Zone Map Amendment application is not appropriate. The request should be deferred until application for a site specific development or further subdivision is considered. 191 First Baptist Church ZMA Staff Report #Z-12219 Page 3 of 11 On September 19, 2012 the Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the Zone Map Amendment application and recommended approval of the application for the west parcel (Tract C of the Van Horn Subdivision) with the recommended contingencies included in this staff report and denial of the east two parcels (Lot 3 and Lot 4 of Minor Subdivision No. 223). LAND CLASSIFICATION AND ZONING The property is currently vacant undeveloped lands contiguous to developed lands to the north, south, east and west. The following existing land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property: North: Annexed residential land zoned “R-3” – Designated “Residential” on the City of Bozeman Future Land Use Map. South: Pubic parklands (Bozeman Ponds) zoned “PLI” (Public Lands and Institutions District) - Designated “Parks, Open Space and Recreational Lands” on the City of Bozeman Future Land Use Map. East: Partially developed City lands zoned R-2 and R-3 and partially developed County lands under the jurisdiction of the Gallatin County – both designated “Residential” on the City of Bozeman Future Land Use Map. West: Developed annexed land zoned R-3 (Medium Density District) and R-4 (Residential High Density District) – Designated “Residential” on the City of Bozeman Future Land Use Map. The intent of the R-3 (Residential Medium Density District) is to provide for the development of one- to five-household residential structures near service facilities within the city. It should provide for a variety of housing types to serve the varied needs of households of different size, age and character, while reducing the adverse effect of nonresidential uses. The intent of the R-4 (Residential High Density District) is to provide for high-density residential development through a variety of housing types within the city with associated service functions. This will provide for a variety of compatible housing types to serve the varying needs of the community's residents. Although some office use is permitted, it shall remain as a secondary use to residential development. Secondary status shall be as measured by percentage of total building area. Existing Zoning and Future Land Use Maps 192 First Baptist Church ZMA Staff Report #Z-12219 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 Code (UDC), and the thirteen (13) criteria established in Section 76-2-304, Montana Codes Annotated, and as a result offer the following summary-review comments for consideration by the Zoning and City Commission. A. Be in accordance with a growth policy. Yes. The subject property is recognized as “Residential” on Figure 3-1 Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman Community Plan as noted on the attached map at the end of this staff report. The “Residential” land use designation of the Bozeman Community Plan indicates that: “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 193 First Baptist Church ZMA Staff Report #Z-12219 Page 5 of 11 compatibility with adjacent development, natural constraints such as watercourses or steep slopes, and in a fashion which advances the overall goals of the Bozeman growth policy. The residential designation is intended to provide the primary locations for additional housing within the planning area.” Figure 3-1 (Future Lane Use Map) is not the only element of the growth policy which must be considered. There are many goals, objectives, and other text which must also be evaluated. While not every element will apply to every proposal, a broad evaluation of compliance is needed. A proposal may comply with Figure 3-1 but not the other elements of the plan. To be in accordance with the growth policy compliance must be to both Figure 3-1 and the other plan elements. Chapter 3 of the Bozeman Community Plan addresses land uses. Beginning on page 3-3, there are seven principles laid out which provide a foundation for Bozeman’s land use policies and practices. There is a description of each of them provided in the provided pages attached to this report. These are: Neighborhoods, Sense of Place, Natural Amenities, Centers, Integration of Action, Urban Density, and 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. 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 native grasses and 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 194 First Baptist Church ZMA Staff Report #Z-12219 Page 6 of 11 existing service mains to reduce the amount of extensions needed to provide service. Existing adjoining streets on the western and north sides of the property allow vehicular and pedestrian connections and circulation. 