This is a zone change request from Planned Development – Neighborhood Commercial with Restrictions to Planned Development – Neighborhood Commercial without the restrictions on a 25,600 square foot parcel of land described as Lot 4, Block 2, Rocky Village Subdivision located generally at 1648 Poly Drive. The property is owned by Rocky Mountain College and is represented by Thomas Smith of Moulton Bellingham. The owner conducted a pre-application neighborhood meeting on December 27, 2010 and a preliminary review meeting was held by city staff on January 26, 2011. The pre-application meeting notes are included as Attachment C. The Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 1, 2011 and is forwarding a recommendation of approval on a 4-1 vote.

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

Approval of the zone change would allow the owner to market the property for another use other than a coffee shop or eating place and would allow the new use to increase the size of the building beyond the existing 1,972 square feet. A new use may increase the commercial property value. Re-use of vacant property will tend to increase property value in the area.

The applicant is requesting to rezone this property on the southeast corner of the intersection of Poly Drive and 17th Street West. The property was developed originally as a gas station and then converted in 1994 to a coffee shop. The coffee shop has been vacant since 2010. The applicant, Rocky Mountain College, intends to lease or sell the property for re-development for office space. The current Planned Development agreement does not allow office uses, a building taller than 16 feet or larger in floor than 1,972 square feet.

In late 1992, the zoning was changed from R-96 to Planned Development (Rocky Village) – Neighborhood Commercial with specific restrictions in the agreement. Those restrictions limit the available uses to “eating places such as cafes, caterers, coffee shops, diners, restaurants (excluding fast food), sandwich shops and/or R-96 uses”. In addition, the allowable square footage of any building area is 1,972 square feet and a maximum building height of 16 feet. Since before 1984, the property was used as a gas station – College Chevron. In 1985, the gas station closed and the property remained vacant for 9 years. After the 1992 zone change, the 17th Street Station Coffee Shop was in operation from 1994 to 2009. When the 17th Street Station closed in 2009, Montico’s took over as a small restaurant and coffee shop. Montico’s closed in 2010.

The owner wants to remove the restrictions related to allowable uses, building height and building size and put in place the restrictions normally applied to all NC zoning districts. Those regulations specify a building height of 34 feet, lot coverage up to 50% of the lot area, and uses that include offices, limited retail and business services. Neighborhood Commercial would not allow any alcohol sales for on-premise consumption but could allow alcohol sales for off-premise consumption. Most retail uses allowed in NC are limited to 10,000 square feet of floor area. Most offices and service businesses allowed in NC are not limited in floor area except by the maximum lot coverage of 50% of the lot area. Site development requirements for off-street parking and landscaping would have to be met for any re-development of the property.

Poly Drive is a minor arterial street and carries approximately 7,550 vehicle trips per day (2010). 17th Street West is also a minor arterial street and carries approximately 5,550 vehicle trips per day. Both Poly Drive and 17th Street West are primarily zoned residential along their length with exceptions where these streets intersect other arterial streets such as Grand Avenue. Research of historical traffic counts reveals the number of vehicle trips on Poly Drive and 17th Street West have not increased significantly since 1984. Any re-development of the property for commercial uses will not result in a new configuration of accesses since the drive approaches off both streets are located as far from the street intersection as possible – 115 feet. Any new use of the property that generates more than 500 new vehicle trips per day will require a traffic accessibility analysis that would be reviewed and any mitigation approved by the city traffic engineer. It is not anticipated that a change from a restaurant use to an office use would have any effect on local traffic patterns or accessibility.

Neighborhood Commercial uses range from offices to retail to services such as banks, medical clinics and similar businesses. It also includes uses such as gas stations, convenience food stores and other uses designed to provide services to larger residential neighborhoods. These uses may or may not be compatible with the existing residential uses to the east (apartments), the south (condominiums) and west (single family residential). The applicant intends to develop the property for office use however a zone change cannot guarantee one particular use within a range of uses unless certain uses are disallowed by the Planned Development agreement.

