HomeMy WebLinkAboutPine Meadows Zone Map Amendment Request at 310 Valley Drive Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Doug Riley, Associate Planner
Steve Worthington, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Pine Meadows Zone Map Amendment #Z-12298
MEETING DATE: February 25, 2013
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action (Legislative)
RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission takes final action to adopt a zoning of R-1 (Residential
Single-Household Low Density) for this application.
Staff recommends the Commission withdraw the motion made and amended at the February 4, 2013 meeting (which was continued until February 25th) and in its place make and consider a new motion which recognizes the original staff findings and recommendation of the Zoning Commission to adopt
the zoning as applied for but determines that due to the character of the existing neighborhood that R-1
zoning is more consistent with the character of the district. To facilitate Commission action, we
provide an alternative finding related to neighborhood character. This action is recommended as the below (tabled) motion included the reference “based upon the analysis and findings in the staff report”... (which was providing analysis and findings in support of the applicant’s requested R-3 and
R-2 zonings).
MOTION CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 25TH: (Motion made and amended at the February 4, 2013
Commission Meeting prior to the item being continued): It was moved by Cr. Mehl, seconded by Cr. Taylor that based upon the analysis and findings in the staff report, and after consideration of public
comment and the recommendation of the Zoning Commission, I move to approve this zone map
amendment for R-1 (Residential Single-Household Low Density District) for the entire 4.02 acres with
the 4 recommended contingencies listed on page 2 of the Staff Report and direct staff to prepare an ordinance for the map amendment.
NEW RECOMMENDED MOTION: (Following withdrawal of the above motion)
Based upon the criteria for zoning in Chapter 38, Article 37, BMC, and Section 76-2-304, MCA, after consideration of public comment and the Zoning Commission recommendation and having
received no protest from the property owner to R-1 zoning, I adopt the staff findings included in
the February 4th staff report and the alternative findings regarding neighborhood compatibility
provided in the February 25th report, and move to apply R-1 (Residential Single-Household Low Density) to the entire 4.02 acres and include the four contingencies listed on page two of the February 4th staff report.
139
BACKGROUND: Determination of original zoning for this property was initially on the City
Commission’s agenda of February 4, 2013 in conjunction with a request for annexation. Following the
public hearing and Commission deliberation, the above motion was made and amended but by
adoption of a subsequent motion was continued to February 25, 2013. The purpose of the continuation
was to provide the applicant time to consider whether to protest application of R-1 zoning should the Commission move to do so.
As the Commission was considering whether to adopt a zoning designation different than what had
been requested by the applicant, the following “Public Hearing Procedure and Requirement” section
from the Bozeman Municipal Code (Sect. 38.37.030.D.2, BMC) had to be considered:
“If the City Commission intends to adopt a zoning designation different than that applied for, the hearing will be continued for a minimum of one week to enable the applicant to consider
their options and whether to protest the possible action. In the case of protest against a change
to the zoning map by the applicant the same favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and
voting members of the City Commission is required as for any other protested zoning action.”
Therefore, prior to the vote on the main motion, by motion the Commission took appropriate action to continue this item to allow the applicant time to consider whether they would protest the application of
R-1 to the property. As indicated in the attached letter, the applicant’s representative has now indicated
“they are not protesting the R1 zoning of their property.”
In addition, the protest petition received from concerned neighbors does not apply to R-1 as the
petition was to “this proposed annexation and zoning…” While the majority of public comment opposed the zoning as proposed by the applicant the comment generally suggested R-1 as more
appropriate zoning for the property. See letter dated January 15, 2013 to the Zoning Commission from
Brian Gallik, attorney at law representing concerned citizens in the Smith Subdivision (“…we
specifically request [] a denial of R-2 and R-3, and , instead, forward a recommendation of R-1.”). As
such, the City Attorney determines that due to the language of the petition and the public comment presented the petition is not applicable should the Commission apply R-1 zoning to the property. As a
result of both the applicant’s written confirmation R-1 is appropriate and the inapplicability of the
neighbor’s protest provision, unless additional protest meeting the threshold requirements is provided,
the 2/3 majority vote required for all of the Commission actions (both this initial approval and the later
implementing ordinance) is not required to implement the R-1 zoning.
During the February 4th discussion, in its deliberations regarding whether R-2 and R-3 were
appropriate or whether R-1 should be applied to the property, the Commission focused on the character
of the existing neighborhood; particularly, the character of the neighborhood adjacent to Valley Drive.
Should the Commission adopt R-1 for the property, Staff provides the following alternative finding
regarding the character of the existing neighborhood:
Alternate Finding for Criteria J - Character of the District (p. 9 of the staff report) Based upon the existing character of Valley Drive being single family homes, R-1 zoning is the
appropriate zoning for this property to match the character of the district (neighborhood) and
provides an appropriate transition from the higher density zonings approved to the east of this
property.
As indicated above, staff recommends the Commission withdraw the original motion (as it referenced
the analysis and findings of the staff report which was in support of the requested R-3 and R-2
zonings) and make a new motion (see above) that recognizes the initial staff findings and
recommendation of the Zoning Commission, but adopts the alternative finding provided above
regarding the character of the existing neighborhood.
140
For reference purposes, the original packet materials from the February 4, 2013 Commission meeting
are again attached to this memorandum.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the application of R-1 zoning as recommended above as
determined by the City Commission at the February 4, 2013 public hearing.
