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