|
Regular
|
| Board of Adjustment | |
| Date: | 07/02/2025 |
| Title: | Variance 1383-1753 Majestic Lane- Parking siting |
| Presented by: | Karen Husman |
| Department: | Planning & Community Services |
| Presentation: | Yes |
Information
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends denial and adoption of the recommended findings of the review criteria for Variance 1383.
BACKGROUND (Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies, if applicable)
Variance 1383 - This is a variance request for property located at 1753 Majestic Lane in a Heavy Commercial (CX) zone district. This is a variance from Section 27-409 – Table 27-400-6.B.6 requiring surface parking to be in the side or rear yard to allow parking in the front yard of property in a Heavy Commercial (CX) zone. The legal description of the property is Lot 20, Block 1 of Broso Valley Park Subdivision located in S23, T1S, R25E, a 1.9896 acre parcel of land.
The property is currently vacant, and developing it with the majority of parking in the front would be inconsistent with the intent of the zoning code, which seeks to discourage large expanses of surface parking along street frontages. The Board of Adjustment has previously approved variances for similar requests, including those for the Costco Warehouse at 3840 Zoo Drive (Variance 1343, 2022) which had a partial hardship due to the Canyon Creek Ditch easement, an office/warehouse building at 3160 S Frontage Road (Variance 1359, 2023) which had two petroleum pipelines and floodplain constraints, and another office/warehouse building on Conrad Road (Variance 1374, 2024) which was restricted due to internal semi-truck circulation that required a variance to keep pedestrians safe. These variances were granted based on unique site constraints and specific operational needs.
While several nearby parcels feature front yard parking, those projects were approved under the previous zoning code. Previous variance approvals applied to developments with specific, well-defined uses; in contrast, this proposal calls for two multi-tenant buildings whose future occupants are still unknown. Consequently, it is unclear whether parking placed in the front yard would adequately serve their operational needs. Alternative site designs could position parking along the sides or rear of the parcel, ensuring sufficient access and better compliance with current zoning objectives.
APPLICATION DATA
OWNER: 3 Arrows LLC
AGENT: Jacob Butt
PURPOSE: To allow parking in front yard
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 20, Block 1 of Broso Valley Park Subdivision located in S23, T1S, R25E
ADDRESS: 1753 Majestic Lane.
SIZE OF PARCEL: 1.9896 acres
ZONING: Heavy Commercial (CX)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
PROPOSED LAND USE: Commercial Mixed Use
SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE
NORTH: Zoning: Heavy Commercial (CX)
Land Use: Warehouse/Construction (Northwest Pipe)
SOUTH: Zoning: CX
Land Use: Assisted Living (Canyon Creek Memory Care)
EAST: Zoning: CX
Land Use: Warehouse/Construction (Northwest Pipe)
WEST: Zoning: CX
Land Use: Medical Clinic (VA)
The property is currently vacant, and developing it with the majority of parking in the front would be inconsistent with the intent of the zoning code, which seeks to discourage large expanses of surface parking along street frontages. The Board of Adjustment has previously approved variances for similar requests, including those for the Costco Warehouse at 3840 Zoo Drive (Variance 1343, 2022) which had a partial hardship due to the Canyon Creek Ditch easement, an office/warehouse building at 3160 S Frontage Road (Variance 1359, 2023) which had two petroleum pipelines and floodplain constraints, and another office/warehouse building on Conrad Road (Variance 1374, 2024) which was restricted due to internal semi-truck circulation that required a variance to keep pedestrians safe. These variances were granted based on unique site constraints and specific operational needs.
While several nearby parcels feature front yard parking, those projects were approved under the previous zoning code. Previous variance approvals applied to developments with specific, well-defined uses; in contrast, this proposal calls for two multi-tenant buildings whose future occupants are still unknown. Consequently, it is unclear whether parking placed in the front yard would adequately serve their operational needs. Alternative site designs could position parking along the sides or rear of the parcel, ensuring sufficient access and better compliance with current zoning objectives.