2) Deny the zone map amendment request.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Annexing the property and establishing municipal zoning will enable future
development of the property with the full infrastructure and public services (police, fire, streets, etc.) of
the City. This would increase tax values and corresponding revenue from the property. The City will accrue additional costs to service the property with municipal service.
Attachments: February 12, 2013 letter from Applicant’s Representative, original packet materials from February 4, 2013 City Commission meeting
Report compiled on: February 14, 2013
141
142
PINE MEADOWS ZMA – #Z-12298
PACKET MATERIALS FROM 2-4-13 COMMISSION MEETING
143
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Doug Riley, Associate Planner
Steve Worthington, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Pine Meadows Zone Map Amendment #Z-12298
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2013
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action (Legislative)
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission adopts the provided staff findings and approves
the zone map amendment, as recommended by the Zoning Commission, with the 4
recommended contingencies listed on Page 2 of the Staff Report, and directs staff to prepare an ordinance for the map amendment.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Based upon the analysis and findings in the Staff Report, and after consideration of public comment and the recommendation of the Zoning
Commission, I move to approve the zone map amendment request for R-3 on 0.58 acres
and R-2 on 3.44 acres as proposed with the 4 recommended contingencies listed on page 2 of the Staff Report and direct staff to prepare an ordinance for the map amendment.
BACKGROUND: The property owner/ applicant, Lorie L. Hovanec, represented by Madison
Engineering, has made application to the City for a Zone Map Amendment to amend the City of
Bozeman Zone Map to establish an initial municipal zoning designation of R-3 (Residential
Medium Density District) on approximately 0.58 acres adjoining Durston Road and Valley Drive and for R-2 (Residential Two-Household Medium Density District) for the remaining 3.44 acres in conjunction with annexation request #A-12007. The subject property is located on the south
side of Durston Road, east of Valley Drive, with a property address of 310 Valley Drive.
(NOTE: This property is immediately west and adjoins the 2 acre Leep property that was
approved for R-3 zoning by the City Commission in 2012). The underlying Bozeman Community Plan land use designation for the property is “Residential”. On December 19, 2012 the Development Review Committee (DRC) recommended approval of the application and their
recommended contingencies are included on page 2 of the attached staff report.
The Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Zone Map Amendment at their
January 15, 2013 meeting to formally receive and review the application and all written and oral testimony on the proposal. The Zoning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the requested zoning designations. The Zoning Commission discussion and public comment
received at the Zoning Commission hearing can be found in the attached minutes from their
meeting, as well as the attached Zoning Commission Resolution.
144
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: As noted in the minutes of the Zoning Commission meeting, a letter
and testimony was supplied at the Zoning Commission meeting by an attorney indicating he
represented “the concerned citizens of the Smith Subdivision” and indicated that there were
covenants in place for this property and suggested that R-1 was the appropriate zoning for this property (copy included in packet materials). In these regards, Sec. 38.01.100 - Private
restrictions – contains the City’s policy regarding private restrictions (covenants) as follows:
"This chapter is not intended to affect any existing private agreement or condition such as a deed restriction or covenant. If any provision of this chapter is more restrictive or imposes a higher standard than any such private restriction, the requirements of this chapter shall control. Where the provisions of any private restriction are more restrictive or impose higher standards than the
provisions of this chapter, the city has no duty to enforce such private restrictions or advise of
their existence. The city may enforce a private restriction if the city is a party to such covenant or restriction, if such restriction was required by the city, or if it was relied upon by the city during the land development process in order to meet the requirements of this chapter or another
required standard. The city may prohibit private restrictions that violate matters of law.
Covenants are subject to the requirements of section 38.38.030."
Staff has discussed this matter with the City Attorney who has advised that since the City was not a party to these covenants, (obviously since this is County property and the covenants appear
to be originally dated 1967), they do not have any legal bearing on this rezoning action. The City
Attorney advises that the Commission, as with all Zone Map Amendments, utilize the REVIEW
CRITERIA of State Stature and the BMC contained within the staff report (see page 5) and the
recommendations of the advisory bodies in the evaluation of this application.
If the City Commission determines to adopt a zoning designation different than what has been requested by the applicant, the following “Public Hearing Procedure and Requirement” section
from the Bozeman Municipal Code (Section 38.37.030.D.2) must be considered:
“If the City Commission intends to adopt a zoning designation different than that applied for, the hearing will be continued for a minimum of one week to enable the applicant to consider their options and whether to protest the possible action. In the case of protest against a change to the
zoning map by the applicant the same favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and voting
members of the City Commission is required as for any other protested zoning action.”
It should also be noted that a Valley Drive resident indicated at the Zoning Commission Meeting
that she has a “petition” protesting the Zone Map amendment by a number of property owners within 150 feet of the property (as of the writing of this memorandum, staff had not been
provided a copy of this petition). This is mentioned as Section 38.37.030.D.1 of the BMC
indicates that:
IN THE CASE OF WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST SUCH CHANGES SIGNED BY
THE OWNERS OF 25% 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.
If staff is presented with this petition prior to the meeting, and can verify this property owner threshold is met prior to the meeting, we will advise the Commission accordingly.
145
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the zone map amendment as recommended above by
the DRC and Zoning Commission.
2) Deny the zone amendment request and consider a zoning
designation different than what has been requested by the applicant and continue the item for a minimum of one week to allow the applicant to consider their options and whether to protest the
possible action (as required under 38.37.030.D.2 cited above).