The applicant conducted a pre-application neighborhood meeting on December 27, 2010 and several surrounding property owners within 300 feet of 1648 Poly Drive attended the meeting. No objections were voiced at the meeting except for bars or casinos. Neighborhood Commercial does not allow bars or casinos. A preliminary meeting with city staff, surrounding owners, and the applicant was held on January 26, 2011. No surrounding owners attended this meeting. Since the preliminary meeting, two owners on Poly Drive, an owner on Bonnevue Square, and an owner on Iris Lane (all outside the 300-foot notification area) have indicated concern with the proposed zone change. Mr. Cabrera of 1734 Poly Drive has submitted a letter in opposition. The letter is attached to this staff report. Mr. Rickett of 1748 Poly Drive asked to be notified of the Zoning Commission hearing. Mr. Rickett did not submit a letter regarding the zone change, but Mrs. Rickett testified at the Zoning Commission hearing in opposition to the proposed zoning unless a specific building plan was submitted.

The proposed PD-NC zone without restrictions is compatible to the zoning and uses north and northwest of the subject property. The Conoco station on the southwest corner of the intersection of Poly Drive and 17th Street is also a compatible land use however the underlying zoning of this property is R-96. Residential uses are directly adjacent to the south and east. Residential uses exist west of the property and south of the Conoco station. There are some NC uses that will be incompatible with these residential uses. Gas stations, convenience food stores, pharmacies, personal services in SIC Group 72 including drycleaners, coin operated laundries, funeral homes and crematories, and banks and credit unions. Many of these uses require or need a drive through type service for customer pickup and drop off. The property location at this traffic signal controlled intersection makes a use with drive through service problematic. In addition, these uses create unavoidable impacts to the surrounding residences including noise, traffic after normal business hours, security lighting, trash control and increased signage requirements.

The Planning Division reviewed the proposed Planned Development agreement and recommended that a few uses be listed as prohibited on this property including the following: banks, credit unions or other depository institutions; gas stations; convenience food stores with or without gas pumps; pharmacies; drycleaners or drycleaner drop-off; laundries; funeral homes and crematories; any use that requires or uses a back-up power generator. In addition, the Planning Division recommended language be added to regulate outdoor site lighting and signage. The Zoning Commission and the applicant concurred with these recommended changes to the Planned Development agreement.

The Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 1, 2011, and received testimony from the applicant, Michael Mace, President, Rocky Mountain College; Brad Nayson, Vice President, Dean for Student Life, Rocky Mountain College; and the agent Thomas Smith, Moulton Bellingham. In addition, testimony in opposition to the application was received from Sandra Rickett of 1748 Poly Drive, Ming Cabrera of 1734 Poly Drive, Julie Lindberg of 2513 Augusta Lane, Lois & Paul Nordstog of 1711 Iris Lane, and Larry Leininger of 1726 Poly Drive.

Mr. Smith stated the reasons for the application. He gave a brief history of this parcel, including the request for the 17th Street Station. He said that the height requirement of 16 feet was agreed to at that time, and they should have been more forward looking as it limits the uses for this property. Mr. Smith said that Rocky Mountain College does not have a design for the building nor a plan to build a new building. In response to a question by Commission Member Ed Workman, Mr. Smith stated that they are seeking the zone change to increase the marketability of the property. He explained that presently they can only offer a use as a restaurant, and are seeking the highest and best use for this property. In response to a question by Ed Workman, Mr. Smith said Rocky Mountain College properties have been on long term leases or sold. He reiterated they have no set plan for this property. He mentioned the building and parking plans have to be approved by their review committee before a building is built. He said that the height would have to be no higher than 34 feet.
Mr. Smith said that they have been approached by attorneys, accountants, and medical practitioners regarding this property. He stated that bars, casinos, and fast food establishments are not allowed under the zoning. In response to a question by Commission Member Dan Wagner, Mr. Smith stated that he is unaware of any anticipation of increasing traffic. Commission Chairman Leonard Dailey pointed out that any use that increased traffic more than 500 trips per day would require a traffic analysis.