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 Fowler Avenue which is classified as a minor arterial street in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (GBATP) Figure 9-2; and from West Babcock Street to the north which is a collector street. An existing public access easement from West Babcock identified as Pond Row will extend southward and align with Ravalli Street extended from the west that will provide adequate vehicular circulation to the minor arterial and collector streets with development of the site. Future development review will require evaluation of street access depending on the design of the subject property, which may require improvements to the areas transportation network system; including, but not limited to Fowler Avenue street improvements. In terms of non-motorized transportation, the GBATP Figure 2-14 recognizes the bike lane constructed with improvements to Babcock Street in 2005. The Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails (PROST) Plan also identifies a proposed trail corridor in the immediate area of the zone map amendment that will follow the general location of a seasonal stream draining from the Bozeman Ponds to the south. A 10’ wide pedestrian and bicycle trail easement also exists along the east side of the Fowler Avenue right-of-way. With development of the site improvements to Pond Row and Ravalli Street extended will require evaluation of adequate pedestrian circulation facilities that take into consideration the proposed trail corridor identified in the PROST Plan. 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 future subdivision and/or other development of the property. All new structures and development on the subject property would be required to meet the minimum zoning requirements for setbacks, lot coverage, height limitations and lot sizes to ensure the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Per 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. 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 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 195 First Baptist Church ZMA Staff Report #Z-12219 Page 7 of 11 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”. An intensification of residential density with R-4 development would also subject future development to conform to dedicated parkland requirements and provision of water rights or payment-in-lieu of water rights. E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air. Yes. The regulatory standards set forth in the City of Bozeman Uniform Development Code (UDC) for the requested “R-4” zoning district provides the necessary provisions (i.e., yard setbacks, lot coverage, open space and building heights), which are intended to provide for adequate light and air for any proposed development on the subject property. The amount of parkland required is proportional to the number of dwelling units proposed. See also Item F and G. F. Prevention of overcrowding of land. Yes. The minimum yard setbacks established in the “R-4” district, as well as the limitations of lot coverage for principal and accessory structures and off-street parking facilities, would maintain the desired percent of buildable area. Minimum yard setbacks, height requirements, maximum lot coverage and required parking are also limiting factors that help prevent the overcrowding of land. Such regulatory standards should prevent the overcrowding of land, and maintain compatibility with the character of the surrounding area. 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 zoned under this proposal will result in a density increase beyond what currently exists on the vacant property. While the applicant intends to construct a single-household residential dwelling as the principle use, compliance with the regulatory standards set forth in the UDC and the International Building Code will aid in providing adequately sized dwelling unit(s) 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 2.83 with the latest census. This historical trend is anticipated to continue and would indicate that the undue concentration of the population is not a significant issue with any zoning designation. 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-4 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 undue concentrations of population. As applied to this site the property is largely unconstrained with exception to the existing water course being modestly sloped and with good proximity to infrastructure. See also Items F and J. 196 First Baptist Church ZMA Staff Report #Z-12219 Page 8 of 11 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. A 60’ wide public street easement across the west parcel (Tract C of Van Horn Subdivision) of the site will allow the local street Pond Row to turn westward and tie into the extension of Ravailli Street. 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. Public 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 south consist of public parklands as the Bozeman Ponds with the Gallatin Valley Mall to the southeast. Adjacent properties to the north, east and west are developed as a mix of detached single family dwellings, two-household dwellings and multi-family dwellings with apartments and condominiums to the southwest. See Item “J” for further discussion. J. Character of the district. Neutral. The most important factor in determining the suitability of a proposed zoning designation is the potential for compatibility with existing adjacent land uses. While the site in question is vacant, the surrounding area has a broad diversity of existing land uses. The area also contains pockets of unanexed lands as part of County Zoning District #1 under the jurisdiction of the Gallatin County that continues to diminish as annexation and infill occur in the area. As envisioned by the Future Land Use Plan of the Bozeman Community Plan, this area is designated to continue to develop as “Residential”. The adjacent uses to the north, east and west consist of residential land uses that range from R-2 (Residential, Two-Household Medium Density District), to R-3 (Residential Medium Density) and R-4 (Residential High Density). The majority of the adjacent lands are zoned R-3 or R-4 with exception of the unannexed lands to the east along Wilda Lane in