FISCAL EFFECTS: Annexing the property and establishing the new municipal zoning will
enable future development of the property with the full infrastructure and public services (police, fire, streets, etc.) of the City. This would increase tax values and corresponding revenue from
the property. The City will accrue additional costs to service the property with municipal service.
Attachments: Staff Report, Applicant’s submittal materials, Zoning Commission Resolution #Z-
12298, 1-15-13 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes, public comments
Report compiled on: January 24, 2013
146
Pine Meadows ZMA Staff Report #Z-12298 Page 1 of 10
PINE MEADOWS ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FILE # Z-12298 CITY COMMISSION AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Item: Zoning Application #Z-12298 – An application to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map to establish a municipal zoning designation of R-3 (Residential Medium Density District) on
approximately 0.58 acres and R-2 (Residential Two-Household Medium Density District) on
approximately 3.44 acres.
Owner/Applicant: Lorie L. Hovanec, PO Box 240886, Anchorage, AK 99524-0886
Representative: Madison Engineering, 895 Technology Blvd., Suite 203, Bozeman, MT 59718
Date/Time: Before the Bozeman Zoning Commission on Tuesday, January 15, 2013 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, February 4, 2013 at
6:00 PM in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue Bozeman, Montana
Report By: Doug Riley, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Approval with contingencies
LOCATION
The subject property is located on the south side of Durston Road, east of Valley Drive, with a property address of 310 Valley Drive. (NOTE: This property is immediately west and adjoins the 2
acre Leep property that was approved for R-3 zoning by the City Commission in 2012). The
approximately 4.02 acres is legally described as Tract 7, Smith Subdivision located in the NW 1/4 of
Section 11, T2S, R5E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana. Please refer to the vicinity map below.
147
Pine Meadows ZMA Staff Report #Z-12298 Page 2 of 10
RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES
Based upon review and consideration by the Development Review Committee and Planning Staff, and after evaluation of the proposed zoning against the criteria set forth in 38.37.020 of the Unified Development Code and Section 76-2-304 Montana Codes Annotated, the Planning Staff recommends
approval of the requested Zone Map Amendment with the following contingencies:
1. That all documents and exhibits necessary to establish an initial municipal zoning designation
shall be identified as the “Pine Meadows 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 “Pine Meadows 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.
PROPOSAL
In conjunction with Annexation, the property owner has made application to the Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development for a Zone Map Amendment to establish an initial municipal zoning designation of R-3 (Residential Medium Density District) on approximately 0.58
acres adjoining Durston Road and Valley Drive and for R-2 (Residential Two-Household Medium
Density District) for the remaining 3.44 acres. The subject property is not currently located within the
corporate limits of the City of Bozeman and this ZMA is being processed with a concurrent annexation application. The overall property varies in width from approximately 123 feet to 165 feet and is approximately 1,170 feet long.
Note: The applicant originally submitted their application requesting R-O (Residential – Office)
for the 0.58 acres on the corner of Durston Road and Valley Drive. Upon planning staff
explaining that we would not be able to recommend that portion for approval, (due to the potential for incompatible commercial land uses that could be located in that zoning district and considering the neighboring land uses), the applicant amended their application (see letter dated November 27, 2012) to request R-3 for that portion.
The intent of the R-3 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.”
148
Pine Meadows ZMA Staff Report #Z-12298 Page 3 of 10
The intent of the R-2 District “is to provide for one- and two-household residential development at urban densities within the city in areas that present few or no development constraints, and for community facilities to serve such development while respecting the residential quality and nature of
the area.”
On December 19, 2012 the Development Review Committee (DRC) recommended approval of the
application with the recommended contingencies included above.
It should be noted that staff is supportive of either R-1 or R-2 zoning for the 3.44 acre portion of the property. Essentially, the largest difference between the two zonings is that the R-2 zoning district
allows duplexes. Since R-2 zoning would allow duplexes to be constructed on the property, this
additional density may help to offset needed infrastructure costs to develop the property. R-2 zoning
also provides a transition of zoning from the R-3 and R-4 to the east and the R-1 across Valley Drive to the west.
In addition, while the owner/applicant has proposed the split zoning for the property, the Zoning and
City Commission may determine that one single zoning is preferable for the entire property.
It should also be noted that, in response to this application, nearby landowners have inquired as
to the details regarding the future improvement of Valley Drive, extension of sewer and water, (as shown on the applicant’s submitted map), and other development details. Staff must point out that this application is only to determine what is the appropriate zoning to be placed on the property in conjunction with annexing the property to the City. Actual infrastructure and
development details will not be determined until an actual development plan (e.g. subdivision,
site plan, etc.) is subsequently submitted for the property.