Mr. Mace testifed that Rocky Mountain College has been aggressive about cleaning up areas around the neighborhood and has recently moved south of Poly Drive with these projects to improve an office building, the former MRI building. Mr. Mace commented that the corner on Poly Drive has become an eyesore, and Rocky Mountain College has a responsibility to maintain its property and keep it in good condition. He stated that the best approach for this property is to look at the property as a future facility or accept requests for lease or sale. He stated all of the requests in the past two years have come from accountants, attorneys, real estate, or other professional uses, which would typically have business hours from 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Commission Chairman Leonard Dailey asked if the College Board will go through private restrictions for those interested in development. Mr. Mace stated they wish to maintain the character of the campus, and would require the Building, Grounds, and Master Plan Committees to review requests for architectural design conformity with the campus. Mr. Mace stated that the College will meet the requirements of the zoning requested, and it would be to its advantage to have a building to its standards.

In response to a question about Rocky Mountain College property ownership by Chairman Leonard Dailey, Brad Nason stated the Shadowwood Development is long term leased through 2043 and there are additional properties with long term leases to the east. He stated that Rocky Village is owned by apartment building owners. Commission Member Ed Workman asked if there are any other development plans for the baseball field on Lot 5A as the baseball field is a benefit to the community. Mr. Nason stated there are no plans other than the field. He explained the Campus Master Plan allows for development in the future if needed but there is no current thinking for other development. In response to a question by Chairman Leonard Dailey, Mr. Nason said that the the main campus is approximately 60 acres with an estimated of 70-100 acres of leased property along Poly Drive. Mr. Mace clarified and stated that the campus property is 68 acres and there are 86 acres located south of Poly Drive. He stated that he supports keeping the baseball field for community use.

Mrs. Sandra Rickett of 1748 Poly Drive testified in opposition to the application. She stated she and her family have lived in the neighborhood for more than thirty years and love their home. She commented on the desirability of this location. She said we should want to clean up our town, including this property. Ms. Rickett said she recognizes the differences in opinion depending on individual motivations, and those that live in the neighborhood are in favor of improving and maintaining the property values. Ms. Rickett stated that she is opposing the zone change to Neighborhood Commercial without restrictions. She said that she feels that there is not enough information to support this request, and the decision for support would not be looking forward. She stated they are not taking into consideration all of the other development involved and suggested that when a plan is available the applicant get together with the neighborhood for a review. In response a request by Commission Member Barbara Hawkins, Ms. Rickett pointed out that her residence is on Lot 3 on the posted plat map.

Ms. Julie Lindberg of 2513 Augusta Lane stated that it is the responsibility of the City Zoning Commission, and Planning to enforce public nuisance codes such as noise and lighting and these issues need to be addressed before any zone change is made. She said that the approval of the Morledge building has drastically changed her life. In response to a request by Commission Member Dan Wagner, she said that she cannot use her back yard as the Morledge building generator does not meet code, and the decibel level is above what is allowed. She said that her property is located on the east side of Augusta Lane, adjacent to the Morledge building. In response to a question by Commission Member Ed Workman, Nicole Cromwell stated that no zone change was required for the Moreledge building.

Ms. Lois Ann Nordstog of 1711 Iris Lane stated it has been a challenge as the neighborhood has been invaded with commercial projects. She noted several unfulfilled assurances to the neighborhood from Rocky Mountain College including the gas station resorting to a residential zone; and a petition for a green spot that was sold. Ms. Nordstog stated the applicant seems to come up with a better mouse trap and none of it works well. She stated this is a lovely neighborhood with homeowners that have invested a lot in their property. She stressed they do not need any more traffic or hazards. In response to a request for clarification of her objection by Commission Member Matt Krivonen, Ms. Nordstog stated that her primary objection is the hazardous traffic and the commercialization of the neighborhood.

Mr. Leininger of 1726 Poly Drive stated it is impossible to sell his house due to the business across the street. He stated he is opposed to the zone change, but if they came with a plan he would consider it. He stated he has lived in this area for 40 years and this is not right.

