The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-17-07 Cottonwood GPA Report compiled on June 11, 2007 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor & City Commission FROM: Martin Knight, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Cottonwood Crossing Growth Policy Amendment Application #P-07036 MEETING DATE: Monday, September 17th, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission denies this application. If the Commission finds that the review criteria have been met, and votes to approve this application, the standard contingencies noted on Page 7 of the Staff Report should be noted. BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment would amend the growth policy land use designation, as shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, from “Residential” to “Business Park” for 6.6 acres. The site is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road and is legally know as Phase 1A of the Loyal Garden Subdivision. At their September 5, 2007 public hearing the City of Bozeman Planning Board on a vote of 3 in favor and 2 against forward an un-official recommendation of approval. In the fall of 2005, a GPA application (#P-05039) was considered for the subject property. This application requested amending the growth policy land use designation from Future Urban to Neighborhood Commercial for the subject properties. The Planning Board was supportive of the proposed commercial area; the City Commission was not. The City Commission indicated that they could not support the commercial uses on Huffine Ln and that every option with residential uses should be exhausted first. The applicant has never provided anything showing that every option with residential uses has been exhausted. Furthermore, the draft Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Analysis (dated August 2007) includes a recommendation to modify or replace the Business Park land use designation. Replacing the Business Park designation with a new Mixed-Use Employment land use designation, or, modifying the Business Park designation to allow for a mix of uses, higher densities, and more efficient use of land have been suggested in this analysis. In consideration of these points and the overall unknown future of the Business Park designation, Staff finds it inappropriate to support this application. FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time, but will include increased property tax revenues, along with increased costs to deliver municipal services to the property, when the property is developed. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. CONTACT: Please feel free to email Martin Knight at mknight@bozeman.net if you have any questions prior to the public hearing. APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager 191 PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT COTTONWOOD CROSSING GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT FILE NO. #P-07036 #P-07036 Cottonwood Crossing GPA Staff Report 1 Item: Growth Policy Amendment Application #P-07036, to amend the growth policy land use designation, as shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, from Residential to Business Park for 6.6 acres. Owner: Betty Madill, Trustee of B. Madill Inter Vivos Trust 403 Slough Creek Bozeman, MT, 59718 Applicant: Covenant, LLC P.O. Box 11428 Bozeman, MT, 59719 Representative: Intrinsik Architecture 111 North Tracy Avenue Bozeman, MT, 59715 Date/Time: Before the Bozeman Planning Board on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Community Room, Gallatin County Courthouse, 311 West Main Street, Bozeman, Montana. Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, September 17, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the Community Room, Gallatin County Courthouse, 311 West Main Street, Bozeman, Montana. Report By: Martin Knight, Assistant Planner Recommendation: Denial __________________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT LOCATION AND MAP The subject property is generally located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Huffine Ln and Cottonwood Rd, and is legally described as Loyal Garden Subdivision Phase 1A, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana; and located in the NE ¼ of Section 16, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana. The subject property is approximately 6.6 acres in size. Please refer to the vicinity map on Page 2. 192 PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicants are proposing to amend the growth policy land use designation, as shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, from Future Residential to Business Park for 6.6 acres. The subject property contains several existing buildings including a residence, an agricultural barn, and two large metal buildings. Baxter Creek runs along the western boundary of the subject properties. Two applications for the subject property have been previously reviewed. A proposal for the subject site, with commercial uses proposed at the corner of Huffine Ln and Cottonwood Rd, was reviewed informally by the Planning Board and City Commission (#I-05011) in 2005. The Planning Board was supportive of the proposed commercial area, but the City Commission was not. The City Commission indicated that they could not support the commercial uses on Huffine Ln and that every option with residential uses should be exhausted first. The applicant has never provided anything showing that every option with residential uses has been exhausted. In the fall of 2005, a growth policy amendment application (#P-05039) was considered for the subject property. This application requested amending the growth policy land use designation from Future Urban to Neighborhood Commercial for the subject properties. Again, the City Commission indicated that they could not support commercial uses on Huffine Lane, and that every option with residential uses should be exhausted first. ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES The property currently has a zoning designation of R-O (Residential Office District). The intent of the Residential Office District is to provide for and encourage the development of multi-household and apartment development and compatible professional offices and businesses that would blend well with adjacent land uses. The primary use of a lot, as measured by building area, permitted in the R-O district is determined by the underlying growth policy land use designation. Where the district lies over a residential growth policy designation the primary use shall be non-office uses; where the district lies over a non- residential designation the primary use shall be office and other non-residential uses. Primary use shall be #P-07036 Cottonwood Crossing GPA Staff Report 2 193 measured by percentage of building floor area. The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property: North: Car dealership, vacant land, bank. Annexed and zoned B-P (Business Park District). South: Residential development. Annexed and zoned R-2 (Residential, Two- household, Medium Density District). East: Not annexed, Gallatin County Bozeman Area Zoning District designation of A-S. West: Residential development. Annexed and zoned R-2 (Residential, Two-household, Medium Density District) and R-3 (Residential Medium Density District). GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION The subject property is currently designated as Residential on the Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. This designation is described as follows: Residential. This category designates places where the primary activity is urban density living quarters. Other uses which complement residences are also acceptable such as parks, low intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches, and schools. The residential designation also 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. It is expected that areas of higher density housing would be likely to be located in proximity to commercial centers to facilitate the broadest range of feasible transportation options for the greatest number of individuals and support businesses within commercial centers. Low density areas