LAND CLASSIFICATION AND ZONING
The property currently has a single family home located on the southern portion of the property
accessed off from Valley Drive. (Note: while the owner/applicant has represented this structure as a duplex, the tax rolls and visual evidence indicates that it is only a single family home). The following existing land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North: (Across Durston Road): Residential; Zoned R-1 (Residential Single-Household Low
Density District)
South: Residential; Unannexed County Land – Designated “Residential” on the City of Bozeman Future Land Use Map
East: Residential and Vacant; Vacant portions approved zoning for R-3 and R-4 (Residential
High Density District)
West: (Across Valley Drive): Residential; Unannexed County Land – Designated “Residential”
on the City of Bozeman Future Land Use Map
149
Pine Meadows ZMA Staff Report #Z-12298 Page 4 of 10
Existing Zoning and Future Land Use Maps
150
Pine Meadows ZMA Staff Report #Z-12298 Page 5 of 10
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 above map. The Residential land use designation of the
Bozeman Community Plan indicates that:
151
Pine Meadows ZMA Staff Report #Z-12298 Page 6 of 10
“This category designates places where the primary activity is urban density dwellings. Other uses which complement residences are also acceptable such as parks, low intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches, and schools. High density residential areas should be established in close proximity to commercial centers to facilitate the provision of services and employment
opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an automobile. Implementation of this category
by residential zoning should provide for and coordinate intensive residential uses in proximity to commercial centers. The residential designation indicates that it is expected that development will occur within municipal boundaries, which may require annexation prior to development. The dwelling unit density expected within this classification varies between 6 and 32 dwellings per net
acre. A higher density may be considered in some locations and circumstances. A variety of housing
types can be blended to achieve the desired density. Large areas of single type housing are discouraged. In limited instances the strong presence of constraints and natural features such as floodplains may cause an area to be designated for development at a lower density than normally expected within this category. All residential housing should be arranged with consideration of
compatibility with adjacent development, natural constraints such as watercourses or steep slopes, and
in a fashion which advances the overall goals of the Bozeman growth policy. The residential designation is intended to provide the primary locations for additional housing within the planning area.”
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
• 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. (underlining added)
The subject property currently only contains one single family home on the southern portion of the
property. The remainder of the property is vacant and this property can be considered an infill
development site. All necessary City infrastructure (streets, sewer, water, etc.) is available to the
152
Pine Meadows ZMA Staff Report #Z-12298 Page 7 of 10
property though extensions of sewer and water from Durston Road and upgrades to Valley Drive
which would be required to develop the property. Access to public sewer and water is available to the property from Durston Road. This property directly abuts Durston Road and also has extensive frontage to Valley Drive.
In consideration of the recently approved R-3 and R-4 zonings to the immediate east of this property,
yet attempting to transition the potential density in consideration of the R-1 zoning and single family
homes across Valley Drive to the west, the applicant has proposed a mix of R-3 zoning (along the Durston Road frontage) and R-2. This would also achieve the Growth Policy statement that “a variety of housing types can be blended to achieve the desired density.” A copy of Table 38.08.020 (Table of
Residential Uses) that lists permitted uses in the various residential zoning districts is also attached at
the end of this report. Staff is generally supportive of the R-3 zoning along the Durston frontage
anticipating that, in the future, the 1.2 acre unannexed parcel to the immediate east along Durston Road may be annexed and could logically be rezoned R-3 consistent with the vacant Leep property behind it.
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.
The annexation and rezoning of the subject property would allow for its development with full City infrastructure and would be considered infill development and the utilization of the existing City
infrastructure as desired by the City’s adopted Growth Policy.
B. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.
Yes. As noted earlier, this property has frontage on both Durston Road, which is classified as an arterial in the Bozeman Transportation Plan, and Valley Drive which is classified as a local street in
the Transportation Plan. Valley Drive is currently gravel and is not maintained by the City. Future
development of this property would require upgrades to Valley Drive to City standards before the City
would assume maintenance responsibilities. Annexation of this property will also include a condition
regarding the granting of right-of-way for the extension of Villard Street across this property (the same as what was required for the Christenot and Leep Annexations) to provide a circulation connection to
the east as well. The extension/connection of the streets and pedestrian systems with adjacent City
streets to serve this property will be required as part of any future development proposal.
C. Secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers.
Yes. The regulatory provisions established in all of the zoning designations, in conjunction with provisions for adequate transportation facilities, properly designed water mains and fire service lines
and adequate emergency exits/escapes, will address safety concerns with any further subdivision
and/or other development of the property. All new structures and development on the subject property
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 Article 1 of the UDC, the City of Bozeman’s has the authority and power to require more stringent standards
than the minimum requirements if it ensures the best service to the public interest.
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.
153
Pine Meadows ZMA Staff Report #Z-12298 Page 8 of 10
The property, upon development, would be required to come into conformance with all requirements
of the zoning ordinance.
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.
E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air. Yes. The regulatory standards set forth in the City of Bozeman UDC for the requested R-3 and R-2
zoning districts provide 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.
F. Prevention of overcrowding of land. Yes. The minimum yard setbacks established in the R-3 and R-2 districts, 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.
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 property. However, compliance with the regulatory
standards set forth in the UDC and the International Building Code will aid in providing adequately sized dwelling units to avoid undue concentration of population. According to the census information for the City of Bozeman the average household size has been declining from 5.74 in 1930 to 2.48 in
2000. This historical trend is anticipated to continue and would indicate that the undue concentration
of population is not a significant issue with any zoning designation.
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. Said 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 could 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. The City will have the opportunity to further
evaluate the development of the property during the above-described review procedures.
Section 38.07.010.C of the Unified Development Code states: “Placement of any given zoning district
on an area depicted on the zoning map indicates a judgment on the part of the city that the range of
uses allowed within that district are generally acceptable in that location. It is not a guarantee of
approval for any given use prior to the completion of the appropriate review procedure and compliance with all of the applicable requirements and development standards of this chapter and other applicable policies, laws and ordinances. It is also not a guarantee of immediate infrastructure
availability or a commitment on the part of the city to bear the cost of extending services”.
