Regular 3.
Regular City Council Meeting
- Meeting Date:
- 01/12/2015
- TITLE
- Zone Change 928 - Public Hearing and 1st reading
- PRESENTED BY:
- Candi Millar
- Department:
- Planning & Community Services
Presentation:
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT
This is a zone change request from Residential Professional (RP) to Residential 7,000 (R-70) on Lots 4 and 5 of Block 2, Justiss Subdivision. Each parcel is 10,625 square feet in area and the lots each have a 2-family dwelling. The property is generally located at 2313 and 2321 Henesta Drive north east of the intersection of S 24th St West and King Avenue West. The current zoning does not allow duplex dwellings. The properties are owned by the Dean Hardin Trust (Lot 5 – 2321 Henesta) and Boris Krizek (Lot 4 – 2313 Henesta). Lowell Cooke is the agent for the owners. A pre-application meeting was held at 1215 24th Street West on June 27, 2014. The Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 2, 2014, and is forwarding a recommendation of approval and adoption of the findings of the 10 criteria on a 3-0-1 vote.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED
City Council may:
- Approve the zone change as recommended by the Zoning Commission and adopt the findings of the 10 criteria;
- Deny the zone change and adopt different findings of the 10 criteria;
- Allow the applicant to withdraw the zone change; or
- Delay action on the zone change request for up to 30 days.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The zone change should not have a significant impact on city finances. The city fees assessed based on zoning - arterial construction and storm water maintenance - will be lower based on the new R-70 zoning. The zone change will stabilize the property value of the 2 duplexes by allowing this owner and future owners to invest with standard financing and insurance.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting to rezone two adjacent properties from RP to R-70 to allow the existing nonconforming use – duplex dwellings – to conform with zoning. The city re-zoned the property at the request of previous owners in 1984, and expected the property to be re-developed for professional offices. The re-development did not occur and the current owners would like to insure the re-building of the current duplexes. Duplex dwellings are not an allowed use in the RP zone. The proposed zoning of R-70 would bring the dwellings into conformity with zoning.
The lots surrounding this property are zoned R-70 and RP. Several of the lots are developed for single family or two-family dwellings. Most of the lots zoned RP have been developed for office space or small service businesses. Just south of the subject properties is a large office building that provides some buffer to the high intensity traffic on King Avenue West. To the east, past the dead end of Henesta Drive, is the Lithia auto dealership. These properties can retain value as rental homes near this active retail district at King Avenue West and 24th Street West. The owners do not intend any new construction or re-construction at this time.
This section of Henesta Drive is a dead-end street east of 24th Street West and north of King Avenue West. King Avenue West and 24th Street West each carry over 26,000 vehicles per day (2013 traffic counts) at this intersection. The traffic volume has never been measured on this section of Henesta Drive. It is one of 2 access points for the office building to the south, but the traffic to and from it is light.
The proposed zoning of R-70 is intended to allow single family and two-family dwellings. This was the original zoning of these parcels before the zone change to RP in 1984. The duplex at 2313 Henesta Drive was constructed in 1978 and the two-family dwelling at 2321 Henesta Drive was constructed in 1965. The 2008 Growth Policy encourages more housing choices within each neighborhood while ensuring those land uses are compatible with existing neighborhoods. The property is located within an existing and developed residential area adjacent to a large retail commercial area. The nonconforming uses status of the properties hampers the ability of the owners to invest and upgrade the dwellings. The proposed zoning will allow these housing choices to remain in this area.
The applicant conducted a pre-application neighborhood meeting on June 27, 2014. Five surrounding property owners attended and concerns were voiced about “down zoning” these two properties. Several owners thought it would be better to re-zone to a more intense commercial zone such as NC or CC. The surrounding owners thought this would benefit the entire neighborhood since duplexes are allowed in those zoning districts and would add value if the owners were to sell in the future. The applicants were interested in this approach but it would have required additional property owners to participate. Ultimately, no other owners stepped forward to participate, so the two owners are pursuing this separate zone change to R-70.
The Planning Division reviewed the application and recommended approval based on the ten (10) criteria for zone changes. The Zoning Commission concurred with this recommendation and findings. The subject properties are located on a small dead-end street and have adequate separation from the adjacent intense commercial uses to the south, east and west. Under the current zoning, the existing dwellings could not be re-built in the event of destruction except as single family homes. The current zoning is not protective of the owner’s investment. There should be no impact to the surrounding uses from the proposed zoning. The existing use and proposed zoning are consistent with this neighborhood and land use pattern.
