The Zoning Commission is recommending denial of Zone Change 1056 on a failed motion to recommend approval. The vote on the motion to recommend approval was one in favor and four opposed.

This application was originally submitted in August 2024, and scheduled for a public hearing with the Zoning Commission on October 1, 2024. After the public notice, the Planning staff received many negative public comments from the surrounding owners in High Sierra and in Lake Hills. The Planning staff also proposed a few negative findings for the zoning review criteria based on this original plan. The applicant requested and was granted a delay from the October 1, 2024, hearing to the December 3, 2024, hearing date with the Zoning Commission. In the interim, the applicant revised the zoning plan to significantly reduce the higher-density multifamily zoning, re-orient the proposed commercial node at High Sierra Blvd and Annandale Rd, and provide compatible zone districts across future street frontages. The applicant prepared a preliminary traffic update letter that was sent to the city Traffic Engineer, Dakota Martonen. Mr. Martonen and other engineering staff did not have concerns with the preliminary findings. However, a traffic study update will be scoped and required when the subdivision plan based on this zoning is submitted for city review. The scope of this study will include intersections in the vicinity as these are locations that experience more impact than corridors as outlined in the preliminary letter. The Planning staff re-noticed the surrounding owners, sent an email update to all people who sent in public comment on the original zoning submission, re-posted the property, and published a new legal ad. The Planning staff received three surrounding owner's comments prior to the Dec 3, 2024, hearing. The Planning staff's findings for the revised submission removed the negative findings based on the original zoning application submitted.

The High Sierra neighborhood began development in 1984 and is still filing extensions of the subdivision to the north. There are now 21 filings for the High Sierra neighborhood with a 22nd subdivision in the preliminary stages. This preliminary plat is not part of the subject property for this zone change. The original subdivision set out 44+ acres for a new high school in Billings Heights, as well as the initial residential homes on Fantan St, High Sierra Blvd, Picador Pl, Siesta Ave, Morroco Blvd and others south of Sierra Grand Blvd. The original zoning consisted of a single-family district (R96), a commercial zone west of Gleneagles Blvd (CC), and the public zoning for Sky View High School. The second filing of High Sierra was not filed until 2002 and divided land west of the high school for churches, civic uses, and several other large parcels that ended up as city parkland. High Sierra Subdivision totals about 675 acres and has 264 vacant acres of land owned by builders, and 18 vacant acres of land owned by the school district (north of Sierra Grand Blvd). There are about 41 vacant acres of land owned by religious entities. About 50% of the total land area is not yet developed. Thirty-one percent of the developed land is for residential dwellings, with 204.4 acres (30%) of developed public land for parks, schools, and other civic uses. Nearly 70% of the 675 acres are currently zoned N3 - Suburban Neighborhood, 30% is zoned Public 1 or Public 2. A very small percentage - 1.2% - is zoned for residential use of more than one single-family dwelling. This zoning is concentrated on the Wicks Lane frontage and consists of Mid-Century Neighborhood (N2), Mixed Residential 2 (NX2), and Corridor Mixed-Use 1 (CMU1).

There are 1,000 residential dwellings built within the High Sierra subdivisions and 90% of these units are owner-occupied. This high percentage is unusual for most Billings residential neighborhoods, which consistently average about 65% owner-occupied. In addition, 70% of the High Sierra land area is zoned for single-family dwellings. This is a high percentage for most Billings neighborhoods, where 50 to 60 percent on average are zoned N3. One of the goals of the 2016 Growth Policy was to ensure that each neighborhood had a mix of housing choices available. This means that new neighborhoods or even existing neighborhoods should allow, through zoning, all housing configurations, including single-family, two-family, townhomes, patio homes, and multifamily structures. Neighborhoods that allow this variety are also more financially sustainable for the community, and resilient to changing market forces. A homogeneous zoning pattern can lead to fragility due to market forces, and the inability of the city to provide services to a geographically dispersed neighborhood as costs continue to increase year over year.