154
Pine Meadows ZMA Staff Report #Z-12298 Page 9 of 10
I. Conserving the value of buildings. Neutral. The property currently has an existing single family home located on the southern portion of
the property which would be a permitted land use on the proposed R-2 portion of the property. The
adjacent properties are primarily a mix of older and newer residential buildings and vacant properties.
J. Character of the district.
Yes. The most important factor in determining the suitability of a proposed zoning designation is the potential for compatibility with existing adjacent land uses. As envisioned by the Bozeman Community Plan, this area is designated to continue to develop as “Residential”. The applicant has
requested the R-3 district designation along only the Durston Road frontage in an effort to place
slightly higher development density intensity along this arterial and the lower density R-2 zoning to the
south along the majority of the unannexed County properties (containing single family homes) to the west that lie along Valley Drive. Future planning and review requirements will also give the City the ability to control how the uses on site would function and relate to the surrounding developed and
undeveloped properties.
K. Peculiar suitability for particular uses.
Yes. The relatively narrow width of this property would benefit from being coordinated with development of the Leep and Christenot properties to the east. However, if developed alone, it could still be reasonably developed with the allowed lot dimensions and uses permitted within the requested
R-3 and R-2 zoning districts. The requested zonings will also permit infill development that would best
take advantage of the existing infrastructure (e.g. streets, sewer, water, etc.) available to this property.
L. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. Yes. The requested R-3 and R-2 zoning designations of this proposal is supportive of the overall intent
of the growth policy in regards to encouraging infill development and the establishment of urban
density. As previously noted, these zonings will also allow this property to develop at a density that
takes full advantage of the City’s infrastructure available at this location.
M. Promotion of Compatible Urban Growth. Yes. The Bozeman Community Plan provides several guiding ideas and principles for the physical
development of the City. Development consistent with these ideas and principles are more likely to be
compatible with adjacent development both within and outside of the City limits. The growth policy
encourages infill development and higher density urban centers. Future review of an actual
development proposal will also look at achieving appropriate compatibility with the surrounding area.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Attached to the end of this report is the one written public comment (e-mail) received as of the writing
of this report. Any additional written public comments received following this report will be forwarded
to the Zoning and City Commission prior to the meeting.
It should be noted that this e-mail implies, (as well as another nearby property owner who has verbally indicated), that there may be covenant or deed restriction on this property limiting its future
development potential. Staff has advised the applicant and property owner of this issue, and they have
indicated that, to the best of their knowledge and research, there is no such limitation.
In these regards, Sec. 38.01.100 - Private restrictions – contains the City’s policy regarding private
restrictions (covenants) as follows:
155
Pine Meadows ZMA Staff Report #Z-12298 Page 10 of 10
"This chapter is not intended to affect any existing private agreement or condition such as a deed restriction or covenant. If any provision of this chapter is more restrictive or imposes a higher standard than any such private restriction, the requirements of this chapter shall control. Where the provisions of any private restriction are more restrictive or impose higher standards than the
provisions of this chapter, the city has no duty to enforce such private restrictions or advise of their
existence. The city may enforce a private restriction if the city is a party to such covenant or restriction, if such restriction was required by the city, or if it was relied upon by the city during the land development process in order to meet the requirements of this chapter or another required standard. The city may prohibit private restrictions that violate matters of law. Covenants are subject
to the requirements of section 38.38.030."
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
The Department of Planning and Community Development and the Development Review Committee,
have reviewed the proposed Zone Map Amendment application and have provided summary review
comments as outlined above in the staff report; and as a result, recommend approval of the application
with contingencies.
The recommendation of the Bozeman Zoning Commission will be forwarded to the Bozeman City Commission for consideration at its public hearing scheduled for Monday, February 4, 2013. 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 25% 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
Lorie L. Hovanec, PO Box 240886, Anchorage, AK 99524-0886
Madison Engineering, 895 Technology Blvd., Suite 203, Bozeman, MT 59718
ATTACHMENTS
Bozeman Community Plan - Chapter 3 Land Use Principles
Table 38.08.020 of UDC (Table of Residential Uses)
Applicant’s submittal materials
Public Comment
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
Pine Meadows ZMA
1
RESOLUTION #Z-12298 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CITY OF
BOZEMAN ZONING MAP TO ESTABLISH AN INITIAL ZONING DESIGNATION OF R-3 (RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT) ON 0.58+- ACRES AND R-2 (RESIDENTIAL TWO-HOUSEHOLD MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT) ON 3.44+- ACRES FOR PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS TRACT 7, SMITH
SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE NW ¼ OF SECTION 11, T2S, R5E, PMM,
GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted zoning regulations and a zoning map pursuant to Sections 76-2-301 and 76-2-302, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-305, M.C.A. allows local governments to amend zoning maps
if a public hearing is held and official notice is provided; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-307, M.C.A. states that the Zoning Commission must conduct a public hearing and submit a report to the City Commission for all zoning map amendment
requests; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission has been created by Resolution of the Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Section 76-2-307, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 38, Article 37 of the Bozeman Unified Development Code sets
forth the procedures and review criteria for zoning map amendments; and
WHEREAS, Lorie L. Hovanec, through her representative Madison Engineering, applied for a zoning map amendment, pursuant to Chapter 38, Article 37 of the Bozeman Unified
Development Code, to amend the Bozeman zoning map to establish an initial zoning designation
of R-3 (Residential Medium Density District) for 0.58+- acres and R-2 (Residential Two-
Household Medium Density District) for 3.44+- acres; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment request has been properly submitted,
reviewed and advertised in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 38, Article 37 of
the Bozeman Unified Development Code and Title 76, Chapter 2, Part 3, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission held a public hearing on January 15, 2013, to formally receive and review all written and oral testimony on the proposed zoning
map amendment; and
163
Pine Meadows ZMA
2
WHEREAS, one public comment letter (e-mail) was received prior to the meeting and one public comment letter was delivered at the meeting opposing the requested zonings. Seven members of the public who reside on Valley Drive, or who were representing residents of Valley
Drive, spoke at the public hearing expressing concerns regarding existing covenants for the
property; the requested zoning designation of R-3 and R-2 and its compatibility and future
impacts to the area; and requesting that a lesser zoning designation of R-1 be considered; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission discussed the application, the
presented public comments and hand delivered materials, the staff report and the compatibility of
the requested zoning with area properties; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment generally complies with the thirteen criteria for consideration established in
Chapter 38, Article 37 of the Bozeman Unified Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission, on a vote of 4-0, officially recommends to the Bozeman City Commission approval of zoning application #Z-12298 to amend the Bozeman zoning map to establish an initial zoning
designation of R-3 (Residential Medium Density District) on 0.58 +- acres and R-2 (Residential
Two-Household Medium Density District) on 3.44+- acres contingent upon annexation of said
property which is described as Tract 7, Smith Subdivision located in the NW ¼ of Section 11, T2S, R5E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana.