Mr. Cabrera of 1734 Poly Drive testified concerning the story of how Long Island was sold for $24.09 and promises of trinkets. He stated in this case they are faced with promises of trinkets. He testified the building adjacent to this property was built down under grade to meet the 34-foot height limit. He stated that Rocky Mountain College has disregarded height variances across from his house. He stated he is unable to sell his house. He testified that Rocky Mountain College promised a park and a bus stop. He stated he has had to use his weekends to address these issues. He said that he would love to work with Rocky. Mr. Cabrera said Poly Drive has been the heart of the west end and now has commercialization. He said he is unable to live with it. Commission Member Ed Workman noted that a neighborhood community meeting was held on December 27, 2011. Mr. Cabrera stated he was not informed of this meeting until he heard on January 27, 2011 they had met. Nicole Cromwell explained that Mr. Cabrera and Ms. Rickett were outside of the 300-foot radius notification area, but when Staff was notified of their concerns they were added to the list. Mr. Cabrera said that most of the commercial entities were notified but most residents were not notified. Ed Workman reminded Mr. Cabrera the Zoning Commission is an advisory forum to the City Council. Chairman Leonard Dailey stated Planning Staff followed standard operation procedures for notification and added Mr. Cabrera to the notification list when it was requested. 

Mr. Paul Nordstog of 1711 Iris Lane stated the idea of a zone change without any specifics is disingenuous. He said they need some idea of what to expect if this zone change is approved as they have been blindsided in the past. He commented that the Rocky Village apartment buildings were to have enough parking for tenants of the buildings and now many tenants are parking on Poly Drive.

Mr. Smith provided rebuttal testimony to the Zoning Commission. Mr. Smith stated that Rocky Mountain College did not develop the apartment building or the medical building as they are not the owners of the lands on the north side of Poly Drive west of 17th Street West. He noted that although there is no design for the property the Neighborhood Commercial zoning has restrictions. He said the exact design of the building will depend on the exact use and the required parking spaces. He said the issue of traffic flow has been considered by Planning Staff and the College has agreed not to have any drive-through businesses that tends to pull traffic in and out. Mr. Smith stated he lives about two blocks away from this property. He stated his client’s point of view regarding property values is that this property is currently is a drag on the value of the area. He noted that washers, dryers and trash have been dumped on the lot since the last business closed several months ago. He stated the zoning sign had been posted but was thrown down and put on the ground. He commented that this area has changed in the last 15-20 years. He stated they do not want to increase traffic flow or deteriorate the neighborhood. He stated this location will always be some sort of commercial enterprise and no one is interested in a café unless a drive through is permitted.

Commission Member Ed Workman made a motion and it was seconded by Commission Member Barbara Hawkins to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of City Zone Change #873-1648 Poly Drive-Rocky Mountain Planned Development Amendment as presented by staff along with the changes to the Planned Development agreement. 

Chairman Leonard Dailey called for discussion on the motion. Commission Member Ed Workman said he recognizes that commercial uses are a good fit for the south part of Poly Drive. He said this zone change will improve the neighborhood. He pointed out the applicant is currently restricted to a restaurant which will not work there, and they need to improve the zoning to obtain the highest and best use for the property. Mr. Workman stated that he believes that Rocky has been a good neighbor. Dan Wagner commented that to leave the property in its present condition would be a mistake. Matt Krivonen suggested amending the proposal as he feels that a 34-foot tall building would do more damage to the corner. He stated that it would be wise to limit the height to a single story building. Barbara Hawkins noted that a 34-foot house is allowable within any residential zoning now. She stated she believes that the height is as much of a deterrent as having the current building there. She pointed out that several restaurants have failed and stated she is in favor of this zone change request. Leonard Dailey commented that this property seems to be drawing good types of businesses which should work well with this area.

Matt Krivonen made a motion to amend the motion to limit the proposed building height to a single story building. The motion did not receive a second. Chairman Dailey call for vote on the original motion and the vote was 4-1 with Commission member Matt Krivonen opposing.