The lots surrounding this property are zoned R-70 and RP. Several of the lots are developed for single family or two-family dwellings. Most of the lots zoned RP have been developed for office space or small service businesses. Just south of the subject properties is a large office building that provides some buffer to the high intensity traffic on King Avenue West. To the east, past the dead end of Henesta Drive, is the Lithia auto dealership. These properties can retain value as rental homes near this active retail district at King Avenue West and 24th Street West. The owners do not intend any new construction or re-construction at this time.
This section of Henesta Drive is a dead-end street east of 24th Street West and north of King Avenue West. King Avenue West and 24th Street West each carry over 26,000 vehicles per day (2013 traffic counts) at this intersection. The traffic volume has never been measured on this section of Henesta Drive. It is one of 2 access points for the office building to the south, but the traffic to and from it is light.
The proposed zoning of R-70 is intended to allow single family and two-family dwellings. This was the original zoning of these parcels before the zone change to RP in 1984. The duplex at 2313 Henesta Drive was constructed in 1978 and the two-family dwelling at 2321 Henesta Drive was constructed in 1965. The 2008 Growth Policy encourages more housing choices within each neighborhood while ensuring those land uses are compatible with existing neighborhoods. The property is located within an existing and developed residential area adjacent to a large retail commercial area. The nonconforming uses status of the properties hampers the ability of the owners to invest and upgrade the dwellings. The proposed zoning will allow these housing choices to remain in this area.
The applicant conducted a pre-application neighborhood meeting on June 27, 2014. Five surrounding property owners attended and concerns were voiced about “down zoning” these two properties. Several owners thought it would be better to re-zone to a more intense commercial zone such as NC or CC. The surrounding owners thought this would benefit the entire neighborhood since duplexes are allowed in those zoning districts and would add value if the owners were to sell in the future. The applicants were interested in this approach but it would have required additional property owners to participate. Ultimately, no other owners stepped forward to participate, so the two owners are pursuing this separate zone change to R-70.
The Planning Division reviewed the application and recommended approval based on the ten (10) criteria for zone changes. The Zoning Commission concurred with this recommendation and findings. The subject properties are located on a small dead-end street and have adequate separation from the adjacent intense commercial uses to the south, east and west. Under the current zoning, the existing dwellings could not be re-built in the event of destruction except as single family homes. The current zoning is not protective of the owner’s investment. There should be no impact to the surrounding uses from the proposed zoning. The existing use and proposed zoning are consistent with this neighborhood and land use pattern.
STAKEHOLDERS
The Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 2, 2014, and received the staff report and testimony from the applicant's agent, Lowell Cooke, and Boris Krizek, one of the owners. Gordon Vandeveer, owner of 2314 Rosebud Drive north of the subject properties also provided testimony.
Mr. Cooke testified he was representing as listing agent the owner of 2321 Henesta Drive. He stated he had a willing buyer for the property but discovered during the due diligence for the purchase the current use, a duplex, is prohibited by the RP zoning. Mr. Cooke stated the zone change was necessary to complete the sale. Mr Krizek testified Mr. Cooke made him aware of the issue with the current zoning last spring and joined with the owner to the west to submit this zone change. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Cooke stated the owners chose not to "up zone" the property to Neighborhood Commercial because neither owner or the prospective buyer were interested in future commercial use of the property. Mr. Cooke stated he was aware NC zoning allows residential use but the R-70 zoning was the owners choice.
Mr. Vandeveer stated he understood the need to re-build property in the event of a fire or catastrophe, but was wondering why the owners did not choose a higher zoning such as NC or Community Commercial. He was not concerned with the proposed zoning so long as future owners were able to propose a zone change if they wanted a different use. Planning staff clarified that if this zone change was approved it did not preclude future owners from proposing a different zoning down the road.
The public hearing was closed. It was noted for the record that member Barbara Hawkins did not participate in the discussion and will recuse herself from the vote since she owns property within 300 feet of the subject properties. Member Dennis Ulvestad made a motion to recommend approval and adoption of the findings of the 10 criteria for Zone Change 928. The motion was seconded by Mike Boyett. The motion was approved on a 3-0-1 vote.
Mr. Cooke testified he was representing as listing agent the owner of 2321 Henesta Drive. He stated he had a willing buyer for the property but discovered during the due diligence for the purchase the current use, a duplex, is prohibited by the RP zoning. Mr. Cooke stated the zone change was necessary to complete the sale. Mr Krizek testified Mr. Cooke made him aware of the issue with the current zoning last spring and joined with the owner to the west to submit this zone change. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Cooke stated the owners chose not to "up zone" the property to Neighborhood Commercial because neither owner or the prospective buyer were interested in future commercial use of the property. Mr. Cooke stated he was aware NC zoning allows residential use but the R-70 zoning was the owners choice.