DATED THIS DAY OF , 2013, Resolution #Z-12298
_____________________________ ____________________________ Doug Riley, Associate Planner Erik Garberg, Chairperson
Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman Zoning Commission
164
ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2013
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Garberg called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. and ordered the Recording
Secretary to take attendance.
Members Present:
Randy Wall, Vice Chairperson
Trever McSpadden
Erik Garberg, Chairperson
David Peck
City Commission Liaison:
Carson Taylor
Members Absent:
Guests Present:
Brian Gallik
Greg Kindschi
Cindy Kindschi
Carolyn S. Powell
Deb Stober
Kate McFee
Mark Burg
Staff Present:
Steve Worthington, Interim Community Development Director
Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Doug Riley, Associate 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 OCTOBER 16, 2012
Page 1 of 7
Zoning Commission Minutes – January 15, 2013
165
MOTION: Mr. McSpadden moved, Mr. Peck seconded, to approve the minutes of October 16,
2012 as presented. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Garberg, Mr.
McSpadden, Mr. Peck, and Vice Chairperson Wall. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-12298 – (Pine Meadows) A Zone Map Amendment
requested by the owner Lorie L. Hovanec, P.O. Box 240886, Anchorage, AK 99524 and
representative Madison Engineering, Chris Budeski, 895 Technology Boulevard, Suite 203,
Bozeman, MT 59718 to establish an initial zoning classification on approximately 0.58 acres
of land on the corner of Durston Road and Valley Drive as R-3 (Residential Medium Density
District) and approximately 3.44 acres on the east side of Valley Drive as R-2 (Residential
Two-Household Medium Density District) contingent upon annexation of the property and is
legally described as Tract 7, Smith Subdivision located in the NW 1/4 of Section 11, T2S,
R5E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana. (Riley)
Associate Planner Doug Riley presented the Staff Report noting the location of the site and
which portions were proposed to be zoned R-3 and which were proposed to be zoned R-2. He
noted the Growth Policy Designation was Residential and added that all the property
surrounding the site was also slated for residential development. He noted the white areas
depicted were still within the County jurisdiction and had not been annexed. He noted that the
Zoning Commission had previously reviewed the property directly to the east of the subject site.
He noted the Leep and Christenot Annexations and Zone Map Amendments had been
previously approved. He noted there had been a reference to the north .58 acres proposed as R-
O zoning, but Staff had not been supportive due to the Land Use Designation and the potential
for incompatible uses. He noted Staff was supportive of the proposal as presented with Staff
conditions. He noted there may be covenants, though it was uncertain at this time, which could
be more restrictive than the zoning district itself. He stated DRC had also recommended
approval of the proposal with conditions.
Vice Chairperson Wall asked about the zoning districts to the west of the property. Planner
Riley responded the County jurisdictions were Zoning District 1 zoning, and there was R-3 with
R-1 to the south. Vice Chairperson Wall asked if regular City infrastructure would be required
with development of the property. Planner Riley responded that Vice Chairperson Wall was
correct and site improvements would be required with development. Vice Chairperson Wall
asked if the properties were currently served with septic and well. Planner Riley responded Vice
Chairperson Wall as correct. Vice Chairperson Wall noted there was a big chunk of land to the
south that was still developable. Planner Riley responded Vice Chairperson Wall was correct.
Vice Chairperson Wall clarified that whatever utilities that would be required to be extended
would also serve the vacant chunk of land. Planner Riley responded the applicant would only
need to extend the services along the length of their property as part of their approval
requirements.
Chairperson Garberg clarified that the Zoning Commission could make recommendations for
different zoning districts and the original proposal for R-O would not be supported be Staff.
Planner Riley responded Chairperson Garberg was correct.
Page 2 of 7
Zoning Commission Minutes – January 15, 2013
166
Chris Budeski, Madison Engineering, stated he was representing the applicant. He stated the
applicant had requested the R-3 for future development of a four-plex on the corner with the R-2
designation being for future development of single-family and duplex development. He stated
the requirement for parkland would also be met on the property and in addition Villard Street
would be required to be extended to Valley Drive and the water would likely loop into Villard
Street for at least the first phase of development. He stated he concurred with Staff that the
proposed zoning would be in keeping with the Growth Policy and the adjacent land uses.