APPLICATION DATA
OWNER: 3 Arrows LLC
AGENT: Jacob Butt
PURPOSE: To allow parking in front yard
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 20, Block 1 of Broso Valley Park Subdivision located in S23, T1S, R25E
ADDRESS: 1753 Majestic Lane.
SIZE OF PARCEL: 1.9896 acres
ZONING: Heavy Commercial (CX)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
PROPOSED LAND USE: Commercial Mixed Use
SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE
NORTH: Zoning: Heavy Commercial (CX)
Land Use: Warehouse/Construction (Northwest Pipe)
SOUTH: Zoning: CX
Land Use: Assisted Living (Canyon Creek Memory Care)
EAST: Zoning: CX
Land Use: Warehouse/Construction (Northwest Pipe)
WEST: Zoning: CX
Land Use: Medical Clinic (VA)
STAKEHOLDERS
Planning staff notified the surrounding property owners within 150 feet of the parcel by mail, placed a legal advertisement in the Yellowstone County News, and posted the property with the required sign. The application was also posted on our webpage for current zoning applications. No comments were received by staff at the time this report was submitted.
ALTERNATIVES
The Board of Adjustment may:
- Deny the requested Variance 1383 and adopt the proposed findings of fact for the review criteria, as recommended by the Planning staff;
- Delay action on the variance to a future BOA meeting.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Approval or denial of the requested variance will have no fiscal effect on the Planning Division budget.
SUMMARY
Prior to approval, the Board of Adjustment shall ensure that the determinations for variances (Sec. 27-1627.D and E.), as outlined below, have been satisfied:
Section 27-1627.D
1) That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, the lot or something inherent in the land which causes the hardship, and which are not applicable to other lands in the same district.
Previous variance approvals applied to developments with specific, well-defined uses; in contrast, this proposal calls for two multi-tenant buildings whose future occupants are still unknown. Consequently, it is unclear whether parking placed in the front yard would adequately serve their operational needs. Alternative site designs could position parking along the sides or rear of the parcel, ensuring sufficient access and better compliance with current zoning objectives. This is an undeveloped parcel and there are no physical or restrictive hardships that would prevent development in accordance with the zoning requirements.
2) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other tracts in the same district.
Properties to the north, south, and west have been developed with front yard parking, adhering to previous zoning regulations. These establishments feature parking areas situated at the front of their lots. Moreover, the property to the south has been developed with extensive parking, stretching from the northern to the southern property lines on the west side of the building. Additionally, four variances for front yard parking have been granted, with three in the CX zone district and one in the CMU2 zone district. While other parcels in the area have been developed with front yard parking and similar variances have been granted, this particular parcel remains undeveloped. There are no physical or regulatory constraints, as other approved variances had, that would prevent development in full compliance with the current zoning standards.
3) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this zoning code to other land in the same district.
As indicated in the assessment of criteria 2, the approval of this variance might not bestow an exclusive benefit upon the applicant, given the existing developments in the vicinity and the past variances granted for parcels within a CX zone district facing comparable challenges. Nevertheless, it's important to note that the existing developments in the area were constructed in accordance with the previous code. This parcel is currently undeveloped, and there are no physical constraints or regulatory limitations that would prevent it from being developed in compliance with existing zoning requirements.
4) That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this zoning code and with the Growth Policy.
The 2016 Growth Policy, in conjunction with the 2021 Zoning Code developed to support its implementation, seeks to move away from traditional development patterns that prioritize large front-yard parking areas in front of commercial buildings. Locating parking at the front of the building—even along a local street—does not align with the intent of the Growth Policy or current zoning standards. A more suitable design would position parking to the side or rear of the building to better reflect modern planning principles and community goals.
Section 27-1627.E
2) In granting any variance, the Board may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with this Zoning Code. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms upon which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Zoning Code;
Although staff is recommending denial, the following conditions are recommended if the BOA makes findings to approve the variance:
Staff is recommending denial however, draft conditions of approval that include time limits to begin and complete the project are provided above.