should have an average minimum density of six units per net acre. Medium density areas should have an average minimum density of twelve units per net acre. High density areas should have an average minimum density of eighteen units per net acre. A variety of housing types should be blended to achieve the desired density with large areas of single type housing being 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 classification. All residential housing should be arranged with consideration given to the existing character of adjacent development, any natural constraints such as steep slopes, and in a fashion which advances the overall goals of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. The residential designation is intended to provide the principal locations for additional housing within the Planning Area. The applicants are proposing that 6.6 acre subject parcels be given a land use designation of Business Park. This designation is described as follows: Business Park. This classification provides for areas typified by office and light industrial uses. Additional uses such as retail, services, or industrial may be approved if they are compatible with, and in support of, the underlying Business Park intent The following growth policy designations are adjacent to the subject property: #P-07036 Cottonwood Crossing GPA Staff Report 3 194 North: Car dealership, vacant land, bank. Designated Business Park; South: Residential development. Designated Residential, East: Agricultural uses/vacant land. Designated Future Urban, which is described as follows: Future Urban. This category designates areas where development is considered to be generally inappropriate over the 20 year term of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, either because of natural features, negative impacts on the desired development pattern, or significant difficulty in providing urban services. The Residential category contains adequate area to accommodate over 200 percent of expected residential development over the 20 year horizon of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. Development within the Future Urban area would be generally disruptive to the desired compact urban land use pattern depicted in the Plan. As Bozeman develops over time, it is expected that the City would expand outward into areas previously designated as Future Urban. As the City’s growth policy is updated from time to time, some areas currently classified as Future Urban are expected to be reclassified to urban designations. The land shown with a Future Urban designation is comprised of parcels in a variety of different sizes, but typically in larger acreages. Suburban or rural density subdivisions adjacent to the City may impede an orderly and cost effective expansion of the City. In order to prevent such conflicts and problems in the future, use of land in the Future Urban land use designation should follow one of three paths, which are listed in order of the City’s preference: 1. Remain as currently utilized, until annexed and municipal services are available to support a Residential or other urban land use category development as described in this plan; 2. Develop at a density of a single dwelling per existing parcel, with consolidation of smaller parcels into single ownerships for development being supported; or 3. If further subdivision is proposed, to develop at urban densities and standards with provisions for connection to City services when they become available. Annexation of most Future Urban areas is unlikely over the term of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and final authority to deny or approve development in County areas shown with this designation remains with the County Commission. As Gallatin County completes its own county-wide growth policy, additional and more detailed planning is expected within the County zoning district surrounding the City. This more detailed level of planning is expected to help identify areas that are preferred for, or inappropriate for, development and give guidance to the County Commission in their review of individual development proposals. West: Residential development. Designated Residential. REVIEW CRITERIA According to Section 2.4.1 of the 2020 Plan, any proposed amendment must be approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the total membership of the City Commission. The burden of proof for the desirability of a proposed amendment and its compliance with the criteria listed below lies with the #P-07036 Cottonwood Crossing GPA Staff Report 4 195 applicant. Unless all criteria are successfully met, and compliance with the criteria below is supported by demonstrable facts, an amendment shall not be approved. A. 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. The proposal to designate 6.6 acres at the corner of Huffine Ln and Cottonwood Rd as Business Park would not result in an improved growth policy. State law requires that the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan be reviewed, and if necessary revised, every five years. This review and revision process is currently being conducted and expected to be completed by the summer of 2008. The draft Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Analysis (dated August 2007) includes a recommendation to modify or replace the Business Park land use designation. Rationale behind this recommendation includes the Business Park designation (1) focusing on a single-use pattern, without providing for supportive retail, services, and other uses that can support employment- oriented areas; (2) being land-consumptive and not conducive to transit or other alternative transportation modes; (3) and not reflecting market trends towards mixed-use and “flex-space” employment areas. Replacing the Business Park designation with a new Mixed-Use Employment land use designation, or, modifying the Business Park designation to allow for a mix of uses, higher densities, and more efficient use of land have been suggested in this analysis. In consideration of these points and the overall unknown future of the Business Park designation, Staff finds it inappropriate to support this application. B. The proposed amendment does not create inconsistencies within the growth policy, either between the goals and the maps or between different goals; if inconsistencies are identified, then additional changes must be provided to remove the inconsistencies. The proposed location for 6.6 acres of Business Park is unsupportable because it is inconsistent with the following goal and objective of the 2020 Plan: • Goal 6.6.2. Centers – Designate centers for commercial development rather than corridors to encourage cohesive neighborhood development in conjunction with non-motorized transportation options. The 2020 Plan espouses the concept of “centers” where commercial uses are oriented around the intersections of arterial and collector streets rather than along corridors. When the Future Land Use Map in the 2020 Plan was prepared, land along corridors that were already developed or approved for development with commercial uses (such as the developments across Huffine Ln) continued to be designated for commercial uses. However, no additional lands along corridors were designated for commercial uses in the 2020 Plan, including the subject property. This growth policy amendment proposal is contrary to Goal 6.6.2 because it would perpetuate the siting of commercial uses along corridors rather than in centers. For a description of the benefits of “centers,” please see Item C below. • Goal 6.6.2, Objective 1 - Develop a land use pattern oriented on half-mile radius neighborhood service centers incorporating employment, recreation and residential uses. The subject property overlaps with a significant portion of the half-mile service area around the Neighborhood Commercial area located at W Babcock St and Cottonwood #P-07036 Cottonwood Crossing GPA Staff Report 5 196 Rd. Staff acknowledges that additional commercial types of uses and land will likely be needed in the area in the future. However, as stated above, approval of this growth policy amendment would be contrary to Goal 6.6.2 in that it would perpetuate the siting of commercial uses along this corridor rather than in centers. Such a growth policy amendment may be appropriate in the future with a Business Park designation that takes into account the items discussed in Item A above. C. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy. There are six basic ideas which form a foundation for many of the land use policies of the 2020 Plan and seem to best encapsulate the intent of the growth policy. One of these is the concept of “urban density,” of which the plan states the following: “Although Bozeman provides a wide range of housing styles, types, and densities, it does not provide every option. Bozeman is a city, and the housing densities are not those of rural areas of Gallatin County. Fundamental to the efficient and cost-effective provision of urban services, multi-modal transportation, and a compact development pattern is a concentration of persons and activities.” Another of the six basic ideas is the concept of “centers.” Focusing commercial activities into mutually reinforcing centralized areas enables each business to take advantage of the presence of customers and employees of other businesses. It enables greater convenience for people with shorter travel distances to a wide range of businesses and the opportunity to accomplish several tasks with a single trip. This can facilitate the use of transportation alternatives to single occupant motor vehicles and a corresponding reduction in traffic and road congestion and air quality impacts. A central location enables greater access to employment, services, and recreation with a reduced dependence on the automobile, greater efficiencies in delivery of public services, and corresponding cost savings in both personal and commercial applications. The center-based concept does not require less land for actual business activities but does change the shape of the commercial areas. The center-based development pattern is supported in the 2020 Plan by locating centers at the intersection of arterial and collector streets. Such locations allow not only immediately adjacent residents but also passing travelers to support the commercial activities. The centers are further supported through careful location of higher density housing in a fashion that provides support for commercial operations while providing amenities to residents. When the Future Land Use Map in the 2020 Plan was prepared, land along corridors that were already developed or approved for development with commercial uses (such as the developments across Huffine Ln) continued to be designated for commercial uses. However, no additional lands along corridors were designated for commercial uses in the 2020 Plan, including the subject property. This growth policy amendment proposal is contrary to the concept of commercial centers; this amendment would perpetuate the siting of commercial development along corridors. As noted in the description of center-based development, it is desirable to have commercial centers located at the intersection of collectors and arterials, such as the intersection of W Babcock St and Cottonwood Rd. The applicant is proposing the siting of a Commercial area at the intersection of two arterials – Huffine Ln and Cottonwood Rd. If the Commercial area proposed at the intersection of Huffine Ln and Cottonwood Rd is approved, it will very difficult to deny similar proposals along Huffine Ln in the future. A #P-07036 Cottonwood Crossing GPA Staff Report 6 197 slippery slope of corridor-based commercial uses lining Huffine Ln may be created which will be completely contrary to the basic land use principals of the 2020 Plan. D. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the community as a whole or significant portion by: 1. Significantly altering acceptable existing and future land use patterns, as defined in the text and maps of this plan. Again, a commercial element along Huffine Ln would adversely alter desired future land use patterns by encouraging corridor-based commercial development along Huffine Ln. 2. 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. AND 3. Adversely impacting existing uses because of unmitigated greater than anticipated impacts on facilities and services. Through annexation and subdivision of the subject property, major improvements to public facilities have been completed. These improvements included the extension of water and sewer mains to the subject property, construction of the west-half of Cottonwood Road to principal arterial standards, and signalization improvements to the corner of Huffine Ln and Cottonwood Rd. No other major improvements are anticipated at this time. 4. Negatively affecting the livability of the area or the health and safety of the residents. This proposed amendment should not negatively affect the livability of the area, or the health and safety of nearby residents. STAFF FINDINGS/CONCLUSION Planning staff has reviewed this application for a growth policy amendment against the criteria set forth in Section 2.4.1 (Criteria for Review and Amendment) of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. Staff found that this proposal does not satisfy all of the required review criteria. Based on the evaluation of said criteria and findings by the Planning staff, staff recommends DENIAL of the requested growth policy amendment. Should the Planning Board vote to recommend approval of this application, the following contingencies should be noted: 1. The applicant shall submit, within forty-five (45) days of approval by the City Commission, an 8½- x 11-inch or 8½- x 14-inch exhibit entitled “Cottonwood Crossing Growth Policy Amendment” to the Planning Department containing an accurate description of the property for which the growth policy designation is being amended. The exhibit must be acceptable to the Planning Department. #P-07036 Cottonwood Crossing GPA Staff Report 7 198 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 2020 Community Plan. The recommendation of the Bozeman Planning Board will be forwarded to the Bozeman City Commission for consideration at its public hearing on September 17, 2007. The City Commission will make the final decision on the application. PUBLIC COMMENT No public comment letters had been received when this report was prepared. ATTACHMENTS Applicant’s submittal – The applicant’s response to the growth policy amendment criteria and exhibits. Cc: Covenant, LLC, P.O. Box 11428, Bozeman, MT 59719 Betty Madill, 403 Slough Creek, Bozeman, MT 59718 Intrinsik Architecture, 111 North Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 #P-07036 Cottonwood Crossing GPA Staff Report 8 199 Cottonwood Crossing GPA Planning Bo RESOLUTION NO. P-07036 6, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted a growth policy pursuant to 76-1-604, CA; and by Resolution of the ozeman City Commission as provided for in Title 76-1-101, M.C.A.; and the Future Land Use Map Figure 6-2, from “Residential” to “Business Park” on 6.6 acres; and NE¼ of Section 16, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana; and t forth in Section 2.4 of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan nd Section 76-1-602, MCA; and 7, to receive and review all written and oral testimony on the request for a text mendment; and WHEREAS, one oral testimony was received at the public hearing; and ing Board considered the required review criteria and whether the application satisfied them; and ard Resolution RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDING FIGURE 6-2 OF THE BOZEMAN 2020 COMMUNITY PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM “RESIDENTIAL”TO A "BUSINESS PARK” DESIGNATION ON 6.6 ACRES ON PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS LOYAL GARDEN SUBDIVISION PHASE 1A, CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA; AND LOCATED IN NE¼ OF SECTION 1 TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, P.M.M., GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA -- WHE M WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board has been created B WHEREAS, the property owner, Betty Madill, Trustee of B. Madill Inter Vivos Trust, 403 Slough