Mr. Vandeveer stated he understood the need to re-build property in the event of a fire or catastrophe, but was wondering why the owners did not choose a higher zoning such as NC or Community Commercial. He was not concerned with the proposed zoning so long as future owners were able to propose a zone change if they wanted a different use. Planning staff clarified that if this zone change was approved it did not preclude future owners from proposing a different zoning down the road.
The public hearing was closed. It was noted for the record that member Barbara Hawkins did not participate in the discussion and will recuse herself from the vote since she owns property within 300 feet of the subject properties. Member Dennis Ulvestad made a motion to recommend approval and adoption of the findings of the 10 criteria for Zone Change 928. The motion was seconded by Mike Boyett. The motion was approved on a 3-0-1 vote.
CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED POLICIES OR PLANS
Prior to any decision on the zone change by the City Council, it shall consider the findings of the following 10 criteria:
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:
2. Is the new zoning designed to secure from fire and other dangers?
The new zoning requires minimum setbacks, open and landscaped areas and building separations. The new zoning, as do all zoning districts, provides adequate building separations and density limits to provide security from fire and other dangers. The City Fire Department will ensure safe access to the site and provision for minimum fire flow to the new buildings.
3. Whether the new zoning will promote public health, public safety and general welfare?
Public health and public safety will be promoted by the proposed zoning. The current zoning does not encourage the owner to invest in the dwellings since re-construction of the duplexes is prohibited by the zoning. The new zoning will ensure long term investment. This will improve public health and safety and the general welfare of the adjacent neighbors.
4. Will the new zoning will facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirement?
Transportation: The proposed zoning will have no impact on the surrounding streets.
Water and Sewer: The City already provides water and sewer services to the dwellings.
Schools and Parks: There should not be any impact to schools from the proposed zone change.
Fire and Police: The subject property is currently served by the city Public Safety Services.
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 should not change. The proposed zoning should have no impact on motorized or nonmotorized traffic.
7. Will the new zoning will promote compatible urban growth?
The new zoning does promote compatibility with urban growth. The proposed zoning will support the long term investment in this existing residential area.
8. Does the new zoning consider the character of the district and the peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses?
The proposed zoning does consider the character of the district and the suitability of the property for two-family dwellings. The proposed zoning is suitable for the existing and surrounding development.
9. Will the new zoning conserve the value of buildings?
The new zoning will conserve the value of the existing two-family dwellings. The current zoning does not allow the re-construction of the duplexes.
10. Will the new zoning encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the City of Billings?
The proposed zoning will encourage the most appropriate use of the property. The proposed zoning is the most likely use of the property now and in the future.
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)
- More housing and business choices with each neighborhood. (Land Use Element Goal, page 6)
2. Is the new zoning designed to secure from fire and other dangers?
The new zoning requires minimum setbacks, open and landscaped areas and building separations. The new zoning, as do all zoning districts, provides adequate building separations and density limits to provide security from fire and other dangers. The City Fire Department will ensure safe access to the site and provision for minimum fire flow to the new buildings.
3. Whether the new zoning will promote public health, public safety and general welfare?
Public health and public safety will be promoted by the proposed zoning. The current zoning does not encourage the owner to invest in the dwellings since re-construction of the duplexes is prohibited by the zoning. The new zoning will ensure long term investment. This will improve public health and safety and the general welfare of the adjacent neighbors.
4. Will the new zoning will facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirement?
Transportation: The proposed zoning will have no impact on the surrounding streets.
Water and Sewer: The City already provides water and sewer services to the dwellings.
Schools and Parks: There should not be any impact to schools from the proposed zone change.
Fire and Police: The subject property is currently served by the city Public Safety Services.
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 should not change. The proposed zoning should have no impact on motorized or nonmotorized traffic.
7. Will the new zoning will promote compatible urban growth?
The new zoning does promote compatibility with urban growth. The proposed zoning will support the long term investment in this existing residential area.
8. Does the new zoning consider the character of the district and the peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses?
The proposed zoning does consider the character of the district and the suitability of the property for two-family dwellings. The proposed zoning is suitable for the existing and surrounding development.
9. Will the new zoning conserve the value of buildings?
The new zoning will conserve the value of the existing two-family dwellings. The current zoning does not allow the re-construction of the duplexes.
10. Will the new zoning encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the City of Billings?
The proposed zoning will encourage the most appropriate use of the property. The proposed zoning is the most likely use of the property now and in the future.