4) Under no circumstances shall the Board grant a variance to allow a use not permissible under the terms of this zoning code in the district involved. A variance shall not be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations placed upon other properties in the district.
The granting of this variance would not allow a use that is not allowed in the zoning district. Office/warehouses businesses are allowed uses in the CX zone and are allowed to have parking.
Section 27-1627.D
1) That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, the lot or something inherent in the land which causes the hardship, and which are not applicable to other lands in the same district.
Previous variance approvals applied to developments with specific, well-defined uses; in contrast, this proposal calls for two multi-tenant buildings whose future occupants are still unknown. Consequently, it is unclear whether parking placed in the front yard would adequately serve their operational needs. Alternative site designs could position parking along the sides or rear of the parcel, ensuring sufficient access and better compliance with current zoning objectives. This is an undeveloped parcel and there are no physical or restrictive hardships that would prevent development in accordance with the zoning requirements.
2) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other tracts in the same district.
Properties to the north, south, and west have been developed with front yard parking, adhering to previous zoning regulations. These establishments feature parking areas situated at the front of their lots. Moreover, the property to the south has been developed with extensive parking, stretching from the northern to the southern property lines on the west side of the building. Additionally, four variances for front yard parking have been granted, with three in the CX zone district and one in the CMU2 zone district. While other parcels in the area have been developed with front yard parking and similar variances have been granted, this particular parcel remains undeveloped. There are no physical or regulatory constraints, as other approved variances had, that would prevent development in full compliance with the current zoning standards.
3) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this zoning code to other land in the same district.
As indicated in the assessment of criteria 2, the approval of this variance might not bestow an exclusive benefit upon the applicant, given the existing developments in the vicinity and the past variances granted for parcels within a CX zone district facing comparable challenges. Nevertheless, it's important to note that the existing developments in the area were constructed in accordance with the previous code. This parcel is currently undeveloped, and there are no physical constraints or regulatory limitations that would prevent it from being developed in compliance with existing zoning requirements.
4) That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this zoning code and with the Growth Policy.
The 2016 Growth Policy, in conjunction with the 2021 Zoning Code developed to support its implementation, seeks to move away from traditional development patterns that prioritize large front-yard parking areas in front of commercial buildings. Locating parking at the front of the building—even along a local street—does not align with the intent of the Growth Policy or current zoning standards. A more suitable design would position parking to the side or rear of the building to better reflect modern planning principles and community goals.
Section 27-1627.E
2) In granting any variance, the Board may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with this Zoning Code. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms upon which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Zoning Code;
Although staff is recommending denial, the following conditions are recommended if the BOA makes findings to approve the variance:
- The variance is to allow surface parking spaces to be in the front yard of the proposed office/warehouse building at 1753 Majestic Lane. The front yard is a yard extending along the full length of the front lot line which is situated between the building and the front lot line on Majestic Lane. No other variance is intended or implied.
- The variance is limited to Lot 20, Block 1 of Broso Valley Park Subdivision located in S23, T1S, R25E.
- The site will be constructed in substantial conformance to the submitted site plan. Minor modifications to the location of the proposed structures and other site improvements as shown on the submitted site plans are allowed.
- The applicant will complete the building permit process within 1 year of Board approval and complete the project within 2 years of Board approval.
- Any structures not shown on this approved site plan will comply with all zoning regulations and other city regulations in place at the time of development.
- All other zoning regulations, except for this specific variance, and any other applicable city regulations apply to the development of the site.
- Failure to begin or complete actions required by this approval within the time limits set forth shall void this variance.
- These conditions of variance approval shall run with the land described in this authorization and shall apply to all current and subsequent owners, operators, managers, lease-holders, heirs and assigns.
Staff is recommending denial however, draft conditions of approval that include time limits to begin and complete the project are provided above.
4) Under no circumstances shall the Board grant a variance to allow a use not permissible under the terms of this zoning code in the district involved. A variance shall not be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations placed upon other properties in the district.
The granting of this variance would not allow a use that is not allowed in the zoning district. Office/warehouses businesses are allowed uses in the CX zone and are allowed to have parking.