Mr. Peck asked if the land owners to the west would have to pay for hooking up to municipal
services. Mr. Budeski responded that it would be up to the applicant to pay for the initial costs
of hookup. He presented a letter from the property manager. He noted the house had been
rented as a duplex since 1998 and had separate entrances with a shared garage. He entered the
statement into the record. He stated that members of the public had a copy of the covenants for
the neighborhood but, they were unsigned and unrecorded.
Vice Chairperson Wall asked about the purpose of the proposed R-3 zoning on the north end of
the site. Mr. Budeski responded the applicant’s were an elderly couple that was intending an
apartment (4-plex) building within the R-3 zoning district with single family development to the
west, east, and north while the apartment building would be retirement income and buffer the
single family locations to the south. Planner Riley added that part of Staff’s rationale was the
un-annexed parcel to the immediate east of the subject site where R-3 would be supportable at
the time of annexation if the owner so desired.
Chairperson Garberg opened the item for public comment.
Brian Gallik, Goetz Law Firm, 35 N. Grand Ave., stated he was here on behalf of the residents to
the west of the subject site that were still located within the County; he presented a letter to be
included as public comment for the proposal. Vice Chairperson Wall suggested a recess of 10
minutes to review the letter and any other information that was to be presented at the evening’s
meeting.
Deb Stober stated she had a petition protesting the application and it could be presented at a later
date. The Zoning Commission took a ten minute recess to review the new materials.
The meeting was reconvened.
Mr. Gallik noted his clients felt the proposed zoning was inconsistent with the covenants, the
surrounding zoning districts, the existing land uses, and the Growth Policy. He stated the owner
of the subject property had been provided at least constructive notice and noted the covenants
had been recorded; filed March 1, 1967. He noted his exhibits contained the necessary details
that were valid and reiterated that the covenants had been recorded; the owner of the subject
property had been given constructive notice. He noted none of his clients had constructed
anything other than single-family dwellings for single-family use. He quoted the covenants and
noted the proposed development would not meet the intent of the covenants and restrictions as
outlined. He stated Staff’s review criteria were used across the country for zoning review and he
had included cases that were proposing a higher density had been found to not be in keeping
Page 3 of 7
Zoning Commission Minutes – January 15, 2013
167
with the existing neighborhood; the application of zoning principles were not in force to make
the owner profitable and it would be inconsistent. He noted his clients were seeking an R-1
zoning designation for the property.
Mr. McSpadden stated he had a question for Mr. Gallik regarding his public testimony.
Assistant Director Saunders suggested all questions of public comment be addressed at once and
after testimony had been held. Mr. McSpadden agreed.
Cindy Kindschi, 505 Valley Drive, stated she and her husband were in opposition to the
proposed zoning. She noted they had purchased their home in 1986 and the covenants had been
set forth to assure that the platted lands be developed into beautiful, harmonious lands.
Carolyn Powell, 315 Valley Drive, stated she had purchased her property in 1984 and moved
into the house in 1985. She stated the property had never been zoned for a duplex and had not
been used as such until the rental management company had taken over administration of the
property. She stated she believed a covenant was a covenant until hell freezes over and noted the
owner had bought the land with the same covenants in affect.
Greg Kindschi, 505 Valley Drive, stated he was disappointed that R-2 and R-3 zoning was even
being considered and he was more supportive of R-1 zoning. He noted the properties to the east
had been approved for higher density which would provide enough density for the area. He
stated higher density would not lessen street congestion or the crowding of the land. He asked
the Zoning Commission to support R-1 density.
Kate McFee stated she had bought her property in September and she had been attempting to
verse herself in zoning requirements. She stated she was opposed to the current requested
zoning and was supportive of the R-1 zoning district. Vice Chairperson Wall confirmed the
location of her property in relation to the subject site.
Mark Burg stated they had moved into Smith Subdivision two months ago and had chosen the
site for the single family development in addition to the large lots. He stated he and his wife
were supportive of R-1 zoning for the property.
Deb Stober, 395 Valley Drive, stated she was here in opposition to the proposed zoning. She
stated a few years back the Hovenac’s had intended to annex into the City and the HOA had
informed them that it was not allowable within the covenants. She stated she understood that the
enforcement of covenants was a civil issue, but she thought that the City should help enforce the
integrity and character of the neighborhood and uphold the covenants. She stated the legal
protest requirement of 150 feet had been met with the exclusion of one Valley Drive resident that
could not be contacted.
Seeing no further public comment forthcoming, the public comment period was closed.
Assistant Director Saunders stated that if members of the public did not want to answer
questions, they were not obligated to do so.
Page 4 of 7
Zoning Commission Minutes – January 15, 2013
168
Planner Riley suggested that the Commission offer the applicant the opportunity for rebuttal of
the public comments. Chairperson Garberg concurred.
Mr. McSpadden asked why the site wasn’t subdivided with the approval of the first plat. Planner
Riley responded he saw no intent specifically listed on the Final Plat.
Vice Chairperson Wall suggested that now would be the time to specifically address the public
comment made at the evening’s meeting.
Mr. Peck asked if the southern portion of the map for that area contained an existing four plex.
Assistant Director Saunders responded there was an existing four plex that was annexed in 1999
or 2000 and was a legal, nonconforming four plex in an R-1 zoning district.
