The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPublic Hearing Growth Policy Amendment, P13024, Lot 1, Block 4 Laurel Glen Subdivision, optimized2 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Growth Policy Amendment application Lot 1 Block 4 Laurel Glen Subdivision, 964 Longbow Lane to change the future land use map, Figure 3-1 from Community Commercial Mixed Use to Residential on approximately 4.5 acres. File number P13024. MEETING DATE: December 16, 2013 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action RECOMMENDATION: Approval with contingencies 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 application P-13024 and move to approve the Growth Policy Amendment with the contingencies required to complete the application processing. BACKGROUND: Staff report references: Amendment criteria, page 6; public comment page 13. Location: 964 Longbow Lane. The property is the entire block which is bounded by Laurel Glen Parkway, Glenellen Drive, Longbow Lane, and Annie Street. The site is roughly 4.5 acres in size. History: This application was received on July 24, 2013. The Planning Board held a public hearing on September 3rd. Substantial neighborhood opposition was submitted in writing and through verbal testimony. The substance of the opposition focused on loss of access to future commercial services, changing character of the development, and likely impacts to the neighborhood from expected intensive residential development of the site. The Planning Board unanimously recommended denial of the application. The applicant and adjacent property owners continued to discuss the application. The applicant wished to have some additional time to address issues raised by the neighbors. The applicant submitted a written request for the City Commission to table the application which was approved. A new public notice was given for this public hearing. A zone map amendment for the same property was submitted and reviewed to accompany this growth policy amendment. That application is dependent on the Commission’s action on this item. The site is presently zoned B-1, R-2 is requested. 337 The public hearing continues the discussion of whether the change of the growth policy is an appropriate amendment to the future land use map, Figure 3-1. Staff’s concerns on the application are more focused on the compliance of the application with the seven land use organizing ideas established in Section 3.2 of the Bozeman Community Plan. Conformance with the principles of centers, neighborhoods, and sense of place are all directly affected by this application. Further discussion of this issue is provided under the staff analysis in the staff report beginning on page 6. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: 1) Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Bozeman Community Plan and beneficial to the community as a whole? 2) Is the application timely in the proposed change without an alternate location proposed for the commercial node as discussed under review criteria 1, pages 6-7 of the staff report. ALTERNATIVES: The City Commission has the following alternative actions available: 1. Approved the application as requested; or 2. Deny the application. FISCAL EFFECTS: None identified at this time. Report compiled on: December 5, 2013 Attachments: Staff report, Planning Board minutes, public comment, Application materials 338 Page 1 of 14 P-13024, Staff Report for the Laurel Glen Lot 1 Block 4 Growth Policy Amendment Date: City Commission public hearing is on December 16, 2013 Project Description: An amendment to Figure 3-1, the Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman Community Plan to change the 4.5 acres of the subject property from Community Commercial Mixed Use to Residential. Project Location: 964 Longbow Lane. It is legally described as Lot 1, Block 4, Laurel Glen Subdivision, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. Recommendation: Approval with contingencies 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 application P-13024 and move to approve the Growth Policy Amendment with the contingencies required to complete the application processing. Report Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 Staff Contact: Chris Saunders TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES .................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 2- RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES OF APPROVAL ................................ 5 SECTION 3 – RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ........................................ 6 SECTION 4 - STAFF ANALYSIS........................................................................................... 6 Section17.4, Bozeman Community Plan Amendment Criteria. ......................................... 6 APPENDIX A –AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY PROVISIONS ............. 10 APPENDIX B –PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND ................................... 13 APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ................................................... 13 APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF............................ 14 339 P-13024 Laurel Glen Lot 1 Block 4 Growth Policy Amendment Page 2 of 14 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES Vicinity Map showing adjacent growth policy designations Vicinity Map showing adjacent zoning Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses North: Mixed configuration attached homes: zoned R3, Residential Medium Density District South: Vacant, B-1 Neighborhood Business District and Detached single homes, R1, Residential Single-household low density district 340 P-13024 Laurel Glen Lot 1 Block 4 Growth Policy Amendment Page 3 of 14 East: Park, PLI, Public Lands and Institutions West: Detached single homes, R1, Residential Single-household low density district Vicinity Map from Growth Policy Figure 3-1 341 P-13024 Laurel Glen Lot 1 Block 4 Growth Policy Amendment Page 4 of 14 Commercial service area radius of one half mile based on the existing location per the Community Commercial Mixed Use text description page 3-12 of the Growth Policy. 342 P-13024 Laurel Glen Lot 1 Block 4 Growth Policy Amendment Page 5 of 14 Illustrative map showing Neighborhood Commercial Node service areas with existing and possible future location and relationships shown. SECTION 2- RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES OF APPROVAL Please note that these contingencies are necessary for the City to complete the process of the proposed amendment. These do not require revisions to the application or requested land use designation. Recommended Contingencies of Approval: 1) The applicant shall submit, within forty-five (45) calendar days of approval by the City Commission, an 8½- x 11-inch or 8½- x 14-inch exhibit entitled “Laurel Glen Lot 1 Block 4 343 P-13024 Laurel Glen Lot 1 Block 4 Growth Policy Amendment Page 6 of 14 Growth Policy Amendment” to the Department of Community Development containing an accurate description of the property for which the growth policy designation is being amended. The exhibit must be acceptable to the Department of Community Development. 2) The resolution for the growth policy amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant provides an exhibit of the area to be re-designated, which will be utilized in the preparation of the resolution to officially amend the Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman Community Plan. SECTION 3 – RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS Project Name: Laurel Glen Lot 1 Block 4 Growth Policy Amendment File: P-13024 The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the amendment on August 14th and 21st. The DRC did not identify any infrastructure or regulatory constraints which would impede the approval of the application. Having considered the criteria established for a growth policy amendment, the Community Development Staff recommends in favor of the application as submitted. The Planning Board held a public hearing on September 3, 2013. The Planning Board unanimously recommended against the growth policy amendment. The hearing date for the City Commission is December 16, 2013. SECTION 4 - STAFF ANALYSIS In considering applications for approval of amendments to the growth policy, the advisory boards and City Commission shall consider the following criteria established by the Bozeman Community Plan for amendments: Section17.4, Bozeman Community Plan Amendment Criteria. 1. The proposed amendment must cure a deficiency in the growth policy, or improve the growth policy, to better respond to the needs of the general community; The requested Growth Policy Amendment seeks to change the designation of slightly less than 4.5 acres from commercial to residential. The land in question is a commercial node intended to provide local commercial services to surrounding development. The key question is whether the existing location is the most effective location to accomplish this purpose. 