Creek, Bozeman, MT, 59718, and representative, Intrinsik Architecture, 111 North Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715, have made application to amend Figure 6-2 of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. The proposed amendment would change the growth policy land use designation, as shown on WHEREAS, The subject property is generally located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road, and is legally described as Loyal Garden Subdivision Phase 1A, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana; and located in WHEREAS, the proposal has been properly submitted, reviewed, and advertised in accordance with the procedures se a WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board held a public hearing on Wednesday, September 5, 200 a WHEREAS, after the Plann 200 f 3-2, recommends to the Bozeman City Commission that growth policy amendment pplication P-07036 be approved. _________________________________ ________________________________ Andrew Epple, Planning Director J.P. Pomnichowski, President City of Bozeman Department of City of Bozeman Planning Board Planning and Community Development NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Bozeman Planning Board, on a vote o a DATED THIS 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2007 Resolution No. P-07036 201 *** MINUTES *** CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 7:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Acting Chair Erik Henyon called the regular meeting of the City Planning Board to order at 7:30 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present: Erik Henyon, Acting Chair Caren Roberty Randy Carpenter Ed Sypinski Brian Caldwell Members Absent: JP Pomnichowski (excused) Eric Roset Bill Quinn (excused) Kaaren Jacobsen (excused) Staff Present: Martin Knight, Planner Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Priscilla Walcheck, 5551 Cottonwood Road Rob Pertzborn, Intrinsik John Dunlap ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Seeing there were no members of the public wishing to give any comment, Acting Chair Henyon closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2007 Seeing there were no corrections, changes or additions to the minutes, it was moved by Caren Roberty, seconded by Ed Sypinski, that the minutes of the regular meeting of August 21, 2007, be approved as submitted. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 202 - 2 - Subdivision Preliminary Plat #P-07028 (West Winds Phases 4-8) - A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application on behalf of the owners, Cascade Development, and the representatives, HKM Engineering, to allow the subdivision of ~ 85 acres into 220 lots in the West Winds Planned Unit Development, zoned R-3 (Residential Medium Density District). The property is legally described as NW ¼, Section 2, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Windemaker) Staff Report: Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker briefly reviewed this application for preliminary plat for Phases 4 through 8 of West Winds Subdivision, noting that the plats for Phases 1 through 3 have been finalized. She noted that the property is generally bounded by Baxter Lane, West Oak Street, North 27th Avenue and Davis Lane. The application for preliminary plat includes a variety of lots, including single-family, single-family townhouse, multi-family, and a church lot, totally a potential of 220 lots. She stated the applicant wants to retain the planned unit development that was previously approved and has submitted two options for some of the phases. She noted that, in conjunction with this application, the applicant is seeking a modification to modify the building height; and that is an issue that will be addressed by the City Commission. Contract Planner Windemaker noted that two options have been provided for Phases 4 and 5, one being a multi-family option and the other being a single-family townhouse option. Phase 6 includes the church block and single-family residential; Phase 7 is single-family residential with the remaining one- third of parkland dedication; and Phase 8 is residential located in the northwest corner of the subdivision. The Contract Planner stated that the Gallatin Valley Land Trust has submitted a letter expressing concern about the concern about the location of the east/west linear green across the top of Phase 5 and suggesting that it be relocated. She then forwarded staff’s position that the present location is preferable, particularly since there is no certainty that sidewalks will be installed adjacent to the parkland. Contract Planner Windemaker stated that staff has reviewed this application in light of the applicable criteria, and staff’s comprehensive findings are contained in the written staff report. Based on those findings, staff has forwarded a recommendation for approval subject to several conditions. She indicated that, while none of the conditions are unusual, the applicant has voiced concern about Condition Nos. 14 and 20. She noted that Condition No. 14 is the standard condition that the Fire Department is recommending for any development in this quadrant of the community; and Condition No. 20 has been forwarded by the Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board. Questions for Staff: Responding to questions from Brian Caldwell, Contract Planner Windemaker stated that parks do not have to be physically attached; rather, sidewalks and trails can provide connectivity; and in this instance she finds there is not a lack of connectivity. Further responding to Brian Caldwell, Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker stated that the type of 203 - 3 - street lighting is dependent on the type of street or road, its design and the speed limit. She noted that South 19th Avenue, which was the subject of a lighting discussion at the last Planning Board meeting, is designated as a major arterial with a speed limit of 60 miles per hour; and the lighting standards for that roadway are substantially different from those for a local street with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Ed – is only corridor that goes through phases just the one north of Winter Park? Lanette – only formalized one. Where any of their block lengths exceed 600 feet, must be pedestrian connections through them. Will see some short pedestrian trails through blocks. Erik – block length on Tempest Court, north of Oak, does it meet spacing standards from Oak and Gale? Lanette – Sue S has been working very hard with them to get spacing requirements worked out and believe it does. Erik – phases 3 4 and 5, option 1. will that meet parking requirements? Lanette – must meet parking. Know stuff in 3 is some assisted living. Believe can count certain number of parking spaces, but not on the arterials. Some limit because of assisted living but have to meet parking. Erik – figure 11-1 of 2020 plan is fire service overlya and map looks like covers about 60 percent of this property. Do you have any idea how much? Lanette – don’t and superseded by new fire master plan adopted last November. Erik – new housing ordinance. Is this excempt? Lanette – yes. Erik – traffic study didn’t see Oak and 19th. Said City had requsted. Applicant to answer. Erik – building height relaxation. Lanette – bldg heights related to roof pitch. R-3 steepest pitch is 42 feet. Want to change the roof pitch to allow flatter roof at 42 feet. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Clint Litle, HKM Engineering. Lanette done great job presenting. Block length. All originally addressed within PUD. Plan before you in compliance with plan and engineering dept. the access points reviewed. Re lights, one area where like UDO. Great job where not overlighting neighborhoods. In full compliance and fully shielded downward light. South 19th is secondary state highway. Parking – looking at Phases 3 4 and 5. big segment under construction. Village is senior development. Independent homes next to large building. 