The proposed zone change, as originally submitted in August 2024, was found by Planning staff to not entirely conform to the 2016 Growth Policy to increase housing choices or with the existing Heights Neighborhood Plan. The proposed layout of the five new zone districts placed all the highest density development on the edge of the current city limits where future development may or may not occur. There are no definitive plans for the 1,000+ acres north of the High Sierra Subdivision. It is within Zone 1 of the Limits of Annexation for the city. Most of this land is not owned by this applicant. Planning staff presented those findings to the applicant and to the Zoning Commission for consideration in September 2024. The applicant requested a delay from the October 1, 2024, hearing date in order to consider a re-arrangement of the zoning plan.

The proposed new zoning is in direct response to Planning staff concerns and some of the concerns expressed by the surrounding property owners in the High Sierra neighborhood. The new proposed plan includes more NX1 (1-4 unit buildings) zoning along the periphery of the subject parcel with provisions for alley separations. The previous plan had 42% of the area in NX3 (5+ unit buildings) and the new plan has reduced it to 26.7% and placed all the NX3 zoning internal to the site. The N1 district has been expanded to streets along the periphery of the subject parcel to the south and the proposed commercial corner (CMU1) has been moved to the north side of the Annandale (arterial) and High Sierra Blvd (collector) intersection. Good planning includes consideration of existing and proposed future land uses, ensuring compatibility between the developing areas and future development. The proposed new zoning plan accommodates the uncertainty of adjacent land outside the city limits and is more compatible with the N3 zoning that will remain for the High Sierra neighborhood as it builds out to the north and west. The owner does not intend to change other parts of the High Sierra subdivision at this time.

The planning staff also had concerns with the previous zoning plan and the transportation network in this area of Billings Heights. Much higher levels of traffic would be added to the existing street network with a high percentage of NX3 zoning. The reduction in the NX3 zoned area alleviates this concern. High Sierra Blvd, which is a collector street, will extend north into the subject property as shown on the proposed zoning map. Planning for a small amount of commercial zoning at the intersection of Annandale Rd and High Sierra Blvd makes sense as this neighborhood continues to build-out with no local or neighborhood services. The lack of these local services can contribute to traffic congestion by requiring a car trip for every necessity. The N1 zoning also makes sense to allow smaller lots and to allow the option for two-family dwellings. The proposed NX1 zone has been amended slightly and replaced with N1 zoning along the north side of a future extension of Vesca Way. The N1 zone will be compatible with the N3 zone on the south side of Vesca Way. The N1 and NX1 zones are compatible due to the building and siting requirements that are similar. Annandale and High Sierra Blvd will have temporary deadends at the city limits' boundary. Extensions of these streets to connect to Alkali Creek Rd (Annandale) and Alexander Rd (High Sierra Blvd) will be done in the future when property is developed.

The applicant submitted a preliminary letter to the City Traffic Engineer, Dakota Martonen, PE, PTOE, estimating the future traffic volume based on the revised zoning plan. The city's Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) has already estimated traffic volume on existing arterial and collector streets out to the year 2045. The proposed zoning plan traffic volume estimate for High Sierra Blvd exceeds the 2045 LRTP volume estimate for this collector. The letter, however, states the design of the two-lane collector can accommodate the additional traffic volume without adding lanes or additional right-of-way. City Traffic Engineer Dakota Martonen concurs with this finding. A future subdivision based on this new zoning will require the developer to update the existing Traffic Impact Study to include a review of intersections within the area. Intersections experience more impact from high traffic volumes than corridors. This information will be available for review at the time of a future subdivision.

The Planning staff recommended approval to the Zoning Commission based on the revised zoning plan. The Zoning Commission did not concur with this recommendation and findings. The Zoning Commission supports zoning that allows a variety of housing options in neighborhoods but does not believe the amount of proposed density is appropriate at this location. The Commission disagreed with the proposed staff finding for Criteria No. 10 - "Is the proposed zoning the most appropriate use of land throughout the City of Billings?" and with the staff finding for Criteria No. 2 - "Is the new zoning designed to secure from fire and other dangers?". The Zoning Commission concerns are outlined in the Stakeholders section below.