Cahill Subdivision. These lots range from 0.5 to 1.1 acres in size with five of the ten lots under Gallatin County jurisdiction (i.e., County Zoning District #1). The remaining five lots are within the corporate limits of the City of Bozeman and zoned R-2 and R-3. The minimum lot size, lot width and yard setbacks for R-3 and R-4 are generally the same. The maximum building height varies from 42 feet in the R-3 to 44 feet in the R-4, while the R-2 maximum building height is 36 feet. The R-2 district also prohibits lodging houses and offices in addition to those land use controlled by the R-3 and R-4 districts. See Attachment “A” – Residential Regulatory Dimensional Standards”. While Valley Creek Subdivision, Phase 1 and 2 to the west, is zoned R-4 the land use inventory indicates that it is predominately developed as a mix of R-3 lands uses consisting of single family, two- household and multi-family dwellings. The only R-4 development in the area is located to the southwest in Parkway Plaza Subdivision situated immediately west of the Bozeman Ponds. 197 First Baptist Church ZMA Staff Report #Z-12219 Page 9 of 11 To the south is the Bozeman Ponds zoned PLI (Public Lands and Institutions District) and to the southeast is the Gallatin Valley Mall zoned B-2 (Community Business District). The R-4 allows a broader range of residential uses than the R-3 that includes apartments, offices, medical offices, clinics and centers, and townhouses of more than five attached dwelling units. A shallow watercourse that originates from the south at the Bozeman Ponds bisects the site and splits it almost perfectly in half. The Unified Development Code (UDC) has a minimum 50 foot watercourse setback. This will restrict the area available for development on the site and assist with additional open space and parkland that may be added to the current features of the Bozeman Ponds. Future planning and review requirements will also allow 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, current land use inventory and the diversity of uses in the area one could advocate that the R-4 and associated uses would be less in keeping with the existing and future character of adjacent lands along the east portions of the site than the adjacent properties to the west and south. K. Peculiar suitability for particular uses. No, as proposed. Yes, as recommended. The majority of the land uses to the north and west are zoned R-3 and R-4, but developed as R-3 with a mix of detached single family dwellings, two-household and multi-family dwellings along with public parklands and elementary school. The lands to the east are zoned R-2 and R-3, but developed as single family dwellings on larger suburban lots. The land use inventory for the R-4 property to the west (i.e., Valley Creek Subdivision, Phase 1 and 2) points to development as single family dwellings, two-household dwellings and multi-family dwellings as permitted with R-3 zoning. The only lands in proximity to this application that are developed as high density R-4 residential are the Westpark condominiums and apartments to the southwest across from the Bozeman Ponds (see attached vicinity map). While the regulatory standards (i.e., lot coverage, lot area, setbacks and building heights) are generally the same for R-3 and R-4 the range of permitted uses in the R-4 (i.e., apartments, offices, clinics and centers) does not limit the control of building massing and scale that is typical to that found in the immediate area. The R-3 zoning is generally more in keeping with the footprint of buildings seen within the context of this neighborhood and controls the massing and scale of structures through density limitations (i.e., multi-family structures or smaller) and physical separation of buildings. Based on these findings, the proposed zone map amendment does not provide a reasonable consideration to the character of the district by maintaining the current land use patterns and types in the immediate area. L. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. No, as proposed. Yes, as recommended. The R-4 zoning designation for this application is supportive of the overall intent of the growth policy in regards to encouraging infill development and the establishment of urban density. While this zoning will also allow this property to develop at a density that takes advantage of the existing infrastructure available, it does not take into consideration its proximity to single family dwellings and larger suburban lots along its eastern boundary (i.e., Cahill Subdivision) and to the north. The “Residential” land use designation of the Bozeman Community Plan indicates that 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 existing watercourse offers a physical demarcation boundary between land uses that promotes development on the east half of the site to remain R-3 (i.e., Lot 2 and Lot 3, Minor Subdivision 198 First Baptist Church ZMA Staff Report #Z-12219 Page 10 of 11 No.223), but allow for higher density R-4 development (i.e., Track C of the VanHorn Subdivision) on the west regions of the subject property. Implementation of the existing watercourse as an amenity between a transition of land uses, in concert with provisions for open space and residential parkland to the south along the Bozeman Ponds would encourage the most appropriate use of land within the context of this neighborhood. M. Promotion of Compatible Urban Growth. Yes. The adopted growth policy is the means by which land use patterns are evaluated and locations for appropriate uses assigned in a broad fashion. To guide this evaluation the Bozeman Community Plan provides several guiding ideas and principles for the physical development of the City as discussed above in Item “A”. Development consistent with these ideals and principles are more likely to be compatible with adjacent development both within and outside of the City limits. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the writing of this staff report, the City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development has not received any public testimony on the matter. Any written comments received by the Planning Office following completion of the respective review packets will be forwarded to the Zoning Commission and City Commission during the public hearings. 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, recommends approval of Tract C of the Van Horn Subdivision (west half of application) with contingencies and denial of Lot 3 and Lot 4 of Minor Subdivision No. 233. The recommendation of the Bozeman Zoning Commission will be forwarded to the Bozeman City Commission for consideration at its public hearing scheduled for Monday, November 19, 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. REPORT SENT TO First Baptist Church of Bozeman, 120 South Grand Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59718 Madison Engineering, LLC, 895 Technology Blvd., Suite 203, Bozeman, MT 59718 ATTACHMENTS Attachment “A” - Table 38.08.020, Table 38.08.040-1, Table 38.08.040-2 and Table 38.08.06, BMC (Table of Residential Uses) Exhibit “A” – Vicinity Area Map Exhibit “B” – Vicinity Site Map Applicant’s submittal materials 199 First Baptist Church ZMA Staff Report #Z-12219 Page 11 of 11 200 ATTACHMENT “A” RESIDENTIAL REGULATORY DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS Table 38.08.020 Table of Residential Uses Authorized Uses R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-O RMH Accessory dwelling units8, 9 C C P P P P — Agricultural uses on 2.5 acres or more2 P — — — — — — Agricultural uses on less than 2.5 acres2 C — — — — — — Apartments/apartment building, as defined in article 42 of this chapter — — — — P P — Assisted living/elderly care facilities — — — C C P — Bed and breakfast C C C C P P — Commercial stable C — — — — — — Community centers C C C C C P C Community residential facilities (with more than four residents) C C C P P P C Cooperative housing C C C P P P C Day care centers C C C P P P C Essential services (Type I) P P P P P P P Essential services (Type II) C — — — — — C Extended stay lodgings C C C P P P — Family day care home P P P P P P P Fences A A A A A A A Fraternity and sorority houses — — — C P P — Golf courses C C C — — — C Greenhouses A A A A A A — Group day care home P P P P P P P Guesthouses A A A A A A — Home-based businesses5 A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C Lodginghouses — — — C P P — Offices — — — — C3 P — Other buildings and structures typically accessory to authorized uses A A A A A A A Private garages A A A A A A A Private or jointly owned recreational facilities A A A A A A A Private stormwater control facilities A A A A A A A Private vehicle and boat storage A A A A A A A/C4 Public and private parks P P P P P P P Manufactured homes on permanent foundations1 P P P P P P P 201 Manufactured home communities — — — — — — P Medical offices, clinics, and centers — — — — C P — Recreational vehicle parks C — — — — — P Signs, subject to article 28 of this chapter A A A A A A A Single-household dwelling P P P P P P P Temporary buildings and yards incidental to construction work A A A A A A A Temporary sales and office buildings A A A A A A A Three- or four-household dwelling — — — P P P — Two-household dwelling — — P P P P — Townhouses (two attached units) P7 P7 P P P P P7 Townhouses (five attached units or less) — — — P6 P P — Townhouses (more than five attached units) — — — — P P — Tool sheds for storage of domestic supplies A A A A A A A Uses approved as part of a PUD per article 20 of this chapter C C C C C C C Veterinary uses C — — — — — — Table 38.08.040-1 Lot Area Table Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet1 R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-O RMH Single-household dwelling See subsection C of this section 5,0001 5,0001 5,0001 5,0001 5,0001 5,0001 Single-household dwelling (only for dwellings to satisfy minimum requirements of chapter 10, article 8)7 2,7008 2,7008 2,7008 2,7008 2,7008 2,7008 2,7008 Two-household dwelling - - 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 - Two-household dwelling (only for dwellings to satisfy minimum requirements of chapter 10, article 8)7 - - 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 - Lot area per dwelling in three- or four-household dwelling configurations - - - 3,000 3,000 3,000 - Lot area per dwelling in three- or four-household dwelling configurations (only for dwellings to satisfy minimum requirements of chapter 10, article 8)7 - - - 2,500 2,500 2,500 - Townhouses - - 3,0006 3,0002 3,0002 3,0002 - Townhouses (only for dwellings to satisfy minimum requirements of chapter 10, article 8)7 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Apartments - first dwelling - - - - 5,000 5,000 - 202 Apartments - each dwelling after the first - - - - 1,200 1,200 - Apartments - each dwelling after the first (only for dwellings to satisfy minimum requirements of chapter 10, article 8)7 - - - - 900 900 - Additional area required for an accessory dwelling unit3 1,0004 1,000 1,0005 1,0005 1,0005 1,0005 - All other uses 5,0001 5,0001 