Mr. Budeski stated he did not want to try to act as an attorney, but typically when covenants
were in force, they were signed and recorded; nothing indicated that the covenants had been
signed or recorded. He suggested the City Attorney may want to review the document to reveal
whether or not the covenants were legally binding. He suggested opening and continuing the
review until such a time as the City Attorney had reviewed the legality of the covenants.
Vice Chairperson Wall stated the Zoning Commission’s purview was not covenants; period. He
stated that the discussion of covenants was not a City government issue, but a Civil issue and
suggested the discussion be geared to whether or not the land use would best be served by the
proposed zoning designations. He suggested a motion be set forth specifically in regard to the
proposed zoning.
Mr. McSpadden added that the Zoning Commission had just received what sounded like a
request from the applicant to open and continue the item until the legalities of the covenants had
been determined.
Chairperson Garberg responded it was not an issue he had come across before and deferred to
Staff. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City Commission hearing would be held in
February and there would be opportunity to comment and present new information at that time.
He suggested opening and continuing the public comment portion of the hearing if the Zoning
Commission intended to hear the item at a later date. He noted there were certain things that
could not be done with covenants, the covenants could not override the zoning, and whichever
was more restrictive would prevail; unless it was something directly in conflict, the City would
not involve itself. He stated the question of the character of the neighborhood was explicitly in
their purview.
Chairperson Garberg stated that there was well defined criteria that would enable the Zoning
Commission to make a recommendation to the City Commission.
Vice Chairperson Wall suggested asking the applicant if they wanted to open and continue the
item. Chairperson Garberg responded that given the hearing had been publicly noticed he
thought the item should move forward; he suggested the covenants were not part of their review
criteria and purview.
Page 5 of 7
Zoning Commission Minutes – January 15, 2013
169
Mr. McSpadden stated his only concern was that they might move forward without having all the
necessary information and noted the applicant had mentioned continuing the item because of the
covenants. Vice Chairperson Wall suggested he felt as though he had enough information to
make a decision this evening.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Wall moved, Mr. Peck seconded, that having reviewed and
considered recommendations from the Development Review Committee and Planning Staff as
contained in the Staff Report, and after evaluation of the proposed zoning against the criteria set
forth in 38.37.020 of the Unified Development Code and Section 76-2-304 Montana Codes
Annotated, the Zoning Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the City
Commission of the requested Zone Map Amendment with Staff contingencies as outlined in the
Staff Report.
Mr. McSpadden stated this was a tricky application that he attempted to consider “in a vacuum”.
He noted the application was not inconsistent with the Growth Policy and added he was not
going to get too in depth with regard to the property not being subdivided. He stated that Valley
Drive provided a buffer to the Valley Drive residents on the west side.. He stated another
problem he had was that he was a huge proponent of annexation and they had to consider an
initial zoning designation; the ones proposed being as suitable as any. He added that if the
covenants were more restrictive than the zoning, the owner was bound by developing in keeping
with those covenants.
Mr. Peck stated he agreed with Mr. McSpadden though he did read in Mr. Gallik’s letter that the
character of the proposed development and Valley Drive was not just single family residences, it
was more rural due to the size of the lots. He noted he was of the same mind as Mr. McSpadden
with regard to the covenants being more restrictive.
Vice Chairperson Wall thanked everyone in attendance for coming to the hearing. He stated part
of the City’s purpose was to eliminate all of the un-annexed properties within the City which had
a lot to do with the protection of the health, safety, and welfare to the community at large; wells
and septic systems were not protecting the health, safety, or welfare of the community as a
whole. He stated it was standard practice to step the zoning districts down and use them as a
transition to lower density. He stated he agreed with Mr. Peck that the character of the
neighborhood was out of character with the City; more rural than urban density. He stated the
enforcement of covenants would have to be civilly handled though he was intrigued by a legal
document that was not signed and had not been recorded. He stated he concurred with Assistant
Director Saunders that there would be time for further comments and information.
Chairperson Garberg stated he was in favor of the proposal as submitted and he hoped the public
understood that infill development was as difficult for them as it was for the public.
The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Garberg, Mr. McSpadden, Mr.
Peck, and Vice Chairperson Wall. Those voting nay being none.
Page 6 of 7
Zoning Commission Minutes – January 15, 2013
170
Page 7 of 7
Zoning Commission Minutes – January 15, 2013
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS
Assistant Director Saunders noted that Steve Worthington was the current Interim Community
Development Director. Mr. Worthington stated his primary task was to investigate better
methods by which the Planning Department could operate and to help train his successor for the
position. He noted he was retired and only did this a few months out of the year but he also
came out of it knowing much more about the community.
Chairperson Garberg noted many of them had attended the planning 101 training session with
the County and suggested they get training regarding Robert’s Rules of Order. Mr. Carson
added he thought it was a good idea. Vice Chairperson Wall stated Robert’s Rules had a specific
purpose which was to get things done and he thought Chairperson Garberg had done a good job.
Assistant Director Saunders asked if the Commission would object to partnering with another
board for the training. The Zoning Commission concurred that they would not object to training
with another review agency. Planner Riley asked if recommended motions in the Staff Report
were helpful to the members. Mr. McSpadden responded he thought they were helpful.
Chairperson Garberg concurred with Mr. McSpadden though he couldn’t make a formal motion.
Mr. Carson suggested the motion be provided.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Erik Garberg, Chairperson Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202