A special review request to allow the location of two drive through services in a Community Commercial (CC) zone across an alley from a Residential zone and to allow the location of a new public parking lot in a Residential 7,000 (R-70) zone on Lot 3, Block 5, Sunnyside Subdivision, 1st Filing (CC zone - 40,732 square feet); South 100 feet of Lot 4, Block 5, Sunnyside Subdivision, 1st Filing (R-70 zone – 14,000 square feet); and the North 50 feet of the south half of Lot 4, Block 5 Sunnyside Subdivision, 1st Filing (R-70 zone – 7,000 square feet). Tax IDs: A16341; A16345 & A16346.

Special Review applications are reviewed using City Code criteria referenced in the Alternatives Analyzed section of this memo. Special Reviews do not require an ordinance for approval, are not zone changes on property; rather, are tied to specific uses that are allowed in a given zoning district but are subject to a review by the City prior to the use being allowed. Special Reviews, unlike zone changes, may be conditioned to mitigate possible impacts from the use on the subject property or surrounding properties.

City Council may:

• Approve the request;
• Conditionally approve the request;
• Deny the request;
• Allow the applicant to withdraw the request; or
• Delay action on the request for up to 30 days.

APPLICATION DATA
OWNER: Hillcrest, Inc.
AGENT: Dennis Randall, Sanderson Stewart
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, Block 5, Sunnyside Sub. 1st ; South 100’ of Lot 4, Block 5, Sunnyside Sub. 1st; North 50’ of S.1/2; Lot 4, Block 5 Sunnyside Sub. 1st.
ADDRESS: 1025 North 27th Street, 2601 10th Ave. N., 1010 North 26th Street
CURRENT ZONING: CC, R-70
EXISTING LAND USE: Hotel, Residential multi family
PROPOSED USE: Bank and Restaurant
SIZE OF PARCEL: 40,732; 14,000;7,000

The Planning staff has reviewed the proposed location of two drive through services across an alley from a residential zone and to allow the location of a new public parking lot and is recommending conditional approval. Before a recommendation of approval or conditional approval can be made, each special review request must demonstrate conformance with three primary criteria: 1) The application complies with all parts of the Unified Zoning Regulations, 2) The application is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the Unified Zoning Regulations and the 2016 Growth Policy, and 3) the application is compatible with surrounding land uses and is otherwise screened and separated from adjacent land to minimize adverse impacts.

This application conforms to the first criteria in so far that the zoning regulations adopted by the City Council have designated all CC zoning districts can have a drive through service adjacent to a residential zone and R-70 zoning districts can be used for public parking as long as they go through the special review process.  There are requirements for landscaping and screening from the residential uses next to commercial uses within the zoning regulations.

The application meets criteria from the second requirement as it is consistent with some of the objectives of the 2016 Growth Policy:

• Essential Investments: Neighborhoods that are safe and attractive and provide essential services are much desired. Redevelopment of existing property will provide additional services to the residents as well as provide services to adjacent medical corridor.

The proposed special review will provide services to benefit the residents of the neighborhood and serve the adjacent hospital patients, visitors and staff.

• Prosperity: A diversity of available jobs can ensure a strong Billings’ economy. Successful businesses that provide local jobs benefit the community.

The proposed special review will support two new businesses, provide employment opportunities at this location, and benefit the community with needed local services.
 
The application also meets the third criteria in that it is compatible with surrounding land uses in the area. This site is in an area of Billings, with residential zoning and commercial zoning as well as the medical corridor to the west. The uses to the north and south are commercial and properties to the east that are residential.  There are minimal impacts from the proposed use that need to be mitigated. The conditions recommended with the special review should mitigate impacts on the site and the surrounding properties.

If the special review is approved a small amount of value will be added to the City's tax base. If the special review is not approved, the property may remain as it is and not increase any taxable value. 

Planning Staff has reviewed this application and found two other special reviews approved in this subdivision; one for a drive through restaurant and one for an all beverage liquor license (both conditionally approved). During staff review Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), had some concerns and comments from MDT District Traffic Division: 1) An approach permit from the State will be necessary for the new northern approach, 2) An approach permit will be needed for the existing south approach only if it is to be relocated or rebuilt to a new configuration. 3) The existing north approach can be removed, and curbing restored without a permit. 4) Boulevard sidewalk is preferred over existing curb sidewalk. 5) The sidewalk at 10th and 27th is not ADA compliant. It will need to be upgraded if the sidewalk adjacent is to be replaced. MDT would require a meeting with the contractor to discuss these changes and would be inspecting the work within the right of way. 6) If the luminaire is to be moved, MDT must be contacted to coordinate. Proposed conditions 5, 6 and 9 are recommended to address these comments.

The Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 8, 2017, and received the staff report and recommendation as well as testimony from the applicant’s agent, Dennis Randall of Sanderson Stewart. Staff reviewed the application and added that in communication with the applicants agent had some recommended changes to the conditions 6 and 7. Mr. Randal concurred with staffs recommendation and agreed to the changes in conditions. The Commissioners questioned if there had been consideration for pedestrian crosswalk on 10th Avenue North. Mr. Randal said they had a traffic study done to submit with this project and did not know of plans to put a pedestrian crosswalk at that location. The Commissioners asked for clarification of the public parking lot use. Nicole Cromwell clarified "public parking lot" was used to identify the use of the property, and that any parking area in a residential zone requires a special review approval.

Mr. Randal testified the application was fairly straight forward and the designers were sensitive to the adjacent residences by providing the required screening wide buffer yards with trees, shrubs and grass. David Mitchel, representing the applicant, said the parking area would be used for the occupants of the bank. Commissioners questioned if they had considered the after hours use would likely be parking for the stadium. Mr. Mitchel said they had not started any negotiations with the ball park, as they were waiting to see if the special review is approved. He clarified the sale of the property was contingent on this approval. Mr. Mitchel also clarified for the Commission they had not yet confirmed the restaurant that would come in, however they had three different restaurants that were interested. Mark Westwood, the current owner of the property said he is also owner of several lots on the block of North 26th Street, he said he was supporting this application. Commissioners expressed concern with pedestrian safety and supported the staff recommended conditions for lighting and safety. Commissioners encouraged the applicants to work with the staff at the ballpark with regard to use of the proposed parking lot.

The Zoning Commission closed the hearing and a motion was made by Michael Larson to recommend conditional approval and adoption of the findings of the 3 criteria for Special Review 959. The motion was seconded by James Boyett and the Commission voted 4-1 in favor with Dennis Ulvestad opposed to the motion.
 

The Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies is discussed in the Alternatives Analyzed section above.