5,0001 5,0001 5,0001 5,0001 5,0001 Table 38.08.040-2 Lot Width Table Minimum Lot Width in Feet R-S R- 1 R- 2 R-3 R-4 R-O RMH Single-household dwelling See subsection C of this section 50 50 50 50 50 50 Single-household dwelling (only for dwellings to satisfy requirements of chapter 10, article 8) See subsection C of this section 30 30 30 30 30 30 Two household dwelling - - 60 60 50 50 - Accessory dwelling unit1 50 50 60 60 60 60 - Dwellings in three- or four-household dwelling configurations - - - 60 60 60 - Townhouses 30 30 30 Width of interior units Width of interior units Width of interior units - All other uses See subsection C of this section 50 50 50 50 50 50 Table 38.08.060 Residential Building Height Table Roof Pitch in Feet Maximum Building Height in Feet R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-O RMH Less than 3:12 24 24 24 32 34 34 24 3:12 or greater but less than 6:12 30 28 28 38 38 38 28 6:12 or greater but less than 9:12 34 32 32 40 42 42 32 Equal to or greater than 9:12 38 36 36 42 44 44 36 203 Page 1 of 5 Zoning Commission Minutes – October 16, 2012 ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2012 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Garberg called the meeting to order at 6:14 p.m. and ordered the Recording Secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Randy Wall, Vice Chairperson Trever McSpadden Erik Garberg, Chairperson City Commission Liaison: Members Absent: David Peck Guests Present: Cheryl Smith Bud Smith Paul G. Newby Al MacSween Virginia MacSween Staff Present: David Skelton, Senior Planner Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary 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 Garberg closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 MOTION: Mr. McSpadden moved, Vice Chairperson Wall seconded, to approve the minutes of September 18, 2012 as presented. The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Garberg, Mr. McSpadden, and Vice Chairperson Wall. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-12219 – (First Baptist Church) A Zone Map Amendment requested by the owner First Baptist Church of Bozeman, 120 S. Grand Ave., Bozeman, MT 59715 and representative Madison Engineering, Chris Budeski, 895 205 Page 2 of 5 Zoning Commission Minutes – October 16, 2012 Technology Boulevard, Suite 203, Bozeman, MT 59718 to change the urban zoning designation on 12.3 acres from R-3 (Residential Medium Density District) to R-4 (Residential High Density District). The property is generally located southeast of the intersection of Fowler Avenue and Ravalli Street and is legally described as Tract C, Van Horn Subdivision, Lots 3 & 4, MiSub #223, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Skelton) Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was to allow a change in urban zoning designation on 12.3 acres from R-3 to R-4 and noted the location of the property. He noted the Community Plan Land Use designation had also been adhered to with regard to what the proposal was requesting. He noted the site was located in proximity to two major transportation corridors as well as a local street designation to the east of the subject property. He noted Pond Row would be tied into the extension of Ravalli Street eastward from where the street currently ceased. He noted that when the property was under the jurisdiction of the City/County Planning jurisdiction as part of County Zoning District #1 they had always been slated for residential development. He noted the property had been annexed under three separate annexations which had been commenced in the mid to late 1990’s. He noted the adjacent properties and their zoning designations. He stated there was a mix of annexed and un-annexed lands to the east which included County jurisdictional areas. He identified the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts located immediately to the west, as well as the parklands in the area; while also noting the diversity and eclectic collection of land use patterns. Senior Planner Skelton directed the Zoning Commission to the Land Use map which indicated adjacent duplex and single family uses as well as some multi-family uses that existed. He noted the majority of existing development in the R-4 district to the west was generally developed as single family development with some two-household dwellings. He stated Staff could not historically identify an existing farm stead relative to the site, but noted the property included native grasses with a watercourse that essentially bisected the property. He noted the stream was somewhat intermittent and there was substantial vegetation on the south end of the site. He noted it was questionable what would happen to the mature Cottonwood Trees on Fowler Avenue as it developed to a full minor arterial standard and it would remain to be seen with future development. He stated the primary uses in the area were a mix of single family, duplexes and multi-family uses and he had noted the Staff Report contained a comparison between the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts standards (setback, lot area, lot coverage, etc.,) including only a minimal difference in allowable building heights (a two foot difference). He noted the differences were two fold; the R-4 uses that included apartments and apartment complexes as well as offices, medical clinics and centers, and lodging houses that would not be allowed within the R-3 zoning district. He stated the allowable density per building would offer variations in building mass and scale with regard to those allowed within the R-3 zoning district because of the limited density of four dwelling units per structure; unlike the R-4 that allows 12-unit and 18-unit structures or larger. He stated Staff had visited the site on three occasions and had identified the watercourse as an opportunity to establish a physical demarcation between the proposed land uses. He noted there were enough physical features and design possibilities that the site would lend itself to a more effective development as a Planned Unit Development in-lieu of relying regulatory standards of the R-4 designation. 