Applicant: The project land includes unique conditions and constraints that impact Costco's ability to meet the specific parking siting requirements of the Zoning Code that do not apply to other properties in the same district.   These include an irrigation ditch that traverses the site between Zoo Drive and Shiloh Drive, and limited direct access to the surrounding street network. The irrigation ditch includes a 50-foot easement that prevents the siting of any structures along Shiloh Drive and significantly restricts the buildable area along the Zoo Drive frontages. Costco consulted with the irrigation district on potential solutions to mitigate the site impact of the canal. However, the functional and technical requirements prohibit any significant relocation of the canal. Costco would need to significantly reduce the size of the warehouse building in order to locate it along the Zoo Drive frontage and would not be able to construct the MDO. Additionally, the project area is effectively a corner property with only two frontages that have direct access to adjacent streets. Opportunities to create driveways from the two frontage streets are limited due to the size and design requirements of the building and fuel facility, as well as the setback restrictions of irrigation facilities in the northwest corner of the project site. Also, the driveway entrance to Shiloh Drive is restructured to a right in/right out and is generally fixed in location due to the intersection with Zoo Drive to the north and existing off- site driveways and the intersection with Pierce Parkway to the south. As a result, these access restrictions make it difficult to place the building closer to the street frontages without requiring the closure of at least one driveway. Limiting direct access to the surrounding streets' network would force members to use the shared driveway to the east of the site, creating unnecessary congestion for both Costco and the adjacent parcels. The combination of these unique conditions creates a significant hardship that restricts Costco's ability to meet the strict application of the surface parking siting standards without creating a detrimental impact to the layout or operation of the development.

Staff: There are some special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot that are not applicable to other lots in the same district. The property is slightly encumbered by the Canyon Creek Ditch that crosses the northwest corner of the property. Approximately 10% of the land area is on the north and west side of the ditch. It is not possible to re-locate the ditch alignment or to place any structure over the ditch. It is possible to pipe and pave over the ditch crossing. Parking and driving over the piped ditch is feasible. This has been done in several areas to the north and east of the subject property where ditch water users no longer exist. This can be done without moving the ditch. The applicant has not demonstrated this small hardship requires the placement of the building 500 feet from Zoo Drive and 350 feet from S Shiloh Road. The applicant's proposed site plan puts 61% of the surface parking between the building and Zoo Drive (the front yard) while the ditch crossing only effects less than 10% of the land area. Further, there are vehicular accesses from three sides of the property via Shiloh Road, Zoo Drive and two local roads that connect with Pierce Parkway, one that runs behind the Nissan dealership and right into the Costco site, and the other that runs south to the west of the Office 365 Building and intersects Pierce Parkway to the south. There are multiple ways to enter and exit the Costco property directly and indirectly from the surrounding street network.

2) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other tracts in the same district.

Applicant: As demonstrated by the enclosed alternative layouts, the literal application of the surface parking siting standards on this specific site makes it practically infeasible to place the building along either street frontage. Due to the location of the irrigation ditch and associated no-build easement, there is no area along the Shiloh Drive frontage that can accommodate the warehouse building. Similarly, the available developable area along Zoo Drive is not large enough to accommodate the warehouse, which requires access on the east side of the building for the tire center and the west for loading. The limited space would also prohibit the future addition of the MDO. In order to meet the strict application of the surface parking standards, Costco would need to reduce the size of the warehouse and limit future growth at this location. This would significantly restrict Costco's ability as a regional retail operator to meet the anticipated demand of its members and would limit its rights to fully utilize the development standards and allowances of the CX zone, which is intended to support heavy commercial uses.