344 P-13024 Laurel Glen Lot 1 Block 4 Growth Policy Amendment Page 7 of 14 A description of the Community Commercial Mixed Use (CCMU) designation is provided under Appendix A. As noted there, normally a CCMU designation is located at significant intersections and with spacing of at least 1 mile to the next CCMU area. This is for two reasons. First, any given area only has a certain amount of financial capacity to support commercial activities with the funds available to its residents. Some of those funds will be spent throughout the community so only a portion will be available to support a neighborhood commercial services area. If there is not enough discretionary income available from the nearby households the businesses cannot succeed. The spacing requirement enables CCMU nodes to not cannibalize each other to the detriment of all. Second, location at major intersections provides convenient access to businesses from people passing by. Since the probable businesses in a CCMU neighborhood node will be more convenience oriented, it is to their advantage to be located near a significant customer base where local residents can use the services rather than travel further for the same service. Location of a CCMU node at higher vehicle traffic locations also allows access to the businesses with minimum intrusion of vehicle traffic into local streets and neighborhoods. As described in Appendix B, the original developer proposed the present location as part of a large subdivision of approximately 160 acres. About half of that development has occurred. The location of the existing CCMU node is internal to the subdivision and not at intersections of major streets. Access and exposure is limited for businesses. The site is located where its service radius overlaps with two other CCMU neighborhood nodes. An examination of the transportation plan indicates that there is a nearby future intersection of major streets which may be better suited for these services for the reasons discussed above. In the map series, above, is an image showing the service radii for the existing service node and the two nearest nodes. A separated service radius prevents nodes from scavenging customers from each other. Also on the image is the service radius for a relocated node to the nearest future arterial intersection which does not overlap existing nodes. This image illustrates the relationship between nodes and is not a proposal but an illustration of concept. The greatest drawback to the present application is that it does not propose an alternate location which is superior to what is presently designated. Rather it requests the redesignation to residential land uses on its own leaving somewhat of a service gap in this section of town. There are no immediately known proposals to develop within the City to the north or west which makes the deficiency not immediately damaging. There remains a smaller tract immediately south of the amendment site which remains designated as CCMU at this time. The Planning Board may address this rebalancing of service locations in the future with an overall update to the growth policy. 345 P-13024 Laurel Glen Lot 1 Block 4 Growth Policy Amendment Page 8 of 14 The timing of this application may be more problematic than the substance in that it is asking the question of whether the amendment is appropriate without the benefit of the larger land use pattern discussion. 2. The proposed amendment does not create inconsistencies within the growth policy, either between the goals and the maps or between different goals and objectives. The proposed change does not alter the text of the growth policy and therefore does not create inconsistencies between different goals and objectives. The land use principles of Chapter 3 encourage the development of commercial centers. The proposal does reduce in size a neighborhood commercial center. As discussed in Criterion 1, there may be better locations for a neighborhood commercial center to serve this area. A small commercial area does remain at this time. The description of the Community Commercial Mixed Use land use designation, see Appendix A, does suggest that CCMU node be generally between 10-15 acres in size. The present CCMU at this location is slightly less than 8 acres. If the amendment is approved the remaining CCMU will be 2.04 acres, significantly less than the normally expected size. 3. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy; The proposed change reduces in size a commercial node. There is an opportunity with the next overall update of the plan to relocate the node to a position that would potentially make it more effective in meeting the intent of the growth policy. Nodes are typically located at major intersections. This enables commercial development to draw passing customers without increasing traffic on local streets and reduces total travel. The proposed change is not proposing a relocation at this time, only the change of designation on the project site. 4. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the community as a whole or significant portion by: Significantly altering land use patterns and principles in a manner contrary to those established by this plan, The requested Growth Policy Amendment seeks to change the designation of slightly less than 4.5 acres from commercial to residential. The land in question is a commercial node intended to provide local commercial services to surrounding development. The key question is whether the existing location is the most effective location to accomplish this purpose. See the discussion under Criterion 1 above. Requiring unmitigated larger or more expensive improvements to streets, water, sewer, or other public facilities or services, thereby impacting development of other lands, The City’s site development process provides for the identification and mitigation of impacts. The greatest likely impact would be additional park land required with residential development. There is a potential for residential development on the site with the present 346 P-13024 Laurel Glen Lot 1 Block 4 Growth Policy Amendment Page 9 of 14 commercial zoning or with any future residential zoning which might follow the proposed growth policy amendment. The original subdivision did not originally provide park area to offset service demands for residential development on the amendment site. Additional parkland would be required with residential development on the site whether or not the amendment is approved. Several means exist in the municipal code to mitigate this demand. Significant residential development could be approved on the site under either the existing or proposed and use designations. Adversely impact existing uses because of unmitigated greater than anticipated impacts on facilities and services No extraordinary impacts are expected because of this change. Examination of the presently in place B-1 zoning or the requested R-2 zoning which could replace it if the amendment is improved shows that they have different nuances but both allow substantial intensity of uses. The sets of development standards would alter the form of the future development but don’t necessarily show one as being less intensive for public facilities than another. Similar intensity of uses could be developed under either the existing or proposed land use designation. The residential uses would not assist with trip length or frequency reduction in the way the commercial uses could. Negatively affect the livability of the area or the health and safety of the residents. The change in future land use designation will have minimal effect on this criterion. The greatest likely impact is a change in the proximity to commercial services. Density and intensity of uses could be very similar under some residential or commercial development options. 347 P-13024 Laurel Glen Lot 1 Block 4 Growth Policy Amendment Page 10 of 14 APPENDIX A –AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY PROVISIONS Zoning Designation and Land Uses: The current zoning for the parcel is B-1, Neighborhood Commercial. The B-1 zone allows for a variety of commercial uses as well as intensive residential uses. The B-1 zone has small setbacks but also has a building footprint size limit of 5,000 square feet. Comparison of the B-1 district to higher intensity residential districts indicates that they would have different configurations but could have similar intensities of use. The residential districts such as R-O Residential Office or R-4, High Density residential districts also allow for some commercial uses, primarily office or community center type activities. An application for R-2 zoning to be applied to the area has been submitted and is being reviewed concurrently with this application. R-2 uses are compatible with the adjacent residential uses and provide a range of development densities and design alternatives. Adopted Growth Policy Designation: The existing designation for the site of the amendment is Community Commercial Mixed Use. The proposed designation is Residential. The descriptions of these two designations are provided below. Community Commercial Mixed Use. Activities within this land use category are the basic employment and services necessary for a vibrant community. Establishments located within these categories draw from the community as a whole for their employee and customer base and are sized accordingly. A broad range of functions including retail, education, professional and personal services, offices, residences, and general service activities typify this designation. In the “center-based” land use pattern, Community Commercial Mixed Use areas are integrated with significant transportation corridors, including transit and non-automotive routes, to facilitate efficient travel opportunities. The density of development is expected to be higher than currently seen in most commercial areas in Bozeman and should include multi-story buildings. A Floor Area Ratio in excess of .5 is desired. It is desirable to allow residences on upper floors, in appropriate circumstances. Urban streetscapes, plazas, outdoor seating, public art, and hardscaped open space and park amenities are anticipated, appropriately designed for an urban character. Placed in proximity to significant streets and intersections, an equal emphasis on vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation shall be provided. High density residential areas are expected in close proximity. Including residential units on sites within this category, typically on upper floors, will facilitate the provision of services and opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an automobile. 