206 Page 3 of 5 Zoning Commission Minutes – October 16, 2012 Planner Skelton stated there were large suburban residential lots adjacent to the site and noted Staff felt the R-3 zoning district was appropriate for the east half of the property while the west half was appropriate for the R-4 zoning district. He noted there had been no written public comment and only one phone call expressing concern with regard to the density of the proposed zoning. He noted Staff was supportive with the Staff contingencies as outlined in the Staff Report of a partial approval and noted a recommended motion had been included in the report. He noted the applicant’s request for consideration of waiver to an SID for Fowler Avenue versus having to build the minor arterial had been submitted but it would be considered with a specific development of the subject property in the future. Vice Chairperson Wall asked if a trail was included through the site. Planner Skelton responded there was a couple of footpaths traversing the property but no public easements in place for use by the general public. He also noted that GVLT has recently installed a puble trail at the northeast corner of the Bozeman Ponds that continues around the north side of the mall. He noted that the current footpath generally follows the existing watercourse. Vice Chairperson Wall asked if there would be restrictions placed on the watercourse. Planner Skelton responded there was a 50 foot setback required on either side of the watercourse; but noted the applicant could always request a variance to those requirements. Vice Chairperson Wall clarified that the west parcel would be approved for R-4 and the east two parcels would be approved for R-3 zoning designations. Planner Skelton responded Vice Chairperson Wall was correct. Chris Budeski, Madison Engineering, addressed the Zoning Commission. He stated Planner Skelton had done a good job of laying everything out and noted the applicant was amenable to the contingencies and conditions of approval as outlined by Staff. He noted Fowler Lane would require major improvements (35 feet with a raised median and tapers on both ends) and noted the R-4 zoning district on a portion of the land would allow funding for those required improvements. He noted the irrigation ditch would fall under the jurisdiction of the ditch company and could be piped; he noted the stream corridor would likely become an amenity on the site and would enhance the site. He stated the location would be great for multi-family development. Vice Chairperson Wall asked if there was any discussion of changing the zoning designation on the teardrop shaped parcel to public parkland. Mr. Budeski responded it would not be dedicated, but it would potentially be available to the public for use; he added they would need to discuss it with the City Parks Department and added it would be a great location for a north south trail corridor. Vice Chairperson Wall asked why the applicant was not holding a harder line for the R- 4 zoning district. Mr. Budeski responded it was a simple response; there was adjacent single household development. Vice Chairperson Wall suggested the teardrop shaped parcel being dedicated as parkland while the stream corridor contained a trail should be considered as it was a logical piece as a connection. Mr. Budeski responded that in reality an R-3 zoning was four- plexes while an R-4 was as many units as could be possibly fit on the site; the difference being three stories or less with regard to number of units. He noted the stream would provide a corridor down the middle and the site plan would include a parking lot down the center of the site with buildings on each side. He noted the east side of the site abutted single family homes while the west half could be higher density and fill both needs. Planner Skelton added that it is 207 Page 4 of 5 Zoning Commission Minutes – October 16, 2012 important to consider the potential development of any of the uses allowed in the R-4 zoning district not just the possibility of apartment buildings; he noted Staff’s recommendation was trying to respect the current land uses that were currently there as called for under the Residential land use designation in the Bozeman Community Plan which had prompted their recommendations. Vice Chairperson Wall stated he would like to see the infill parcels used to their best and highest use and suggested the easternmost portion of the parcel could be zoned R- 4. Chairperson Garberg opened the item for public comment. Virginia MacSween, 342 Wilda Lane, stated she had no problem with the existing single family units, but they had problems with the density of the condo units adjacent to them due to loud parties. She suggested there should be consideration for the neighbors and adequate space with parking for the newly constructed properties. Vice Chairperson Wall asked if Ms. MacSween was familiar with the “unruly party” ordinance for the