Prior to any action to approve or disapprove, 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 vacant commercial building to be re-used for an expanded list of commercial uses with increased site design standards. Three of the 4 corners of this intersection have been used for commercial uses for at least 35 years. The proposed zoning, with the changes suggested by the Planning Division, will make any re-use of the property compatible with the existing neighborhood.
• Coordinated economic development efforts that target business recruitment, retention, and expansion.(Economic Development Goal, page 6)
The proposed zoning will encourage a re-use of an existing site that will help retain and expand existing businesses in the Billings area.
• New developments that are sensitive to and compatible with the character of adjacent city neighborhoods. (Land Use Goal, page 6)
The proposed Planned Development with staff recommended changes will make any new development sensitive to and compatible with the character of the neighborhood.
• Contiguous development focused in and around existing population centers. (Land Use Goal, page 6)
The proposed development will be an in-fill project that keeps development focused in existing areas with city services already in place.

2. Is the new zoning designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
There should be no immediate effect on traffic congestion. The existing vacant structure generates no traffic at the intersection. Re-development for any new use will require use of the existing drive approaches and any use generating 500 or more additional vehicle trips per day will require a traffic accessibility study to under the impacts of such a project. The fully traffic controlled intersection will need to be considered in any analysis. Right-of-way improvements may be necessary, such as repair of the sidewalks or existing drive approaches.

3. Will the new zoning secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers?
The subject property is currently serviced by all city public safety services. There should be no effect on these services.

4. Will the new zoning promote health and general welfare?
The proposed zoning would permit the commercial property to be re-used for purposes other than a coffee shop. Residential use of the property is not likely given the surrounding commercial development and its frontage on two arterial streets. The proposed changes to the Planned Development will ensure the compatibility of any new 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. A minimum 15-foot building setback is required from the south and east property lines.

6. Will the new zoning prevent overcrowding of land?
The proposed zoning, like all zoning districts, contains limitations on the maximum percentage of the lot area that can be covered with structures. The proposed PD-NC zone allows 50% lot coverage and the Planned Development agreement limits the lot coverage to 1,972 square feet or 7.7% of the lot area. Residential zones allow up to 30% lot coverage. It is not likely that a 12,800 square foot building foot print could be placed on the lot and meet the required building setbacks and off-street parking requirements for a building this large.

7. Will the new zoning avoid undue concentration of population?
The new zoning does avoid undue concentration of population. The existing zoning, restricts any residential use to the same allowed by R-96 which allows single family dwellings on lots of at least 9,600 square feet. This lot could accommodate 2 single family dwellings. The proposed zoning of PD-NC also allows residential uses including duplexes and multifamily dwellings. If the residential use is for multifamily, then it must comply with the RMF-R standards for lot area, building setbacks and lot coverage. This 25,600 square foot lot could allow one 14-unit apartment building under the proposed zoning, two 4-plex buildings or two 5-plex buildings or any combination that would meet the lot area requirements, the building setbacks, lot coverage maximum of 55% and a maximum building height of 34 feet as well as off-street parking.

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 should not have any impact on the surrounding streets. If warranted, a traffic impact study may be required depending on the commercial development that is built on the property in the future.
Water and Sewer: The City will be able to 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 city fire and police.

9. Does the new zoning give reasonable consideration to the character of the district?
The proposed zoning will allow the existing vacant commercial property to be re-used for a wider variety of commercial uses. The Planned Development agreement with the suggested amendments gives reasonable consideration of the character of the district. Rocky Mountain College is the major anchor of this neighborhood with a variety of medical clinic, office uses and one gas station. The proposed zoning is in character with the area.

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 adjacent to 2 minor arterial streets.

11. Was the new zoning adopted with a view to conserving the value of buildings?
The existing building value will be conserved by the proposed amendment. Surrounding residential property to the south and east will have its value conserved through restriction of some NC uses, lighting, and site design. Vacant property and buildings have a negative effect on surrounding property value. A developed property generally improves surrounding property value. The new zoning will allow the owner to consider future redevelopment of the property.

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 development for commercial uses other than a coffee shop or diner. This is the most appropriate use of the lot.