348 P-13024 Laurel Glen Lot 1 Block 4 Growth Policy Amendment Page 11 of 14 The Community Commercial Mixed Use category is distributed at two different scales to serve different purposes. Large Community Commercial Mixed Use areas are significant in size and are activity centers for an area of several square miles surrounding them. These are intended to service the larger community as well as adjacent neighborhoods and are typically distributed on a one mile radius. Smaller Community Commercial areas are usually in the 10-15 acre size range and are intended to provide primarily local service to an area of approximately one-half mile radius. These commercial centers support and help give identity to individual neighborhoods by providing a visible and distinctive focal point. They should typically be located on one or two quadrants of intersections of arterials and/or collectors. Although a broad range of uses may be appropriate in both types of locations the size and scale is to be smaller within the local service placements. Mixed use areas should be developed in an integrated, pedestrian friendly manner and should not be overly dominated by any single land use. Higher intensity employment and residential uses are encouraged in the core of the area or adjacent to significant streets and intersections. As needed, building height transitions should be provided to be compatible with adjacent development. Residential. This category designates places where the primary activity is urban density dwellings. Other uses which complement residences are also acceptable such as parks, low intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches, and schools. High density residential areas should be established in close proximity to commercial centers to facilitate the provision of services and employment opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an automobile. Implementation of this category by residential zoning should provide for and coordinate intensive residential uses in proximity to commercial centers. The residential designation indicates that it is expected that development will occur within municipal boundaries, which may require annexation prior to development. The dwelling unit density expected within this classification varies between 6 and 32 dwellings per net acre. A higher density may be considered in some locations and circumstances. A variety of housing types can be blended to achieve the desired density. Large areas of single type housing are discouraged. In limited instances the strong presence of constraints and natural features such as floodplains may cause an area to be designated for development at a lower density than normally expected within this category. All residential housing should be arranged with consideration of compatibility with adjacent development, natural constraints such as watercourses or steep slopes, and in a fashion which advances the overall goals of the Bozeman growth policy. The residential designation is intended to provide the primary locations for additional housing within the planning area. 349 P-13024 Laurel Glen Lot 1 Block 4 Growth Policy Amendment Page 12 of 14 350 P-13024 Laurel Glen Lot 1 Block 4 Growth Policy Amendment Page 13 of 14 APPENDIX B –PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The Laurel Glen development requested annexation in 2001. The property was formally annexed by Resolution 3649 approved by the City Commission on January 20, 2004. A preliminary plat for a four phase major subdivision was approved on May 20 2002. The Commission minutes note that traffic flow along Durston Road and the capacity and signalization of Cottonwood Road and Huffine Lane intersection in the review significant issues. The placement of the commercial node was part of the considerations in finding that there could be adequate traffic capacity. It was expected that the commercial services would provide some capture of vehicle trips which would otherwise go out on the arterial street network. Since that time the intersection of Cottonwood Road and Huffine Lane has been signalized, Durston Road has had significant expansions to increase capacity. The site remains undeveloped and therefore has not captured any trips. Half of the originally approved subdivision also remains undeveloped at this time. The proposal will change roughly 4.5 acres of property from Community Commercial Mixed Use to Residential. The property is located at 964 Longbow Lane. It is an entire block surrounded by streets. It is located across from a park area on the east side of Laurel Parkway. There is one additional parcel to the south which is part of the neighborhood commercial node. Both commercially designated parcels are zoned as B-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Both lots are vacant. The adjacent properties are residentially planned and zoned. They are developed with a variety of attached and detached homes. A few vacant parcels remain in the area. The application was tabled at the request of the applicant. It is now being reactivated to be considered in conjunction with a zone map amendment. APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT Notice of the application was provided by publication in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, posting a notice prominently on site using the City standard notice format and sign post, and mailing first class US mail to all property owners within 200 feet of the site. Adjacent owner addresses were provided by the representative per standard City procedures. One written comment was received prior to the completion of the report to the planning board. The received comment addresses issues of location of the community commercial mixed use designation, the potential development character which may follow the amendment, and the traffic conditions. 351 P-13024 Laurel Glen Lot 1 Block 4 Growth Policy Amendment Page 14 of 14 Extensive public comment was received at the Planning Board public hearing both verbally and in writing. The issues raised included loss of access to future commercial services; potential intensity of residential development and related impacts on the adjacent properties; and changed character of the area. The attached minutes provide greater detail on the individual comments offered. The applicant subsequently tabled the application while they worked with the neighborhood to resolve concerns. A related zone map amendment was subsequently submitted with the intention to resolve some of the neighborhood concerns. No new comment has been received regarding the growth policy amendment. A new public notice of the public hearing on December 16th was provided. APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF Owner: Manhattan Bank, 2610 W. Main Street, Bozeman MT 59718 Applicant: Great Western Investments, 4721 Glenwood Drive, Unit D, Bozeman MT 59718 Representative: Caddis Engineering and Land Surveying, PO Box 11805, Bozeman, MT 59719 Report By: Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager 352 Page 1 of 5 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 3, 2013. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President McSpadden called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and took attendance. Members Present: Staff Present: Trever McSpadden, President Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Division Manager Julien Morice Doug Riley, Associate Planner George Thompson Paul Neubauer Guests Present: Carson Taylor Mike Delaney Pamela Bussie Carl Tange Ileanna Delaney McKenzie Sacry Jerry Pape Jami Morris Kevin Sacry Judy Weigan Julie Hielwig Members Absent: Morgan Hinesley Natalie Long Erik Garberg Stephanie Edwards Jamie Upschulter Branden Edwards Terese Bricker Alex Smith Christie Rasmussen Gary Metcalf Tyler Rasmussen Sandie Metcalf Jennifer Penigen Kellie Schramm Kate Tounley John Noufer Chris Tounley Jason Schramm Andy Rowe ITEM 2. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.) No public comment. ITEM 4. MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 2013 A motion to accept the minutes of August 20, 2013 was moved, seconded and approved unanimously. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Lot 4 Spring Creek Village Resort MaSub Prelim. Plat with Var #P-13021 Resort, Huffine and Fallon * A major subdivision Preliminary Plat application with a subdivision variance for block width for Block 5 by owner Spring Creek Village LLC, 101 East Main Street Suite D, Bozeman MT 59715, applicant Delaney & Co., Inc., 101 East Main Street Suite D, Bozeman MT 59715, and representative Jami Morris, 2440 Etta Place, Bozeman MT 59718, to create 22 commercial lots on 20 acres addressed as west of Resort Drive, north of Huffine Lane and south of Fallon Street, Bozeman MT. The subject property is legally described as Lot 4, Minor Subdivision No. 295, The Spring Creek Village Resort, Sec. 10, T.2S, R.5E, P.M.M. (Riley) 353 Page 2 of 5 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 3, 2013. Planner Riley presented the application. This property has undergone extensive review of lot and street layout/connections. He outlined the request for a block width variance for Block 5. Block 5 also has a separate site plan that is currently being reviewed which incorporates two secondary emergency access provisions into the site design at the request of the Development Review Committee and Fire Department. At the suggestion of the Development Review Committee and Staff the applicant also incorporated a north-to-south pedestrian easement through the block, which is also why Staff supports the block width variance. No written public comment was received. An agency review comment was received from the Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee, concerning the shared-use pathway to extend to Ferguson Road creating a connection from Cottonwood Road to the MSU campus. The City Engineering Department recommends that presently unfinished subdivision sidewalks be finished as this project moves forward unless the Commission determines otherwise. Staff recommends conditional approval of the preliminary plat with the variance. Board questions for Planner Riley included: the general purpose of a 400-ft block width, emergency vehicle access, common/open spaces/stormwater retention ponds, bike/public access easement, past vs. present design, urban streetscape, and MDT approval of Park Avenue access points off Huffine, and the traffic study/traffic controls. There were no questions for applicant representative Jami Morris. Public Comment: Cottonwood Condominium Homeowner Association Treasurer Judy Weigan said they now have 74 residents, many of whom are elderly, who frequently walk their dogs on Fallon Drive. The Association cannot accept the proposal without some sort of eastbound traffic out onto Huffine. Applicant representative Jami Morris explained the traffic analysis of the area. A motion was moved and seconded to recommend approval of the application with Staff- recommended conditions. Discussion included the requested variance, Cottonwood Condominiums/eastbound traffic flow, Huffine traffic as the City develops westward, the shared-use pathway condition and final unit occupancy. The motion was approved unanimously. A motion was moved and seconded to recommend approval of the block width variance to Block 5. Discussion included emergency vehicle access, and the design of the pedestrian facility through the block. The motion was approved unanimously. A motion was moved and seconded to recommend approval of the subdivision. The motion was approved unanimously. 