3 4 and 5 similar so areas will have site plans reviwed by Plannign and Engineering to address parking and road alignments. Traffic impact study – did original with PUD. Revisited and renewed with this application working closely with Engineering. Dnd’t want 19th and Oak to be evaluated with amount of work recently done. Caren – why not Oak? Clint – worked with Sue S and did the work she asked. John Dunlap – concur with Clint. Had to make mods and adjustments to comply with neighboring streets to make sure connectivity works well. When we initially got planning development approved, 204 - 4 - has master plan to work from and for pre plats in future. With road alighment changes for connectivity, one issue have concerns with which No. 14 and 20 are the ones to address. No. 14, when went through PUD had to ensure fire overlay matched and satisfactory for stafetyl through the adjusted revised master plan,c aught in middle of this revision. Embrace health and safety issues, but significant hardships will arise from condition as written. N order to work with City to ensure connectivity, and other concessions, those along with others, if in event not site solidivied in short itme would cause hardships. Requet that No. 14 be striken and at least to same standards as neighbor conditioned to. No. 20, agree with Brian’s comment on connectivity. Throughout project, first PUD and sub through UDO. Appreciate the comment dealing with clarifying connectivyt standard or strike it. Item C. on 20, overloaded on townhouses in those phases. Difficult to sell and not answer to affordable issue. Keep in mind that meet RSL requirements in sf and that’s where tie for restriction on size of dwelling ties in. agree with rest of conditions as set forth and will comply with them. Questions for Applicant: Caren – the bldg where change pitch, how many stories? John – three story bldg. to achieve maximum height, want more aesthetic feel on third story bldg. less than 3:12 pitch. Would like to increase and keep at maximum height. Will be in Phase 3 and through site plan process. Bozman Village. Will be in northern two blocks of Phase 3. along Breeze Lane. Erik – the 310 404 permits. Did you apply for those? Clint – retained Lynn Bacon and she’s solicited the 310 and 404 permits under PUD so they are in hand. Brian – as far as stream watercourse location n Davis Lane, any wetland mitigation, tell us about watercourse stuff. Clint – in doing PUD, worked closely with irrigation ditch company and they made clear that the dit was to remain unpiped. So to be in center median in current alignment. Will not move it. Wil be offset to east side and next to irrigation ditch. One lane on each side. Similar to 27th with power lines up center median. Public Testimony: No public comment. Discussion: Discussion – Brian – still unclear on status of negotiations for new fire station. At times, I’ve been told almost completed and seems the Fire Marshal is saying how met with County Commission and gained aprpovels through them. Seems lot of discussion that’s been resolved and hope have site before drawings. Status? Lanette – have heard that believe very close to getting resolution, but anything can happen before finalized. Ed – if to be slam dunk, and if not, rather weigh in on safety side. Looked at revision of service map 205 - 5 - and adding more service area, suo area might have shrunk. Concerned with quadrant. With this develop;ment and others in area, need fire station. Can’t see not including. Randy – tend to agree with Ed. Other than might potentially hold up development, haven’t heard good argument to strike 14. Brian – big church parcel. Could put fire station there in lieu of Condition No. 14 and if goes away, replace with church. Seems process is very near to being done. Don’t sknow t what point timeline the county and city working well together. Process in work. at some point that issue needs to be addressed separately from applications. More direct discussion on this issue. Caren – things added by CAHAB. When presented to board, the board picked up that due to large parcel that will be church, significant loss of townhouses, which Board feel is best affordability option. Connectivity, don’t recall the issue. Way configured at one point would stop some residents from getting into the park. Maybe because mf. As for comment from applicant, confused. Have been repeatedly told that RSLs are not affordable and so Board trying to make attached units. Find unattached not affordable is good argument. Connectivity not something can deal with. Wouldn’t mind seeing on 20f. striken. Others think Boarfd had good reason to put in. as far as 14, believe should be left in. have trouble voting against Marshal. Flip side is there is some obligation on aprt of developers putting in all of these units to come togher to find a site for that station. Part of it shoud fall on developers but agree City and County need to get process moving. Erk – go back and revisit 20 and 14 and see if can talk on options and recommendations. Applicant relatively in favor of negotiation on Baxter Meadows. Don’t know what language was or what negotiated out. May be enlightened. Another option would be allowing to get infrastructure in and have the bldg permits contingent on that. How long does it take to get infrastructure in? 6 to 12 months and if think fire station in hopper, make contingent on bldg permits and doesn’t hold project up. Caren – if asked developer to give land, and changed configuration and if developers agreement is cash in some form so all can put in chunk, Erik – believe fire station funded. Issue is land. Where struggle is now. Brian – we don’t make final decision. Just forward second recommendation that insteand of conditioning projects I this manner, look at it similar to prior applications but more specific to progress making. Just bring to Commission’s attention. Not sure worth is for us to wordsmith condition from Fire Marshal. Erik – if fire marshal doing this, need to know where in process. We should know that. Brian – long road that they’are on and we don’t know where it is. Not very reasponable. Double standard. Randy – don’t want to do anything with it. If Commission has better info, can make decision at that time. Ed – will always weigh on side of health and safety. Will support condition. 206 - 6 - Erk – suggested CC look at this condition no. 14 and language of Abxter Measows Phase 4 as well as option of letting infrastructure be put in without bldg permits. Include in motion. Caren – should forward those two recommendations and leave in. Erik – Condition NO. 20. connectivity to park. Do we want to strike? Caren – yes. Has changed or not a true issue. B rian – how do you enforce d? Randy – doesn’t say anything about doing something. Caren – Board’s experience. Almost impossible to finance condo at sale time. Get renters in and can’t get financed to sell for homeownership. Rentals – values fall. C. more adequate. Brian – doesn’t hurt and nice to say preferred. To strike would say no opinion. More just suggestion. Seems murky in implications to approve project. Future conditions should be more enforceable. Caren – thought would be more as recommendations rather than as conditions. Erik – so will strike f and leave others? Brian – encourage connectivity. Has been lot of concern about lot width at Commission level. Should be PB opinion on that. We forwarded recommendation and project denied on block length and width. Are there any issues with block layout or say have been reviwed and good to go? Specific to this application. Erik – already conditioned by stgaff. Motion and Vote: Motion – Caren – recommend approval of Plat P-0-7028 with conditions and want Commission to realize recommending that City and County look at taking action on getting site for fire station selected and that condition No. 20 f. put encourage connectivity with the park and strike shall be provided. Ed seconded. Carried on 5-0 vote. 207 - 7 - Growth Policy Amendment #P-07036 (Cottonwood Crossing) – A Growth Policy Amendment Application on behalf of the owners, Betty Madill Trustee of B. Madill Inter Vivos Trust, and the representatives, Intrinsik Architecture, to amend the Land Use Designation on 6.6 acres from “Residential” to “Business Park”. The property is legally described as Ne¼, Section 16, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Knight) Staff Report: Assistant Planner Martin Knight noted this application is for a growth policy from “Residential” to “Business Park” on 6.6 acres at the southwest corner of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road. He referenced two previous applications for this property, noting that in the Spring and Fall of 2005, applications were submitted to amend the land use designation in the growth policy to “Neighborhood Commercial”. He stated that, at that time, neither the staff nor the City Commission was supportive of the request, determining that commercial development along Huffine Lane west of Cottonwood Road was not appropriate. Assistant Planner Knight stated that staff has reviewed this application in light of the applicable criteria, and staff’s findings are contained in the written staff report. He noted that staff is not supportive of the requested amendment as they found it does not satisfy all of the review criteria. He cautioned that approval would set a precedent for extending commercial uses along the south side of Huffine Lane further west than had been anticipated. Assistant Planner Martin Knight reminded the Board that the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan is currently undergoing an update; and one of the recommendations being considered is the elimination of the “Business Park” land use designation because it focuses on a single land use pattern, is land consumptive, and does not reflect current market trends toward mixed use. The Assistant Planner concluded by stating that this application will be heard before the City Commission at its September 17 meeting. Applicant Presentation: Rob Pertzborn, Intrinsik, representing Covenant Investments LLC and the Madill family, distributed copies of his speech outline, noting it includes his key points. He characterized this as a simple change, stressing that he is not asking for a zone change but is asking for a different percentage of the allowed uses. He noted that the subject parcel has 440 feet of frontage at the intersection of two arterials, with the traffic on Huffine Lane approaching 20,000 average daily trips. He stated this type of location does not lend itself well to residential development. He noted that, as a result, he is requesting the change in land use designation to allow a greater percentage of office space, and stressed that no retail space is being proposed. Rob Pertzborn noted that the property across Huffine Lane has an underlying land use designation of “Business Park”. He stated that allowing the same land use designation for this site, when combined with the existing “R-O” zoning, the entryway corridor guidelines, and the development manual for Loyal Garden, will ensure compatibility with the area while allowing a more appropriate mix of office and residential uses. 208 - 8 - Questions for Staff and Applicant: Responding to questions from Brian Caldwell, Assistant Planner Martin Knight cautioned that approval of this application cannot be based on a specific site plan; rather, development of the site will be done through a separate application. He noted that, if this application were being reviewed in conjunction with a site plan application, then that information could be taken into consideration but that is not the case in this instance. Further responding to Mr. Caldwell, the Assistant Planner confirmed that it would be possible to change the percentages between office and residential development on the subject property through the planned unit development process. Responding to Erik Henyon, Rob Pertzborn confirmed that under the current “Residential Office” land use designation, a minimum of 51 percent must be residential while up to 49 percent can be office development. Under the requested “Business Park” land use designation and the existing “Residential Office” zoning designation, up to 100 percent of the site could be office development. Further responding to Erik Henyon, Rob Pertzborn stated he is not sure what percentages of residential and office uses will be proposed; however, he stressed this is not the place for residential development. He noted it would be good to do a nice grouping of offices on the two lots fronting on Huffine Lane, with a look at the market helping to identify the mix of residential uses that could be incorporated on the third lot, which fronts along Cottonwood Road. Public Comment: Priscilla Walcheck, 5551 Cottonwood Road, noted she lives just south of this property. She stated that, while she has no problem with changing the land use designation for the two lots fronting on Huffine Lane, she does object to allowing offices or businesses along Cottonwood Road. Discussion: Brian Caldwell stated he feels the Planning Board should try to plan development along Huffine Lane, rather than fearing what changes might be proposed. He acknowledged that the Board is unable to consider massing, design and architecture at this time, which is where the fear arises. He noted, however, that he supports modifying the land use designation for the two lots fronting on Huffine Lane, while leaving the designation for the lot fronting on Cottonwood Road the same. Ed Sypinski stated that he agrees in principle; however, he cannot support the change without seeing specific development plans for the site. Caren Roberty stated she is skeptical of approving a “Business Park” land use designation when it may be eliminated in the growth policy update and noted that, ideally, she would like to see a reasonable amount of neighborhood commercial allowed for this corner. In the alternative, however, she finds Brian Caldwell’s proposal to modify the land use designation for the two lots fronting on Huffine Lane would be appropriate while leaving the land use designation for the lot fronting on Cottonwood Road as residential. Randy Carpenter stated he is surprised that this application has been submitted at a time when the growth policy is being updated and this area is so uncertain and controversial. He agrees that a mix of 209 - 9 - office and residential use makes more sense than residential development. He concluded by stating that he is inclined not to support this application, remaining consistent with previous decisions, and to wait for the update of the growth policy. Caren Roberty suggested that, if the Board chooses not to recommend approval of this amendment, it should make a fairly strong statement of how it feels this corner should be developed so it can be considered in the growth policy update. Erik Henyon stated that residential development on this corner is not appropriate. He agrees that neighborhood commercial would be a better use of this site, particularly with the growth that is occurring in this area; however, he recognized that type of use has been consistently denied. He stated that amending the land use designation to “Business Park” on the two lots fronting on Huffine Lane while leaving the land use designation for the lot fronting on Cottonwood Road as “Residential” would allow for a true mixed use development. He does feels it would be appropriate to partially approve this amendment in that manner, stating he feels that the growth policy update would allow for that type of use anyway. He concluded by noting the applicant has a proven track record of providing quality development, and the Board must rely on the process to ensure that development of the site is done appropriately. Randy Carpenter expressed his concern that this is an important intersection in the community, and that the Board is being asked to make a change without any community discussion. He then reiterated his position that the land use designation for this corner should be determined through the growth policy update process. In light of additional discussion, the Board members all agreed that residential development fronting on Huffine Lane is not appropriate and that a good mix of office and residential development would be acceptable; however, some of the members continued to voice concerns about considering this amendment when the growth policy update process is underway. Motion and Vote: It was moved by Ed Sypinski, seconded by Randy Carpenter, that the Planning Board recommend to the Commission approval of the growth policy amendment land use designation from “Residential” to “Business Park” on the two lots adjacent to Huffine Lane but not on the lot adjacent to Cottonwood Road, requested under Application No. P-07036, with the conditions recommended by staff. The motion carried on a 3-2 vote, with Caren Roberty, Brian Caldwell and Erik Henyon voting Aye and Ed Sypinski and Randy Carpenter voting No. Because less than five members voted to approve the requested amendment, this is an unofficial recommendation to the City Commission. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS September 18 meeting. Caren Roberty asked if there will be a quorum for the September 18 meeting. Randy Carpenter indicated that he will be present, although previous e-mails might have suggested otherwise. Vice Chair. Responding to Brian Caldwell, Erik Henyon stated that selection of a new Vice Chair is scheduled for the next meeting. 210 - 10 - Invitations to meetings. Randy Carpenter invited interested Planning Board members to attend a meeting on subdivision design in small towns, to be held on September 25 and 26 in Three Forks. He also invited members to attend the panel discussion sponsored by the Gallatin Grassroots Forum and NewWest.com on September 12 at the Museum of the Rockies. Topics for upcoming meetings. The Board members requested that they be given updates on certain topics as soon as possible, before delving into the master plan update. They include: (1) presentation from Chuck Winn on the fire service areas and new master plan, (2) presentation from the Police Department, (3) discussion with the School Board on upcoming needs, and (4) a presentation from Chris Saunders on the maps for the sewer and water services for the next twenty years. They recognized that the information garnered from these presentations will be beneficial background information for updating the City’s growth policy. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Board at this time, Acting Chair Erik Henyon adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Erik Henyon, Acting Chair Andrew C. Epple, Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 211 212 Page 1 Appropriate Review Fee Submitted CITY OF BOZEMAN 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: 2. Property Owner Information: Name: E-mail Address: Mailing Address: Phone: FAX: 3. Applicant Information: Name: E-mail Address: Mailing Address: Phone: FAX: 4. Representative Information: Name: E-mail Address: Mailing Address: Phone: FAX: 5. Legal Description: 6. Street Address: 7. Project Description: 8. Zoning Designation(s): 9. Current Land Use(s): 10. Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Designation: 213 Page 2 (Development Review Application – Prepared 11/25/03) 11. Gross Area: Acres: Square Feet: 12. Net Area: Acres: Square Feet: 13. Is the Subject Site Within an Overlay District? Yes, answer question 13a No, go to question 14 13a. Which Overlay District? Casino Neighborhood Conservation Entryway Corridor 14. Will this application require a deviation(s)? Yes No 15. 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. If 3-ring binders will be used, they must include a table of contents and tabbed dividers between sections. Application deadlines are 5:00 pm every Tuesday. 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. Finally, I acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project. 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: Property Owner’s Signature: Date: 214 Page 3 (Growth Policy Text or Map Amendment Checklist – Prepared 12/08/03; revised on 9/20/04) GROWTH POLICY TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENT CHECKLIST This checklist shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal. Any item checked “No” or “N/A” (not applicable) must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant. A. Amendment Type. What type of amendment is being requested? (check all that apply) Growth Policy Text Amendment Growth Policy Map Amendment B. Growth Policy Amendment Criteria. For Growth Policy Text or Map Amendments, written responses for each of the following criteria shall be provided. Are written responses for the following criteria provided? Growth Policy Amendment Criteria Yes No N/A 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. 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. 3. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy. 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. 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. c. Adversely impacting existing uses because of unmitigated greater than anticipated impacts on facilities and services. d. Negatively affecting the livability of the area of the health and safety of the residents. 215 CERTIFICATE OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS LIST I, , hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the attached name and address list of all adjoining property owners (including all individual condominium owners) within 200 feet of the property located at , is a true and accurate list from the last declared Gallatin County tax records. I further understand that an inaccurate list may delay review of the project. Signature (Certificate of Adjoining Property Owners List – Prepared 11/20/03; Revised 9/22/06) CERTIFICATE OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS LIST I, , hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the attached name and address list of all adjoining property owners (including all individual condominium owners) within 200 feet of the property located at , is a true and accurate list from the last declared Gallatin County tax records. I further understand that an inaccurate list may delay review of the project. Signature (Certificate of Adjoining Property Owners List – Prepared 11/20/03; Revised 9/22/06) 216 STP LLC 105 SILVERWOOD DR BOZEMAN, MT 59715-9276 JC BILLION AUTO PLAZA SUB 1919 WEST MAIN STREET BOZEMAN, MT 59718-3905 FIRST SECURITY BANK PO BOX 910 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-0910 CRESENT CROSS LIMITED PARTNERS 5550 BLACKWOOD RD BOZEMAN, MT 59718-7665 CITY OF BOZEMAN P.O. BOX 1230 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-1230 COVENANT LLC P.O. BOX 11428 BOZEMAN, MT 59719 BETTY MADILL TRUSTEE OF THE BETTY MADILL INTER VIVOS TRUST 403 SLOUGH CREEK BOZEMAN MT 59718 217 Growth Policy Map Amendment Application Narrative 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. The proposed Growth Policy Map Amendment (GPMA) would better respond to the needs of the community by providing greater opportunities for more appropriate mixed-use development within the overall master-planned Loyal Garden project, located southwest of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road. Currently, the subject property is designated “Residential” in the 2020 Plan and is zoned R-O (Residential Office District). This combination allows a mixed use project with a minimum of 51 percent residential and a maximum of 49 percent office. The proposed “Business Park” land use designation combined with the R-O zoning would allow a mixed use project with a minimum of 51 percent office and a maximum of 49 percent residential. Allowing for a larger percentage of offices is more appropriate for a project located at the intersection of two principal arterial roads - Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road. Overall, these three lots have over 1000 feet of frontage on principal arterial streets. For comparison, other intersections of principal arterials around town include North 19th Avenue and Oak Street, North 19th Avenue and Valley Center Drive, North 19th Avenue and West Main Street, and West Main Street and College Street. In January of 2006, WGM Group, Inc. was hired to prepare a Traffic Impact Study for the Loyal Garden Preliminary Plat. The 2008 full build out projections of the peak-hour traffic at the intersection of Cottonwood and Huffine, project that there will be 2871 trips through the intersection during the peak A.M. hour and 3387 trips through the intersection