The applicant conducted a pre-application meeting on June 12, 2024, at the Lake Hills Golf Course. The meeting was attended by at least a dozen property owners. The mailed notification area for this property is a 1/4-mile radius. Questions were mainly concerned with public safety, traffic, and density within the area proposed for the NX3 zoning. The pre-application information is attached to this report. 

Soon after the pre-application meeting, planning staff started to receive emails of opposition and concern about the proposed zone change. The planning staff has collated these emails from the original application and these are attached to the report. The primary concerns reflect those expressed at the pre-application meeting about traffic, higher density, public safety, and school population. The planning staff posted the zone change in September and again in November at the closest public right of way in two places - the dead-end of Las Palmas and the southwest corner of Gleneagles and Cherry Hills Rd. A legal ad was published in September and November, the updated application details are published on the Current Zoning Applications' web page, and notice was mailed to the 98 owners within 1/4-mile of the subject property. In addition, 78 persons were notified via email of the updated application in November.

Three new emails were received prior to the Zoning Commission hearing based on the updated application. The original emails and the November/December emails are included as a separate attachment to this report.

Zoning Commission hearing December 3, 2024
The Zoning Commission met on December 3, 2024, and received the Planning staff report, testimony from the applicant's agents John Halverson and Joey Saszcuk of SanBell, as well as testimony from the following surrounding property owners: Cindy Osland of 1435 Benjamin Blvd, Lee Tostenrud of 1239 Benjamin Blvd, Steve Sudan of 826 Hermosa, Edith Schuler of 820 Hermosa, Kellie Mailia of 1303 Benjamin Blvd, Lynette Tubbs of 1429 Las Palmas, Shirley Laird of 2311 Entrada, and Landy Leep for High Sierra Development. Planning staff answered questions from the Zoning Commission to clarify the zoning plan and recommendation. The applicant's agents provided response to comments and concerns brought up during public testimony on the application. Those concerns included traffic, property values, school populations and housing density. The Zoning Commission Chair, Dan Brooks, closed the public hearing.

Zoning Commission member Greg McCall made a motion to recommend approval of Zone Change 1056 and adoption of the findings of the 10 review criteria. The motion was seconded by Commission member Andy Megorden, and was not approved on a 2-2 tie vote. The Zoning Commission must forward a recommendation to the City Council (BMCC Sec. 27-1628.E(1). A tie vote is not a recommendation. Zoning Commission members stated their positions on whether to recommend approval. Chair Dan Brooks and Daid Goss spoke against recommending approval. Greg McCall and Andy Megorden spoke in favor of recommending approval.

Chair Dan Brooks made a second motion to recommend denial of the zone change and provided a different finding as a basis for the recommendation. Mr. Brooks stated he found the proposed zoning was not the most appropriate use of land at the edge of the city limits (Criteria No. 10). The motion was seconded by Commission member David Goss. The motion was not approved on a 2-2 tie vote. Planning staff recommended the members should vote to delay action on the zone change until the next Zoning Commission meeting (January 7). Member David Goss stated he might be persuaded to vote in favor of the zone change if he had more assurances the transportation system could and would handle the additional traffic. He stated that with the area for the new zoning at the current edge of the city limits, it is necessary to have more than just a letter from the applicant's agent. David Goss made a motion to delay the discussion and recommendation on Zone Change 1056, until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Andy Megorden and was approved on a 3-1 vote. Greg McCall voted against the motion.

Zoning Commission meeting and motion January 7, 2025
The Zoning Commission met on January 7, 2025, to consider a motion for a recommendation to the City Council. The planning staff, and applicant's agents attended the meeting. The Zoning Commission asked questions to clarify the previous testimony and facts from the December 3, 2024, hearing. The applicant's agent submitted a letter of clarification on January 3, 2025 and this was provided via email to the Commission and on paper at the meeting. The agent's letter clarified information regarding traffic impacts and the setting of the subject property in relation to adjacent but not yet annexed parcels.