2. Lot 1 Block 4 Laurel Glen Phase 1 GPA #P-13024 NW corner Laurel Pkwy and Annie St * A Growth Policy Amendment application by the owner Manhattan Bank, 2610 West Main Street, Bozeman MT 59718, applicant Great Western Investments, 4721 Glenwood Drive Unit D, Bozeman MT 59718, and representative Caddis Engineering and Land Surveying PC, PO Box 11805, Bozeman MT 59719, to change the future land use designation from Community Commercial Mixed Use to Residential on 4.4928 acres addressed at the northwest corner of the intersection of Laurel Parkway and Annie Street. The subject property is legally described as Lot 1, Block 4 Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase 1 - S1/2. Sec. 4, T. 2.S, R. 5E. (Saunders) Planner Saunders presented the policy-level application. He gave an overview of the City’s 354 Page 3 of 5 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 3, 2013. Community Commercial Mixed Use designation. A fair amount of public comment was received on this project: 14 individual transmittals of concern (all in opposition), with one of those having an attached petition with a very large amount of signatures on it. Planner Saunders reminded the Board that because the application is a Growth Policy Amendment there is not a Petition for protest in the review process so the petition does not advance or hinder an application the way that it can under the zoning laws, a growth policy is separate authority. It is valid public comment, but no analysis is done for proximity to the project. The Development Review Committee determined that the infrastructure adjacent to the project is adequate for growth policy designation as is or if it is changed. Staff then reviewed it and recommended it for approval, although it is a light rather than strong recommendation. As noted in the Staff Report, one of the real challenges of this application is that it is seen in isolation. Thirteen of the 14 public comments were received after the Staff Report was written. Many of the public comments were concerned about height, traffic, and intensity of development. In response, Planner Saunders then compared and contrasted the existing B-1 zoning with R-4 zoning (it is not the only option if it were to be rezoned, but it is the most intensive of the City’s residential zones). There was a request for additional time to read through the new comments. Questions to Planner Saunders included: site size policy purpose and adequacy, status of present adjoining area, general mixed use on collector and arterial streets, zoning approval process, comparison to S. 3rd Avenue and Kagy development, R-1 on just the western side, present and future neighborhood development, 160 acres residential, and dividing the lot north/south commercial/residential. Applicant representative Matt Cotterman of Caddis Engineering gave a presentation to explain the reason behind the request, including the history of the property, street access, and a request for a favorable recommendation from the board. Questions for Mr. Cotterman included: confirmation that the property is owned by the bank and has been for sale for 10 years and the past impact of the B-1 zoning on potential buyers. Applicant Morgan Hinesley, managing member of Great Western Investments LLC. He and his wife Jennifer are the sole owners of Great Western. The application property is currently in the sole ownership of Manhattan State Bank. Great Western Investments has a contract to purchase the property subject to the removal of the neighborhood commercial overlay. The property is essentially valueless as B-1 property. If the commercial overlays are removed then the property has significant value as multiunit residential property. Laurel Parkway is a poor collector especially as Oak Street is connected and will not draw traffic except from Laurel Glen subdivision. He does not believe that Laurel Glen is capable of supporting a commercial center. Mr. Hinesley stated that the issue is actually not the use of the property but the timing of the use. If it remains zoned as is the likelihood that the property will be developed during the next 10 to 15 years is very low. He spoke with one gentleman who signed the petition who acknowledged that as the property currently stands development is very unlikely in the near future. Much of the resistance that he’s seeing is aimed at keeping the property vacant rather than controlling any use. The City of Bozeman has a great need for multi household housing and it is his motivation to provide it. He understands that there are future concerns and he respects the Board’s decision. He concluded that allowing the property to remain vacant until it may become viable for commercial use will rob the bank of the opportunity to sell the property. Questions for Mr. Hinesley included: his prior affiliation and experience with Laurel Glen, comparison on unit density between the two zones (Planner Saunders helped to answer this question, saying that all-residential development would be hard to make the finding that it complies with the Growth Policy), Mr. Hinesley relation to the developer for the other pieces of 355 Page 4 of 5 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 3, 2013. property (the developer is his father), and whether the primary restriction in the overlay is the 5,000 square foot building footprint limit or the number of units and possible mitigation ideas including a facility that could accommodate a daycare. Public comment included: • Gary Metcalf: streets are fairly narrow now (two-way driving is difficult), This has all been looked at before, a lot of young families have invested in a house, ultimate issue is who stands to lose money, high-density housing is not popular because of the kind of people it attracts and it will likely devalue the existing property values. • Sandy Metcalf: Ditto. • Kelly Schramm: grandparents were homesteaders and she has lived her whole life here. Purchased home based on City’s Master Plan. Now looks like a jigsaw puzzle. • John Noufer: this proposal totally deviates from the City’s Master Plan. Roads are dangerous, little kids. No more apartments. • McKenzie Sacry: Neighborhood needs and wants a mix in uses. Proposal does not follow Growth Plan. • Kevin Sacry: Ditto. • Christine Rasmussan: Opposed. Wants it to stay the same. • Tyler Rasmussan: Opposed. We’re looking forward to a commercial development across them. Their house has been vandalized. • Andy Rowe: Built Locksley Drive. Consistency and fairness. There are other uses other than small businesses. • Branden Edwards: Doesn’t fix deficiencies in the Growth Amendment. He believes there is no shortage of high-density developments in Bozeman. Taking away commercial will force the neighbors to drive to services. He’s never seen a sale sign or been approached by anyone. Mr. Hinesley responded that commercial is a good idea, but having a designation on a piece of property just prevents the best and highest use of the property which is multi unit density. No representative from Manhattan Bank was present. Planner Saunders commented on live/work businesses in B-1 zoning. Additional comments (speaker unknown): At 7:30 am a student was walking a big pit bull, that’s what this proposal would bring to the neighborhood. A motion to recommend approval was made and seconded. Discussion included: Larger apartment buildings clumped into existing residential neighborhoods destroys property values. Live/work environment: there is risk when you buy. Distinction between what neighbors want and what they don’t want, and the economy isn’t ready to support small businesses yet. There is a long list of things that may happen and the candidate has been very candid about what may happen; what is best is different from what is not wanted there. Planner Saunders added that it was not a planned unit development originally. Looking at the area now it would be a struggle to make a business viable, although it may become more viable. Bozeman needs affordable housing, but this is not the best place for it-- 356 Page 5 of 5 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 3, 2013. does Streamline even go out there? Board member was dismayed that the bank is the applicant and not present for the meeting. People make decisions on zoning, but neighborhoods change. There is a limit to the promise of what zoning is. Where is the parkland going to come from? At what point does no building on this property says it’s time to change? It may never have been a good idea to put this designation in this spot. Try to think of Oak and Durston as busy as Huffine then it would be a great location for a coffee shop. Bigger idea is putting an effective PUD through zoning. Looking at subdivisions that aren’t full or even close to full. Laurel Glen is not the best spot to put B-1, but not all businesses need to be on high-traffic streets. Residential goes first, the commercial follows. Don’t dismiss the current plan. The Planning Board is only an advisory board to the City Commission, so this is not a final decision. The motion was opposed unanimously. Further comment should be sent to Planner Saunders not later than September 25. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS September 23rd at 4:00 p.m. there will be a bus tour with the City Commission on infill and subdivisions that didn’t quite turn out as planned. It is a public meeting and there is room on the bus for the general public. Call Stacy Ulmen for reservations. Discussion on Zoning Commission and Planning Board dual membership, and the need for additional volunteer Zoning Commission board members. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT Trever McSpadden, President Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Division Manager Planning Board Department of Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 357 From:pam merrell To:Chris Saunders Subject:Application #P-13024 Date:Monday, September 02, 2013 9:13:41 AM Dear Planning Board: As a resident of the Laurel Glen Subdivision, I am writing to request that you recommend denial of Application #P-13024 to amend the land use designation for Lot 1, Block 4, Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase 1, City of Bozeman, Montana from “Community Commercial Mixed Use” to “Residential.” My opposition to the application is based upon the reasons stated below. 1. The Laurel Glen Subdivision already contains substantial high density housing and adding more would violate the value of balance which the development and good neighborhood planning was intended to support. 2. The need for the types of businesses which would qualify for the current zoning becomes stronger every day. There are no such businesses in this area and soon businesses will see a market in this area. 3. Adding more high density housing will turn this neighborhood into no neighborhood at all. I will just be more Sprawl with nothing holding it together to create community. 4. When we purchased our property we bought into a plan and a future community. Unplanned sprawl will ruin this vision and devalue our property. Thank you, Pam Merrell, Bill Seymour 4563 Ethan Way Unit A Bozeman, MT, 59718 358 From:McKenzie Sacry To:Chris Saunders Subject:denial of Application #P-13024 Date:Monday, September 02, 2013 9:50:50 PM Attachments:laurel.glen.petition.9.3.2013.pdf Please find the following petition containing 118 signatures to request that the governing body deny the request (Application #P-13024) to amend the land use designation for Lot 1, Block 4, Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase 1, City of Bozeman, Montana from “Community Commercial Mixed Use” to “Residential.” If the original document is required and a scanned PDF is not acceptable please let me know as soon as possible. I can be reached at msacry@gmail.com or 406-599-6146. Thank you so much for your time and consideration in this matter. McKenzie Sacry 359 From:Monique Dutkowsky To:Chris Saunders Subject:denial of Application #P-13024 Date:Tuesday, September 03, 2013 7:35:58 AM Dear Planning Board: I am writing to request that you recommend denial of Application #P-13024 to amend the land use designation for Lot 1, Block 4, Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase 1, City of Bozeman, Montana from “Community Commercial Mixed Use” to “Residential.” The application does not meet the growth policy amendment review criteria and should therefore be denied. The reason I so strongly believe that this is the case for Application #P- 13024 is because the property owners in Laurel Glen had an expectation that this Lot would be used for "Community Commercial Mixed Use" and not turn into another apartment complex. We factored this into our decision about how much we were willing to pay when we bought our homes. If property owners knew that the City of Bozeman would choose to convert this into a "Residential Lot", we would have decreased our initial offer on our home -- having an expectation that eventually we would be surrounded by tall apartments that might block our view of the Bridgers. The difference in value as a result of an approval of this Application would be an effective "takings" from property owners in the area by the City that directly transfers to developers in the area. Since the expectation is that neither the City nor the developers plan to compensate local property owners for that takings, it would be unjust to approve Application #P-13024. The common sense take-away: We bought with a certain expectation about how the Subdivision would develop, which increased our willingness to pay for our home. If the expectation was that there would be an apartment complex along that main road, we would have certainly paid less for our home. Regardless of what the developers claim, if they do not intend to compensate Laurel Glen homeowners for their losses, they should not expect to be able to change the Lot's intended usage as it would quite literally mean taking from area homeowners (who have already taken huge hits in property value over the last 5 years) to give to a developer. That doesn't seem like the Montana way! Sincerely, Monique Dutkowsky Laurel Glen Homeowner 360 From:McKenzie Sacry To:Chris Saunders Subject:denial of Application #P-13024 Date:Monday, September 02, 2013 9:43:49 PM September 2nd, 2013 Bozeman Planning Board c/o Chris Saunders, AICP, Assistant Director csaunders@bozeman.net City of Bozeman Planning and Community Development PO Box 1230 Bozeman Montana 59771 Dear Planning Board: I am writing to request that you recommend denial of Application #P- 13024 to amend the land use designation for Lot 1, Block 4, Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase 1, City of Bozeman, Montana from “CommunityCommercial Mixed Use” to “Residential.” The application does not meet the growth policy amendment review criteria because it is not in line with the City of Bozeman's master plan. My family does not feel that changing the land use designation isappropriate because our neighborhood wants and needs a mix of uses. The range of zoning and building in our subdivision spans from single family homes to large scale high density apartments. When we purchased our home we looked into the zoning in the open field acrossthe street from our home and we found it was zoned for light commercial. We were excited at the prospect of a small store, or little cafe or even doctors offices going in near us. We still feel that way today. Changing the zoning of that chunk of land changes everythingand takes that home of something like that going in away from us. The application to change the land use states that the remaining 2 acres of open field would be enough to entice a business owner into building some kind of light commercial in our subdivision but I strongly disagree. 361 For this land to be desirable - it has to be big enough to support thebusiness enough to keep the doors open. I believe we need the entire 6.5 acres to do that. Decreasing the size of the Laurel Glen commercial node from 6.5 acres to 2 acres would be even farther from the 10-15 acres recommended by the Growth Policy for these types of smallercommercial nodes. Furthermore - high density apartments (which is what we were told would be built in the space by Matt Cotterman at Caddis Engineering) does not " provide for smaller scale retail and service activities frequentlyrequired by neighborhood residents on a day to day basis, as well as residential development as a secondary purpose, while still maintaining compatibility with adjacent residential land uses. Development Scale and pedestrian orientation are important elements of this district." Whichtherefore is not in line with the intent of the existing B1 zoningdistrict. Just because their are not enough roofs in our subdivision today doesn't mean there won't be in the future. The applicant's argument that Laurel Parkway is currently "lightly used" is extremely short-sited. Laurel Parkway will become a more heavily used road as the development in this part of town continues to grow and expand in the next few years. The 7th guiding principle of the growth policy related to sustainability and "thinking of the future in today's actions." is written specifically for cases like this. I do hope you consider our arguments and keep the land use designation the same. We want and need a neighborhood center. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, McKenzie Sacry 971 Longbow LaneBozeman, Montana 59718 362 From:Bryan Clark To:Chris Saunders Cc:Alicia Clark; Bryan Clark Subject:Land use designation for Lot 1, Block 4, Laurel Glen Subdivision Date:Monday, September 02, 2013 3:39:47 PM September 2, 2013 Bozeman Planning Boardc/o Chris Saunders, AICP, Assistant Directorcsaunders@bozeman.netCity of Bozeman Planning and Community DevelopmentPO Box 1230Bozeman Montana 59771 Dear Planning Board: Please recommend denial of Application #P-13024 to amend the land usedesignation for Lot 1, Block 4, Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase 1, City of Bozeman,Montana from “Community Commercial Mixed Use” to “Residential.” While I appreciate the need for high density apartments, particularly in a collegetown, I would suggest that this is not consistent with the city’s master plan,specifically the principles of Neighborhoods, Centers and Sustainability. We would rather see future development in line with intent of the existing B1 zoningdistrict which is: "to provide for smaller scale retail and service activities frequentlyrequired by neighborhood residents on a day to day basis, as well as residentialdevelopment as a secondary purpose, while still maintaining compatibility withadjacent residential land uses. Development Scale and pedestrian orientation areimportant elements of this district." High density apartments do not meet this intent. We already have residential development ranging from single family homes totownhomes to higher density apartments. But we are currently missing the small-scale commercial center that was originally planned. Decreasing the Laurel Glen commercial node from 6.5 acres to 2 acres would deviateeven farther from the 10-15 acres recommended by the Growth Policy for thesetypes of smaller commercial nodes. We doubt the remaining 2-acre B-1 lot to thesouth could serve by itself as a neighborhood commercial center. When we built our house, we had fair and reasonable expectation for developmenton this parcel based on the City’s master plan. Other parts of the community andeven our neighborhood are already appropriated designated and zoned for highdensity residential apartments. As the Growth Policy (Goal C-3) states: "Good neighborhoods allow choices inhousing, recreation, modes of transportation, options for commerce, work, andentertainment..." Please prevent our neighborhood from becoming a single landuse subdivision and deny this request to change the land use designation of ourneighborhood center. 