This is a zone change request from Residential 7,000 (R-70) to Residential Professional (RP) on the east 90 feet of Lot 10, Block 2, Justiss Subdivision located at 2320 Rosebud Drive. The property is owned by John & Paula Lambrecht. The owner conducted a pre-application neighborhood meeting on April 26, 2010, at La Quinta Inn at 3040 King Ave West. The pre-application meeting notes and attendance list are included as Attachment D. The Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 1, 2010, and is forwarding a recommendation of approval on a 3-0-1 vote. Commission member Barbara Hawkins abstained from voting since she owns property within 300 feet of the subject property.

State law at MCA 76-2-304 requires that all zone changes be reviewed in accordance with 12 criteria. Using the 12 criteria to determine the appropriateness of the zone change request, the City Council may:
1. Approve the zone change request
2. Deny the zone change request
3. Allow withdrawal of the application
4. Delay action for up to thirty (30) days

There may be an increase in the city's tax base if the property is re-developed under the new Residential Professional zoning.

The applicant is requesting to rezone this property on the southeast corner of the intersection of Rosebud Drive and Henesta Drive from R-70 to RP. Henesta Drive dead-ends at the Veteran’s Affairs building directly west of the Lithia Dodge property. Property to the east and south has been developed for residential uses but property west and north of the location is developed for commercial uses. Rosebud Drive is a connector from South 20th St West to South 24th St West and handles about 4,100 vehicle trips per day. The intersection of South 24th St West and Rosebud Drive is a traffic signal controlled intersection that handles about 24,000 vehicle trips per day on South 24th St West. Rosebud Drive provides an alternate access to businesses on the northwest corner of King Avenue and South 24th St West including Wal-Mart, Toys R Us, Office Max, Bed, Bath & Beyond, and Border’s.

The applicant conducted a pre-application neighborhood meeting on April 26th, 2010 and several surrounding property owners attended the meeting. Concerns from surrounding owners include further encroachment of commercial zoning into the subdivision, increased traffic and traffic conflicts on Rosebud Drive, and the possibility of multi-family uses in an RP zone. The Planning Division notified the surrounding property owners of this application on May 13, 2010, and one individual contacted the Planning Division. The individual is renting the subject property and wanted to know what might happen to the property if it was rezoned. The current dwelling on the property is a 960 square foot, 2-bedroom, single family dwelling built in 1957. The structure is rated in average condition and is rented. Justiss Subdivision was platted in 1954 and originally contained a standard T-intersection of South 24th St West and King Avenue West. King Avenue West and South 24th Street required improvement to better handle traffic and the city acquired several lots on the south west corner of the subdivision. Lots closer to King Avenue West and South 24th Street were subsequently re-zoned to RP to accommodate commercial development more suited to frontage on principal arterial streets.

The owners have proposed the zone change so the dwelling can be replaced by professional office space. The owners are concerned with continued investment in the residential property considering its location ½ block from a principal arterial street. The proposed zoning of RP would allow the single family use to continue as a conforming use or allow the sale and re-development of the lot for other uses allowed in the RP zone, including professional offices, medical services, and other service business. Retail uses would not be allowed. Multi-family uses including 2-family dwellings also are not allowed in the RP zoning district. If re-developed, the 11,333 square foot lot would need to meet all site development codes for commercial businesses including access, off-street parking, setbacks, height limitations, landscaping and other site improvements.

The proposed RP is compatible with the zoning west and north of the subject property. Property south and east of the property is developed for residential uses. However, the residences south of the property are zoned RP. The residential development south of Rosebud Drive is limited and significantly affected by the surrounding land uses including the outdoor announcement system of Lithia Dodge, the Veteran’s Affairs traffic, traffic on Rosebud Drive of ~4,100 vehicle trips per day and commercial lighting from King Avenue West and South 24th Street West. Current planning practice would not recommend a single-family residential zoning or use of this neighborhood given the adjacent arterial streets, and proximity to intense commercial uses. In 1972, however, this neighborhood was already established and zoning was adopted to accommodate the existing residential uses. The zoning was modified several times to accommodate re-development of property within the neighborhood. There is approximately 2.25 acres of residential zoning on the south side of Rosebud Drive from the north side of Lithia Dodge to the intersection of Henesta Drive. The remaining 10 acres of property is already zoned for commercial development.

The Planning Division reviewed this application and recommended approval to the Zoning Commission based on the twelve (12) criteria for zone changes. The subject property is adjacent to RP zoning and commercial development. The uses allowed within the proposed RP zoning are compatible with the surrounding zoning and neighborhood character. Any re-development of the property requires compliance with site development standards that will ensure protection to adjacent properties. Multi-family uses, including 2-family dwellings, are not an allowed use in the RP zoning district. The 2008 Growth Policy encourages predictable land use decisions that are consistent with neighborhood character and land use patterns. The existing use and proposed zoning are consistent with this neighborhood and land use pattern. The Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 1, 2010, and is forwarding a recommendation of approval on a 3-0-1 vote. Commission member Barbara Hawkins abstained from voting since she owns property within 300 feet of the subject property. 

The Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 1, 2010, and received testimony from the owners, John and Paula Lambrecht. Commission member Barbara Hawkins recused herself from the public hearing since she owns property within 300 feet of the subject parcel. Mr. Lambrecht explained the need for the zone change to accommodate future re-development of the property in this high traffic area. Mr. Lambrecht stated rents will remain low in this area due to high traffic, noise, and glare from parking lot lighting. He intends to continue renting the home but explore re-development opportunities either himself or with a future buyer. He stated any re-development would include new landscaping, fencing and lighting that will not glare over into adjacent property. Mr. Lambrecht asked the Zoning Commission to support the zone change. Barbara Hawkins testified in favor of the zone change. She stated she owns three properties within this subdivision and prior to the development of the drycleaners, office building and Veteran's Affairs building it was a quiet and mostly single family neighborhood. In the past 15 years, the increased commercial and professional office development have reduced property value for residential uses in this subdivision.  

Prior to any action on this application the City Council will consider the recommendation of the Zoning Commission and shall consider the following:

1. Is the new zoning designed in accordance with the Growth Policy?
The proposed zone change is consistent with the following goals of the Growth Policy:
• Predictable land use decisions that are consistent with neighborhood character and land use patterns. (Land Use Element Goal, page 6)
The proposed zoning would permit the existing residential use to continue and would allow re-development of the site for offices or service businesses. The site has commercial zoning to the north, west and south. Residential uses to the east and south should be compatible with the types of uses allowed in the RP zone.
• Contiguous development focused in and around existing population centers. (Land Use Element Goal, page 6)
The proposed zoning would allow the re-development of the property in an area with existing services – promoting an in-fill of an underutilized property.

2. Is the new zoning designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
There should be no effect on traffic congestion. The existing dwelling likely generates 10 or more vehicle trips per day. An office or service business use of the property would increase traffic on Rosebud and if the parking entrance is off Henesta, a small increase of traffic on Henesta Drive could be expected. This increase would be minimal as a percentage of the existing traffic on either street.

3. Will the new zoning secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers?
The subject property is currently serviced by City Fire and Police. Any re-development would change the type of service needed at the property. There should be no effect on public safety given the proximity to the fire station and existing services provided to the adjacent commercial businesses.

4. Will the new zoning promote health and general welfare?
The proposed zoning would permit the existing single family dwelling to continue and would allow re-development of the property for office or service businesses. The surrounding property values should not be affected by either the continued use or any re-development.

5. Will the new zoning provide adequate light and air?
The proposed zoning provides for sufficient setbacks to allow for adequate separation between structures and adequate light and air.

6. Will the new zoning prevent overcrowding of land?
The proposed zoning, like all zoning districts, contain limitations on the maximum percentage of the lot area that can be covered with structures. The R-70 and RP zone allow 30% lot coverage. The RP zone requires a minimum 10 foot side setback and the setback would need to increase to 15 feet adjacent to the residential use to the east.

7. Will the new zoning avoid undue concentration of population?
The new zoning does avoid undue concentration of population. The R-70 zoning allows single family homes on a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet and two-family dwellings on lots of at least 9,600 square feet. The proposed zoning only allows single family dwellings on lots of at least 6,000 square feet, No two-family or multi-family dwellings are allowed in the RP zone.

8. Will the new zoning facilitate the adequate provisions of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, fire, police, and other public requirements?
Transportation: The proposed zoning will not impact the surrounding streets.
Water and Sewer: The City will provide water and sewer to the property through existing lines.
Schools and Parks: There should be no impact to schools from the proposed zone change.
Fire and Police: The subject property is currently served by the City of Billings fire and police departments.

9. Does the new zoning give reasonable consideration to the character of the district?
The proposed zoning will allow re-development of the property for commercial uses. There are existing commercial uses on the north and west of the location. Residences to the south are zoned RP but have remained in residential use since the lots were re-zoned in 1984. A small percentage (18%) of the lots south of Rosebud Drive, are still zoned for primarily residential uses.

10. Does the new zoning give consideration to peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses?
The subject property is suitable for the requested zoning district. The location is on a corner lot within ½ block of a high traffic signalized intersection. The new zoning allows the existing residential use to continue and would allow potential re-development for offices and service businesses.

11. Was the new zoning adopted with a view to conserving the value of buildings?
Surrounding residential property to the north, south and east have much higher taxable value for buildings than this property. The existing dwelling although rated in average condition will likely need significant investment to maintain the quality of the residence. The RP allows the owner to retain the residential use and allows the owner and option of re-developing the property for a business.

12. Will the new zoning encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout such county or municipal area?
The proposed zoning will permit the current development to continue and could allow future re-development for businesses that are more compatible to the other business uses to the north and west.