during the P.M. peak hour. According to the third addition of the Highway Capacity Manual, an urban facility can expect between 11.5% to 7% of the average annual daily trips (AADT) to occur during the peak hour. Consequently, the projected AADT for Cottonwood Road and Huffine Lane, assuming that 11.5% of trips occur during the peak hour, is 29,452 trips through the intersection. This provides for a 4 percent per-year continued growth rate from 2005 existing traffic volumes to the 2008 projected traffic volumes. Considering the current and future nature of this intersection, it is evident that while some residential could certainly fit into a mixed-use project with creative design; such intersections are really not desirable places for primarily residential developments. Allowing a greater percentage of offices would also promote more flexibility for the more intense land uses such as offices, which desire the visibility provided by arterials, to buffer the less intense land uses such as residential uses or day care centers. This will also help to create a more successful node of 1 218 mutually beneficial office uses that are compatible with residential massing and scale. Other relevant goals from the 2020 Plan include: 6.6.3, Objective 3. Encourage a traditional mix of diverse commercial and residential uses to instill an active atmosphere and twenty-four hour presence. 7.6.2, Objective 4. Foster a diverse economy that will protect the economic climate for existing businesses and maintain opportunities for business expansion. 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. This GPMA would not create inconsistencies within the growth policy and any future development would also be evaluated for continued compliance with the goals and objectives of the growth policy. Appendix G of the 2020 Plan describes the zoning designations that are allowable under each land use designation. The R-O zoning district can have one of three underlying land use designations - Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, or Business Park as noted in the chart below. 2 219 3 If we apply the three land use designations available for the existing Residential Office zoning district, two different mixed-use options become evident: Growth Policy Designation R-O zoning 1 “Residential” R + O [mostly residential + limited office] 2 “Neighborhood Commercial” O + R [mostly office + limited residential] 3 “Business Park” O + R [mostly office + limited residential] If the concern is retail along an arterial corridor, then the R-O and Business Park option is the ideal combination because retail is not a permitted principal use in the R-O zone no matter what growth policy designation is in place. Furthermore, the Business Park designation precludes any future opportunities to request a ZMA for a zoning designation such as B-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) that would permit principal retail uses. Some limited retail (such as an accessory coffee shop) could potentially be proposed with a PUD; but that would enter the project into higher levels of additional review. 3. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy. This GPMA will allow for a more appropriate mix of residential and office uses at the intersection of two major arterials. The main goals and objectives of the 2020 Plan include a focus on centers and nodes; however, using homes as a barrier to strip-style commercial development on busy streets is also not a desirable alternative. A well designed mixed-use project with the majority of uses being office and with some residential is a fair solution for property located at the intersection of two arterials with an existing auto sales and repair complex across the street. 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. By maintaining the R-O zoning district, the change from Residential to Business Park simply allows more offices than residences. This change will not significantly alter existing or future community land use patterns. The Business Park designation already exists to the north and the existing surrounding land uses and two major arterial streets result in property that is more conducive to a project with primarily office uses. 220 4 b. Requiring unmitigated larger and more expensive improvements to streets, water, sewer, and other public facilities or services and which, therefore, may impact development of other lands. The Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road improvements are nearly complete as required with the Loyal Garden Major Subdivision. Water and sewer infrastructure and capacity exist to serve these three lots regardless of percentages of residential and office uses. The right- in/right-out drive access off of Cottonwood Road has been constructed. c. Adversely impacting existing uses because of unmitigated greater than anticipated impacts on facilities and services. The existing uses will not be adversely affected. The proposed land use designation will be more compatible with the developing neighborhood to the south by creating a buffer of mixed uses that are still in scale with residential development. Through careful site and building designs, and adherence to the restrictions in the Unified Development Ordinance, the Design Objectives Plan and the Loyal Garden Development Manual, these properties can be exemplary of appropriate mixed-use development in an expanding area of the city. d. Negatively affecting the livability of the area of the health and safety of the residents. Amending the growth policy to allow for a more appropriate mixed-use development would provide a great location for offices and enhance the potential of future residents to be able to live within walking distance of employment. 221 222 11 22 33 44 1 2 3 4 Photo Key 223 Subject Subject PropertiesProperties 224 Residential Neighborhood Commercial Business Park City Limits Future Urban Other Public Lands Parks Residential Existing Residential Suburban Residential Suburban Residential NTS N 225 Residential Neighborhood Commercial Business Park City Limits Future Urban Other Public Lands Parks Residential Suburban Residential Suburban Residential NTS N Proposed Business Park 226 227 J:\2005\B05-002\SURVEY\ZONING and ANNEXATION\502GPA2.doc 1 EXHIBIT ____ Loyal Garden Subdivision – Growth Policy Amendment Growth Policy Parcel Description A parcel of land being located in the Loyal Garden Subdivision, Phase 1A, in the Northeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana and said parcel being further described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of the Plat of Loyal Garden Subdivision, Phase 1A; thence South 00°20’55” East, along the east line of said Section 16, a distance of 699.76 feet to the centerline of Alpha Drive; thence South 89°39’05” West on said centerline, a distance of 301.86 feet; thence southwesterly on the said centerline a distance of 22.71 feet along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 300.00 feet and a central angle of 4 degrees 20 minutes 14 seconds to the centerline of Winnow Circle; thence North 04°41’09” West on the centerline of Winnow Circle, non tangent to said curve a distance of 148.17 feet, thence northwesterly on the said centerline, a distance of 22.71 feet along a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 300.00 feet and a central angle of 4 degrees 20 minutes 14 seconds; thence North 00°20’55” West on the said centerline, tangent to said curve a distance of 153.80 feet to the easterly extension of the south line of Lot 1, Block 1 of the above mentioned plat; thence South 89°39’05” West on the easterly extension of the said south line of Lot 1, a distance of 50.00 feet; thence South 89°39’05” West on said south line of Lot 1, a distance of 92.06 feet; thence North 00°56’58” West on the west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 371.75 feet to the south right of way line of Huffine Lane; thence North 89° 03’02” East on said right of way line, a distance of 443.81 feet; thence North 89°38’47” East along said right of way line; a distance of 38.78 feet to the Point of Beginning. The described parcel contains 6.606 acres, more or less. 228