Commission member Goss asked the applicant's agent whether the updated traffic letter from November included all the potential uses in the CMU1 including the potential for multifamily residential. Mr. Staszcuk, Traffic Engineer with Sanbell, stated all the potential uses and configurations of the CMU1 zoned parcel were considered in the traffic generation models. Commissioner Goss asked whether the agent believes a commercial use such as a neighborhood grocery or convenience store would be successful at this location given the real estate standards for these uses. Mr. Goss stated in his experience a neighborhood grocery would need a minimum of 1,000 dwelling units within a 1/4-mile of the location and a convenience store would need even more to be a viable use on the property. Mr. Staszcuk stated the average number of trips per day generated from this neighborhood would be 1,000 and those traffic numbers supported many potential uses within the CMU1 zone district. He stated that some uses could capture trips from outside the development and those were accounted for as well as pedestrian travel to the location for services. 

Commission member McCall asked the applicant's agent if there was anything further they wanted to clarify for the Commission. Mr. John Halverson of Sanbell stated the applicant would like to emphasize the conformance of this zoning plan with the adopted Growth Policy and how the adjacent property that will be annexed will likely develop in the same style and pattern.

Commission member Andy Megorden stated he appreciated the clarifying letter from the agent regarding the traffic situation but was still concerned with the level of density on the current edge of the city limits.

Commissioner Goss asked staff whether it was possible that property zoned CMU1 could be developed as multifamily apartments with 4-story buildings. The zoning coordinator stated the city's zoning was updated (Zone Change 1041) to comply with the 2023 legislation that requires cities to allow multi-unit development by right in all commercial or mixed-use zones. Technically, an "all residential" building could be developed in the CMU1 zone. The planning staff did point out that first floor facade and frontage requirements remain the same and these include 65% front lot line coverage, 65% door and window openings along the street facade and similar siting standards that may not be as conducive to first floor residential dwellings. Mr. Halverson pointed out these potential development types were included in the traffic calculations. Mr. Stazcuk stated the future traffic study update (at time of subdivision), will include all intersections within 1/2-mile of the property and the city will also require intersection analysis on Wicks Lane and as far east as Main Street. The study will identify the contribution of traffic from the development and the owner will pay a proportionate share for each intersection requiring updates. This payment is for specific intersections and cannot be used for other locations. Mr. Staszcuk also stated that if there are identified traffic issues in the area, such as speeding on nearby streets, then the developer could be required to install traffic-calming or other traffic management. He stated a traffic study for a development this large is never complete because, for every new filing, the traffic plan must be reviewed, and the previous findings updated based on actual results and newer information.

Chair Dan Brooks stated he spoke with Debi Meling, Public Works Director, regarding the city's budget for traffic management. Mr. Brooks stated the city has enough money each fiscal year to signalize one intersection and the engineering staff keeps a prioritized list of these intersections that may need traffic signals in the future. Mr. Brooks asked Mr. Staszcuk if he knew if any High Sierra Subdivision intersections were on the list and where those might be on the priority list. Mr. Staszcuk stated he was aware of the list and agrees with the statement about unencumbered funding available for intersection improvements each year. He stated he was not aware of any High Sierra intersections on the list for signalization. He stated that any developer funding is intersection-specific and cannot be used for other locations. If an intersection needs signalization, and there is not enough developer contribution, then the city can backfill that need with unencumbered revenue. Many intersections have no developer contributions. He stated that signals are added with new development in commercial areas where a large development happens, such as the Costco on Zoo Drive.

Commissioner McCall made a motion to recommend approval and adoption of the proposed findings of the 10 review criteria. Commissioner Megorden seconded the motion. Chair Mr. Brooks stated that he is still concerned with the appropriateness of this level of density on the current edge of the city limits and the potential for this to create public safety problems with service levels. He stated this development does not belong at this location. Commissioner Megorden stated he was on the fence but also has a concern about the density of the development. He stated he would be okay with the proposal if it were all single-family dwellings. Commissioner Goss stated he was satisfied with the clarifications on traffic issues but still concerned with the "backwards" development process in Billings. He stated the city always approves a lot of residential homes, hoping that one day, services for the neighborhoods will just appear. He stated this does not just happen and many times the services are needed well before any improvements actually occur.