363 Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely,Bryan & Alicia Clark933 Longbow LnBozeman, MT 59718 364 From:Dave and Karen Steinberg To:Chris Saunders Subject:Laurel Glen development project Date:Tuesday, September 03, 2013 8:20:44 AM We are definitely against more high rise apartment complexes in the Laurel Glen Subdivision.There are sufficient units for rent or sale to accommodate any new residents. A small singlestory commercial building, such as dentist office, branch bank, or coffee shop would follow theguidelines for mixed use. Apartment complexes only add to the traffic congestion both driving andthe on-street parking. Please reconsider approval to build any more multi-family apartment complexes in this area. Dave and Karen Steinberg1168 Saxon way-Anoski2@msn.com 365 From:Kellie Schramm To:Chris Saunders Subject:Laurel Glen Land Use Amendment Applicaion #P-13024 Date:Monday, September 02, 2013 10:00:02 PM 9/2/13 Bozeman Planning Board c/o Chris Saunders, AICP, Policy and Planning Manager csaunders@bozeman.net Department of Community Development PO Box 1230 Bozeman Montana 59771 Dear Planning Board: We are writing to request that you recommend denial of Application #P-13024 to amend the land use designation for Lot 1, Block 4, Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase 1, City of Bozeman, Montana from “Community Commercial Mixed Use” to “Residential.” The application does not meet the growth policy amendment review criteria with respect to our neighborhoods desire to have land with mixed use. As a homeowner in Laurel Glen we purchased our home under the impression that the City of Bozeman’s growth policy regarding planned unit developments would apply. As it stands now looking at the zoning map, our subdivision has not adhered to any type of planning with respect to mixed use of property for future commercial use. According to the city’s master plan 10-15 acres is the recommended size for smaller commercial areas. The application is requesting to decrease our B1 zoned area from 6.5 acres to 2 acres, which is substantially under the suggested size. This makes the remaining 2-acre B-1 lot to the south even less viable as a neighborhood commercial center. Laurel Parkway boarders the property under amendment. It has been designated as a road that moves traffic from local streets to arterial roads. The applicant's argument that this road is currently "lightly used" does not take the city’s future growth plan into consideration. Laurel Parkway will become a more heavily used road as the development in this part of town continues to intensify over the next few years. Similarly, as the surrounding area is developed, that will contribute to more rooftops and will only increase support for commercial development. We urge you to follow the 7th guiding principle of the growth policy related to sustainability and "thinking of the future in today's actions." We respectfully ask you to take a comprehensive look at the needs of the neighborhood in 366 which this application for amended land use affects. Please see that mixed commercial zoning is consistent with the overall intent of the City of Bozeman’s growth policy to “improve the physical environment of the community as a setting for human activities, more functional, beautiful, healthful & efficient.” Sincerely, Kellie & Jason Schramm 957 Longbow Ln Bozeman, MT 59718 367 From:Roger J. Somerville To:Chris Saunders Cc:brandonedwards@me.com Subject:Laurel Glen Subdivision Lot 1, Block 4, Phase 1 Date:Tuesday, September 03, 2013 2:15:56 PM Attachments:Laurel Glen Lot 964 Longbow Lane Aug2013.pdf 3 September 2013 Bozeman Planning Board City of Bozeman Planning and Community Development Dear Mr. Saunders, I see there is a meeting tonight on the subjected property and I just wanted to add a couple comments to my earlier letter of 21 August 2013. The neighborhood concept for the Laurel Glen subdivision has been greatly degraded over the last couple of years by the continued construction of large eight-plex apartments and the lack of single family housing construction. The current amount of traffic is not conducive to a safe neighborhood environment where children can be allowed to play on their front lawns in their neighborhood. The streets are packed with parked cars and constructed too narrow to accommodate this over flow of vehicles brought in by the dorm like living conditions in a majority of the units. I have been provided a copy of the petition circulated by the Residents of Laurel Glen Subdivision and concur with a majority of their issues with this requested change in the approved land use. I still believe that if any changes are made, it should only be to allow the construction of single family homes in the remaining empty lot areas in the subdivision. This subdivision could be a nice family subdivision, close to a new elementary school and future middle school, close to soccer fields, and other recreational activities. I would hate to see it turned into a rundown housing unit area like many I have observed or lived adjacent to back East or in California during my military career. This application needs to be returned to the owner requesting they make changes before a resubmittal is returned for consideration. Thank you for your time. Regards, Roger J. Somerville, PESenior Project Engineer 368 From:Mark Hernandez To:Chris Saunders Subject:Laurel Glen Subdivision Date:Monday, September 02, 2013 9:04:46 AM 9-2-13 Bozeman Planning Board c/o Chris Saunders, AICP, Assistant Directorcsaunders@bozeman.net City of Bozeman Planning and Community Development PO Box 1230Bozeman Montana 59771 Dear Planning Board: I am writing to request that you recommend denial of Application #P-13024 toamend the land use designation for Lot 1, Block 4, Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase 1,City of Bozeman, Montana from “Community Commercial Mixed Use” to“Residential.” The application does not meet the growth policy amendment review criteria. Otherparts of the community and even our neighborhood are already appropriateddesignated and zoned for high density residential apartments. While some residentialapartments may be appropriate for this site, they should be located above small-scale commercial uses with integrated urban plazas, public art and hard-scaped openspaces. Prevent our neighborhood from becoming an anonymous subdivision ofsingle land use and deny this request to change the land use designationof our neighborhood center. Sincerely, Mark Hernandez4657 Shadowglen Drive 369 From:Sandie Metcalf To:Chris Saunders Subject:Laurel Glenn zoning change Date:Tuesday, September 03, 2013 10:38:38 AM Dear Planning Board, Having owned land on Durston road that was annexed into the city in 2004, we arevery aware of the city master plan for this area. This is the reason we purchasedour home in Laurel Glenn. Now we are seeing the developer attempting to changethe master plan to benefit himself financially. This is not a new tactic for Mr.Hensley as he has committed to one thing and done another in the past. We are sure that you are aware of the many reasons not to allow this zoningchange. We will not go into them at this point, so that we might be more efficientwith your time. However, with that said, we plan to be in attendance at the meetingthis evening and hope to participate in the discussion on this matter. We believe it is the city's responsibility to hold the developer to the original plan andnot allow him to take advantage of people for his own personal financial gain. Thank you for your time and consideration. Gary and Sandra Metcalf719 Loxley Dr.Bozeman, MT 59718 370 From:Christina Haggerty To:Chris Saunders Subject:Lauren Glen HomeOwner Date:Tuesday, September 03, 2013 12:22:08 PM 9/3/13 Bozeman Planning Board c/o Chris Saunders, AICP, Assistant Directorcsaunders@bozeman.net City of Bozeman Planning and Community Development PO Box 1230 Bozeman Montana 59771 Dear Planning Board:I am writing to request that you recommend denial of Application #P-13024 to amend the land use designation for Lot 1, Block 4, Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase 1, City of Bozeman, Montana from “Community Commercial Mixed Use” to “Residential.” The application does not meet the growth policy amendment review criteria. We would rather see future development in line with intent of the existing B1 zoning district. I have two smallchildren and we plan on having more; this area is perfect for us and we hope to stay here for a long time. Please keep the zoning policies family friendly. Development Scale andpedestrian orientation are important elements of this district." High density apartments do not meet this intent. Sincerely, -- Christina Haggerty Independent Pampered Chef Consultant (406) 370.4868Bozeman, MTchristina.haggerty@gmail.compamperedchef.biz/christinahaggerty 371 From:Bridget & David Ashcraft To:Chris Saunders Date:Tuesday, September 03, 2013 10:56:33 AM [Date] Bozeman Planning Board c/o Chris Saunders, AICP, Assistant DirectorCity of Bozeman Planning and Community Development PO Box 1230Bozeman Montana 59771 Dear Planning Board: I am writing to request that you recommend denial of Application #P-13024 toamend the land use designation for Lot 1, Block 4, Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase 1,City of Bozeman, Montana from “Community Commercial Mixed Use” to“Residential.” In my opinion the application does not meet the growth policy amendment reviewcriteria as it would decrease the already reduced ratio the City of Bozeman has setfor land use for such developments as Laurel Glen. Before moving to Laurel Glen welooked into many subdivisions and we believed that we were moving into a growingdevelopment that would suite the growth of our family with it's many plannedamenities. So far the development has been less then stellar at meeting thoseexpectations. Additional alterations to the land use in Laurel Glen will likely compel many singlefamily homeowners to begin looking elsewhere for residents; creating morevacancies in the subdivision. Then to compound this issue with more high occupancyapartments will, I fear, turn Laurel Glen into another Michaels Grove--an area that isovercrowded and poorly maintained. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, David and Bridget Ashcraft4691 Shadowglen Dr 372 From:Brandon Edwards To:Chris Saunders Subject:Request for the denial of Application #P-13024 Date:Monday, September 02, 2013 8:59:56 PM September 2, 2013 Bozeman Planning Board c/o Chris Saunders, AICP, Assistant Director csaunders@bozeman.net City of Bozeman Planning and Community Development PO Box 1230 Bozeman Montana 59771 Dear Planning Board: I am writing to request that you recommend denial of Application #P-13024 to amend the land use designation for Lot 1, Block 4, Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase 1, City of Bozeman, Montana from “Community Commercial Mixed Use” to “Residential.” The application does not meet the growth policy amendment review criteria because it does not "cure any deficiencies" in the growth policy and is not "consistent with the overall intent" of the growth policy. Before we purchased our home in Laurel Glen we went down to City Hall and looked at all the designs and plans for our development. When we purchased our home we were looking forward to possibly having a daycare center, montessori school or dentist's office and a small community store like Joe's Parkway or Heeb's within walking distance of our home. If the zoning changes to residential everyone in our subdivision will lose the ability to walk to a store or office. We did not want to move into an all-residential subdivision eight years ago and we don't want to live in one now. This will also force all our neighborhood residents to drive everywhere for work, commerce, entertainment and recreation which will have a negative impact on our quality of life and will cause more damage to our local roads in the long term for Bozeman. If you approve this change in zoning to 100% residential it will decrease the Laurel Glen commercial node from 6.5 acres to only 2 acres make our remaining 2-acre B-1 lot to the south even less viable as a neighborhood commercial center and it would be even farther from the 10-15 acres recommended by the City of Bozeman's Growth Policy. Isn't this against Bozeman's growth policy? 373 On Friday, August 30th I spoke with Matt Cotterman from Caddis Engineering and Land Surveying. He said that although they have not drawn up plans yet they were planning on putting in high density apartments. The same day I spoke with Chuck Hinesley of Great Western Investments and he denied that he had any specific plans for Lot 1, Block 4. It seems like he should definitely have plans for that lot if he is wanting to change the zoning. I think he does have a very specific plan for the that lot but he knows it is not what the residents of our subdivision want. I personally went and spoke with half of our neighborhood home owners myself this last week and not one of them wanted to change the commercial zoning to allow for high density housing. They all wanted it to stay the way it is currently zoned and they signed our petition. Everyone voiced their desire to have the B1 zoning for light commercial use. In fact this proposed amendments is not consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy or the principles of Neighborhoods, Centers and Sustainability. You may not be aware that a lot more high density housing is currently being built about two blocks north of this lot in the Laurel Glen neighborhood right now on the north side of the development in accordance with current zoning. I already have friends in the business community interested in having their businesses in our neighborhood. In fact the business I work at is even further west from us so the idea that the current zoning isn't attractive to business owners is pessimistic at best. The Commons community center is even further west from us and this Laurel Glen commercial zoning is the closest commercial property to that development which already currently serves over 3000 people in our community a week. Please think of Bozeman's future, look at these properties and our neighborhood comprehensively and help us keep our options for recreation, work, commerce and entertainment by denying Application #P-13024. Denying this amendment is the right decision for Bozeman. Sincerely, Brandon Edwards 787 Loxley Dr.Bozeman, MT 59718 374 Page 1 Appropriate Review Fee Submitted CITY OF BOZEMAN FEE APPLIES- $ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 1. Name of Project/Development: Lot 1, Block 4 Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase 1 – Growth Policy Amendment 2. Property Owner Information: Name: Manhattan Bank E-mail Address: Mailing Address: 2610 W. Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: 582-0044 FAX: 3. Applicant Information: Name: Great Western Investments E-mail Address: hinesleydevelopment@fusemail.com Mailing Address: 4721 Glenwood Drive, Unit D, Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: 582-9025 FAX: 4. Representative Information: Name: Caddis Engineering & Land Surveying, P.C. E-mail Address: mcotterman@caddiseng.com Mailing Address: P.O. Box 11805, Bozeman, MT 59719 Phone: 581-4097 FAX: 5. Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 4 Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase 1 – S ½, Sec. 4, T. 2.S., R. 5E. 6. Street Address: Northwest corner of the intersection of Laurel Parkway & Annie Street 7. Project Description: Growth Policy Amendment to change the future land use designation from Community Commercial Mixed Use to Residential. 8. Zoning Designation(s): B-1 9. Current Land Use(s): vacant 10. Bozeman Community Plan Designation: Community Commercial Mixed Use 11. Gross Area: Acres: 4.4928 Square Feet: 195,705 12. Net Area: Acres: 4.4928 Square Feet: 195,705 375 Page 2 (Development Review Application – Prepared 11/25/03; Amended 9/17/04, 5/1/06; 9/18/07, revised 11/14/11) 13. Is the subject site within an urban renewal district? Yes, answer question 13a No, go to question 14 13a. Which urban renewal district? Downtown Northeast (NURD) North 7th Avenue 14. Is the subject site within an overlay district? Yes, answer question 14a No, go to question 15 14a. Which Overlay District? Casino Neighborhood Conservation Entryway Corridor 15. Will this application require a deviation(s)? Yes, list UDC section(s): No 16. Application Type (please check all that apply): O. Planned Unit Development – Concept Plan A. Sketch Plan for Regulated Activities in Regulated Wetlands P. Planned Unit Development – Preliminary Plan B. Reuse, Change in Use, Further Development Pre-9/3/91 Site Q. Planned Unit Development – Final Plan C. Amendment/Modification of Plan Approved On/After 9/3/91 R. Planned Unit Development – Master Plan D. Reuse, Change in Use, Further Development, Amendment /COA S. Subdivision Pre-application E. Special Temporary Use Permit T. Subdivision Preliminary Plat F. Sketch Plan/COA U. Subdivision Final Plat G. Sketch Plan/COA with an Intensification of Use V. Subdivision Exemption H. Preliminary Site Plan/COA W. Annexation I. Preliminary Site Plan X. Zoning Map Amendment J. Preliminary Master Site Plan Y. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment K. Conditional Use Permit Z. Zoning Variance L. Conditional Use Permit/COA AA. Growth Policy Map Amendment M. Administrative Project Decision Appeal BB. Growth Policy Text Amendment N. Administrative Interpretation Appeal Other: This application must be accompanied by the appropriate checklist(s), number of plans or plats, adjoiner information and materials, and fee (see Development Review Application Requirements and Fees). The plans or plats must be drawn to scale on paper not smaller than 8½- by 11-inches or larger than 24- by 36-inches folded into individual sets no larger than 8½- by 14-inches. The name of the project must be shown on the cover sheet of the plans. If 3-ring binders will be used, they must include a table of contents and tabbed dividers between sections. Application deadlines are Wednesdays at 5:00 pm. This application must be signed by both the applicant(s) and the property owner(s) (if different) before the submittal will be accepted. As indicated by the signature(s) below, the applicant(s) and property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code. It is further indicated that any work undertaken to complete a development approved by the City of Bozeman shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and any special conditions established by the approval authority. I acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project. Further, I agree to grant City personnel and other review agency representatives access to the subject site during the course of the review process (Section 38.34.050, BMC). I (We) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant’s Signature: Date: Applicant’s Signature: Date: Property Owner’s Signature: Date: Property Owner’s Signature: Date: 376 377 GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT CRITERIA LOT 1, BLOCK 4 LAUREL GLEN SUBDIVISION GPA 1. The proposed amendment cures a deficiency in the growth policy or results in an improved growth policy which better responds to the needs of the general community. In 2002, when Laurel Glen Subdivision