City of Bozeman and recommended she look into the enforcement that would get progressively worse for the offenders; he suggested calling the police. Ms. MacSween responded she had already attempted that method but there was a constant change in tenancy in those units. She added she would like to see the occupants have adequate space inside and out. Cheryl Smith stated she had property on Wilda Lane directly to the east of the subject property. She stated she had a problem with the number of units that could be allowed on the property; she noted she had a duplex but everyone else had a single family house. She stated she would hate to see a three story building with up to 32 units per acres when right behind them was a duplex on an acre; she suggested a more gradual zoning change and noted she supported maintaining the R- 3 zoning on the eastern portion of the lot. Mr. MacSween, 314 Wilda Lane, stated he had lived on Wilda Lane for 35 years. He stated if you looked in the paper there were a lot of places for rent including houses and apartments. He stated the high density was the wrong thing to do and R-3 should be the maximum for the area. Seeing no further public comment forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. Chairperson Garberg called for Zoning Commission discussion on the item. MOTION: Mr. McSpadden moved, Vice Chairperson Wall seconded, that having reviewed the application materials, considered public comment, and considered all of the information presented, to hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application #Z-12219 and to recommend approval of the requested Zone Map Amendment to the City Commission of R-4 for Tract C of Van Horn Subdivision with contingencies listed in the staff report; and denial of the R-4 request for Lot 3 and Lot 4 of Minor Subdivision No. 233, with recommendation for approval of alternative R-3 zoning. Mr. McSpadden stated that though there were density considerations and allowable use considerations, he was supportive of the R-3 on the eastern portion of the lot and given that the 208 Page 5 of 5 Zoning Commission Minutes – October 16, 2012 applicant was amendable to the recommended conditions of approval. He suggested the concerned public keep their eye on the development of the subject property and he agreed with Staff with regard to the land use trend and transition in that location. He stated he agreed with Staff and found the application to be in keeping with the review criteria as set forth in the U.D.C. Chairperson Garberg stated he appreciated the applicant being amenable to Staff’s recommendation to provide transition with regard to the proposed zoning district and the R-3 zoning on the eastern portion of the sitet. The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Garberg, Mr. McSpadden, and Vice Chairperson Wall. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS No items were forthcoming. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:06 p.m. Erik Garberg, Chairperson David Skelton, Senior Planner Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 209 Ditton ZMA 1 RESOLUTION #Z-12056 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 RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN DISTRICT) ON 20.0 ACRES CONTINGENT UPON ANNEXATION OF SAID PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS TRACT B-1 OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY NO. 2392-B, LOCATED IN THE SE ¼ OF SECTION 32, T1S, R6E, 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, Clara O. Ditton Living Trust, c/o Randy Ditton, represented by David M. Albert, PLS 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 RS (Residential Suburban District) for 20.0± 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 17 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, two members of the general public provided public testimony that was not in opposition to the proposed annexation and zone map amendment, but instead expressed concern with flooding in the area due to the lack of maintenance, upkeep and repair of the Bridger Creek diversion dam situated along Highway 86/Bridger Drive; and 210 Ditton ZMA 2 WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission offered the opportunity for the applicant or Planning Department to respond on the status of the Bridger Creek diversion dam and the Planning Department noted they would forward any available information onto the City Attorney and City Commission; 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 17 of the Bozeman Unified Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission, on a vote of 3-0, officially recommends to the Bozeman City Commission approval of zoning application #Z-12056 to amend the Bozeman zoning map to establish an initial zoning designation of RS (Residential Suburban District) on 20.0± acres contingent upon annexation of said property which is described as Tract B-1, COS No. 2392-B, located in the SE¼ of Section 32, T1S, R6E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana subject to the following contingencies: 1. That all documents and exhibits necessary to establish an initial municipal zoning designation shall be identified as the “Ditton 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 “Ditton 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. DATED THIS DAY OF , 2012, Resolution #Z-12056 _____________________________ ____________________________ Tim McHarg, Planning Director Ed Sypinski, Chairperson Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman Zoning Commission 211