The motion failed on a vote of one in favor and four opposed to the motion to recommend approval. The result is a recommendation of denial to the City Council.

The City Council may:

• Deny and adopt the findings of the ten review criteria for Zone Change 1056 as recommended by the Zoning Commission; or,
• Approve and adopt different findings of the ten review criteria for Zone Change 1056; or,
• Delay action on the zone change request for up to 30 days at the request of the applicant or by its own motion; or
• Refer the application back to the Zoning Commission for an additional public hearing based on 1) new information submitted outside the public hearing that the applicant and the public have not had an opportunity to examine; or 2) new information has been presented that was never submitted or considered by the Zoning Commission or staff; or
• Allow the applicant to withdraw the zone change request.

The applicant has not requested a delay or withdrawal of the application as of the final draft of this report.

 

There will be no impact of the Planning Division budget from the approval or denial of the zone change request.

• Zoning regulations that allow a mixture of housing types provide housing options for all age groups and income levels.
• Neighborhoods that are safe and attractive and provide essential services are much desired.

Home Base:

• A mix of housing types that meet the needs of a diverse population is important.
• The Housing Needs Assessment is an important tool to ensure Billings recognizes and meets the demands of future development.
• Common to all types of housing choices is the desire to live in surroundings that are affordable, healthy and safe.

• Develop housing patterns that are compatible with existing neighborhoods.
• Encourage high-density multifamily development along arterial routes

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 effect motorized and non-motorized transportation?
Traffic generation has been estimated in a preliminary letter to the City Traffic Engineer, Dakota Martonen. The preliminary information letter is included as an attachment.  It is estimated that new vehicle trips per day based on the proposed zoning and estimated unit counts would result in about 5,500 new external trips outside the development. This trip count includes trips to the new residences for services such as mail, delivery, solid waste and similar, as well as trips by the occupants. The current N3 zoning would result in about 1,800 new trips per day. Each single-family unit in the N3 zone would generate an estimated 9.43 vehicle trips per day. Trip generation per attached single-family or multifamily dwellings is much lower per unit. Attached single-family units generate about 7.2 trips per day and multifamily dwellings about 6.7 trips per day. Traffic volume does not increase along the same curve as development density. The increase of dwellings from 190 in the N3 to more than 500 in the proposed zoning does not increase expected traffic by the same percentage. City Engineering will expect an update to the existing traffic impact study to look at all the surrounding intersections to ensure the new development is paying its fair share for any required improvements.

7. Will the new zoning promote compatible urban growth?
The new proposed zoning does promote compatibility with urban growth. The proposed zoning of N1 and NX1 along the parcel perimeter will allow this parcel to provide new housing that is compatible with the adjacent undeveloped county land and with the remaining N3 zoning in the future High Sierra subdivisions.

8. Does the new zoning consider the character of the district and the peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses?
The proposed new zoning plan does consider the character of the district and the suitability of the property for the proposed use. The proposed new zoning plan has a balance of higher and lower density housing choices and provides for an area of neighborhood services at the intersection of an arterial and collector streets.

9. Will the new zoning conserve the value of buildings?
There are no existing structures on the property. New construction and development tends to raise property values on adjacent lots, but it is not known how this development may affect those values.

10. Will the new zoning encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the City of Billings?
January 7, 2025 finding: The Zoning Commission is concerned that this zoning and development density is not the most appropriate use of land in this area of Billings. This density at the current edge of the city limits should not be an established pattern of growth for the city. When the temporary dead-end streets will be connected or extended is not predictable.
(Previous finding: The proposed new zoning plan is the most appropriate use of the land. The NX3 zone is centrally located around the intersection of the arterial and collector streets with N1 and NX1 along the periphery, is appropriate and provides compatible development.)