was granted initial zoning and preliminary plat approval, the developer was encouraged by the City to provide a centrally located commercial node. Lot 1, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 9 were zoned B-1 to provide for the suggested commercial use. In 2009, when the latest update to the Growth Policy was completed, the future land use designation for this property was updated to “Community Commercial Mixed Use” to reflect the existing zoning. As development has progressed within Laurel Glen Subdivision and surrounding properties it has become clear that this parcel is poorly sited for commercial use. It is located along what is currently a lightly used roadway (Laurel Parkway) which only provides access to residential properties. While ultimately Laurel Parkway will see increased traffic it is not likely that it will carry the volumes that are required to support commercial development. The designation of a community commercial mixed use node at this location is in direct conflict with ideals of the Growth Policy. The Growth Policy calls for community commercial mixed use centers to be placed at the intersection of arterial and collector streets. The Greater Area Transportation Plan 2007 update designates Laurel Parkway as a collector roadway only between Oak Street and Durston Road. There are no guarantees that Laurel Parkway will even continue as a local street to the north and south. The intersecting roadways are all local streets containing a mix of residential structures. Laurel Parkway will likely never provide the exposure and traffic required to support commercial development. If this parcel is to remain as commercial it has the potential to draw commercial traffic away from the major street network and through the residential portion of the subdivision degrading quality of life for the residents. The property is located 1 mile north of Main Street(U.S. Highway 191) which serves as a 378 major commercial corridor and existing commercial centers are, or will soon be available, nearby within Valley West Subdivision, Billion Subdivision and the Spring Creek Village Resort. While neighborhood commercial centers are one of the primary components of the growth policy, the market has shown that this location is not suitable to meet the needs of the community. This property has been on the market for over 10 years with little interest from business owners or developers. It should also be noted that the previously approved PUD plan for Valley West Subdivision designated approximately 3.5 acres of land for commercial use at the southwest corner of Durston Road and Laurel Parkway. This proposed commercial node, although not identified in the growth policy, is located at the intersection of an arterial (Durston Road) and a collector (Laurel Parkway) which is much more consistent with the goals found within the growth policy. This adjoining site, approximately 1,200 feet south of the subject parcel, is easily accessible to the much higher traffic volumes found on Durston Road. The superior access and visibility associated with this adjoining property will have a huge long term effect on the marketability of the subject property as a competitive commercial use. And lastly, the construction of the new elementary school and future middle school at the intersection of Durston Road and Flanders Mill Road, within walking distance of this property, should now be an important consideration when looking at the most appropriate land use. The removal of the community commercial designation will allow this property to be developed with family oriented apartment buildings or similar higher density affordable housing structures. This will not only fill an important gap in the housing market but will allow the school district and City to provide service in a more efficient manner. 2. The proposed amendment does not create inconsistencies within the growth policy, either between the goals and the map or between goals; if inconsistencies are identified then additional changes must be provided to remove the inconsistencies. The proposed amendment does not create inconsistencies within the growth policy, it actually brings it into conformity. The growth policy calls for neighborhood centers to be 379 placed at the intersection of arterial and collector streets. This neighborhood commercial node has been placed along a collector (Laurel Parkway) at the intersection with local streets containing residential structures. The nearest arterial roadways are Oak Street and Durston Road, 1,200 feet north and south of the site respectively. The current designation is inconsistent with the text found within the growth policy and has the potential to negatively impact quality of life for the residents of the subdivision. 3. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy. The intent of the growth policy is to provide community commercial centers within neighborhoods at the intersections of major roadways. The location of this existing center is not consistent with the growth policy text and has proven to be an unattractive option for potential businesses. 4. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the community as a whole or significant portion by: a. Significantly altering acceptable existing and future land use patterns, as defined in the text and maps of this plan. The proposed amendment does not significantly alter existing and future land use patterns. Revising the growth policy designation to residential will allow for a land use that is consistent with the surrounding properties. This change will also bring the land use closer to conformance with the written objectives within the growth policy (community commercial nodes found at major street intersections). b. Requiring unmitigated larger and more expensive improvements to streets, water, sewer, or other public facilities or services and which, therefore, may impact development of other lands. The change to residential will likely lessen impacts to streets, water, sewer and other public facilities and services. The change will also decrease the amount of potential commercial traffic that would be routed through the residential portion of 380 the subdivision. The change in land use designation will also give the flexibility needed to provide additional low income housing within walking distance of the new public school facilities. c. Adversely impacting existing uses because of unmitigated greater than anticipated impacts on facilities and services. Changing the land use designation from commercial to residential will likely lessen impacts to streets, water, sewer and other public facilities and services. d. Negatively affecting the livability of the area of the health and safety of the residents. This Growth Policy Amendment will allow the property to be developed in a manner consistent with its surrounding use. Neighborhood commercial services are found nearby at Ferguson & Main Street and they will eventually be found in the Spring Creek Village Resort and Valley West Subdivision. There will still remain a 2.04 parcel immediately to the south within Laurel Glen Subdivision that will be available for smaller low impact neighborhood commercial services. It should also be noted that this revision to the growth policy has no effect on the zoning designation – the property will remain within the B-1 Zone which will still allow for commercial use. This revision to the growth policy will only remove the requirement that the property be primarily commercial usage. This amendment will positively affect the livability and health and safety of the residents by reducing the impacts from commercial traffic traveling through the subdivision. C:\Caddis\13\13002\GPA Criteria Text.doc 381 LEGEND PROPERTY LINE ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO GPA CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD LENGTH DELTA ANGLE C1 25.00' 27.88'26.46'63°53'46" C2 25.00' 24.41'23.45'55°56'39" C3 25.00' 24.41'23.45'55°56'39" C4 25.00' 26.30'25.10'60°15'51" Annie Street Glenellen Drive Laurel ParkwayLOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 5 LOT 7 LOT 10 LOT 6 LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 14 LOT 13 LOT 2 LOT 11 LOT 1 LOT 10 LOT 12 LOT 4 LOT 3 LOT 1 LOT 4 LOT 9 LOT 3 LOT 12 LOT 5 LOT 6LOT 8 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 8 LOT 1 LOT 11 BLOCK 34 BLOCK 8 BLOCK 9N 00°00'00" E 426.04'S 79°14'29" E 198.48'S 05°11'38" E 287.75'N 81°15'37" W 237.63' N 84°48'22" E 96.76' 78.44' S 84°48'22" WL=112 .6 0 ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' R =4 6 3 .0 0 ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' =13 °5 6 '0 1""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" L=9 1.8 8 ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' R =3 3 0 .0 0 ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' =15 °5 7 '0 9 """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" L = 5 2.08'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''R= 1 0 0.00'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''=2 9 °50'2 5 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""L=45.7 4 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''R=100 .0 0 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''=26°1 2 '3 1""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" C1 C2C3C 4Longbow LaneEXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTINGRESIDENTIALEXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL MIXED USE BLOCK 7 BLOCK 3 BLOCK 17 BLOCK 18 LOT 1 BLOCK 4 EXISTING COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL MIXED USE 4.4928 ACRES 195,705 SQ.FT. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL LOT 3A Minor Subdiv. No. 201A Minor Subdiv. No. 201A LOT 2AN 08°44'23" EN 05°11'38" WRESIDENTIAL EXISTING GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT MAP 0 100 200 LOT 1, BLOCK 4, LAUREL GLEN SUBDIVISION - PHASE 1 LOCATED IN THE S 1/2, SECTION 4, T. 2 S., R. 5 E. OF P.M.M., CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA #13002Sheet 1 of 1 EXHIBIT A06001200EXISTING GROWTH POLICY MAP#13002