Staff: This application is a request of first impression. There are no similar or precedent cases for the board to weigh for this application. Under the previous zoning code for the city, parking lots were allowed in any location on a lot in relation to the building and street frontage. Most of the nearby developments have the buildings centered on the lots with parking lots surrounding the structure. (See attachments). Several of the existing hotels on the north/east side of Zoo Drive close to the interstate are placed close to the front property line with fewer than 50 parking spaces between the building and Zoo Drive. Large front yard parking lots are an outdated pattern of suburban commercial development. It is inefficient and a costly development pattern to sustain over time. The right to place parking in the front of a building is commonly enjoyed by some previous developments in the area. The rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district are now considered non-conforming site characteristics. It would not be consistent with current regulations to grant a variance based on prior development standards. New developments are required to meet current regulations - not prior regulations. It also appears that design preferences for the site are getting confused with what may actually be developed on the site for a Costco facility. It is not the case that the site plan proposed by Costco is the only way the site may be designed for this facility and for it to still meet the needs of customers and Costco.

3) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this zoning code to other land in the same district.

Applicant: Granting the requested variance to the Zoning Code parking siting standards is supported by this narrative, along with the enclosed proposed and alternative layouts and associated parking waiver. As described in this narrative, Costco intends to develop a warehouse, fuel facility, and future MDO to address the limitations of its current facility in Billings and continue to serve its members in the surrounding region. The layout of the facility, including the location and amount of parking, is based on a demand analysis prepared for this specific location. Reviewing the alternative layouts demonstrates that strict compliance with the Zoning Code's parking siting standards creates unnecessary hardship and limits the rights of Costco to develop this project in a way similar to other tracts within the surrounding district. Specifically, applying those standards would result in a layout that restricts adequate access to the site, limits building size, and constrains site circulation. As a result, these combined findings support the decision to grant the requested variance based on the merits of the project and would not act as a special privilege to the applicant that would be otherwise denied within the same zoning district.

Staff: Granting this variance as requested may confer on the applicant a special privilege because this request is a precedent request before the board. While surrounding properties may have developed in a similar way under the previous zoning regulations, the new zoning code is intended to move away from this style of development. Variance requests should tend to be the minimum required to accommodate the proposed construction. The preferred site plan does not exhibit any effort to minimize the variation from the zoning requirement. The new building is proposed to be just 60 feet off the rear property line and fully 500 feet south of the Zoo Drive frontage.

4) That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this zoning code and with the Growth Policy.

Applicant: The uses associated with the project are all allowed as-of-right and granting of a variance to the surface parking siting requirements would allow for the development of a uniquely constrained parcel and would remain consistent with the purpose of the CX zone. Specifically, the CX zone is designed to provide standards and use allowances to accommodate large, auto-oriented commercial uses that are suited for corridors located away from residential and mixed-use areas. Allowing a variance to provide flexibility to the surface parking siting requirements does not alter the type or intensity of uses associated with the project in a way that would be out of character for the surrounding area or the intent of the CX zone. The project is consistent with the types of large-format auto-oriented commercial uses in the surrounding CX zoning district. Granting of the variance to allow for the development of this parcel is also consistent with the guidelines described in the 2016 Billings Growth Policy. Specifically, it supports the broad goal of "Essential Investments" by allowing Costco to relocate its existing operations to a neighborhood that is zoned for the type of regional retail services it provides. As a result, Costco is able to continue providing essential goods and services to members within the surrounding region, a stated guideline within the Growth Policy. A variance also allows Costco to develop an area that currently sits vacant with a high-quality building, provide attractive landscape along the street frontages, and contributes to the "Community Fabric" of an established commercial area that includes similar auto-oriented commercial uses. The addition of the Costco development to this area also contributes to providing "Strong Neighborhoods" that are designed to be safe, attractive, and provided essential services to the greater community. Based on the findings provided in response to the required decision- making criteria, the approval of a variance for this project would support a Costco development that is harmonious with the intent of the Zoning Code and stated goals and guidelines of the City Growth Policy.

Staff: Granting this variance as requested will not meet the general purposes and intent of the zoning regulations and the 2016 Growth Policy. The Growth Policy guidelines support new developments that support existing investments in infrastructure, stabilize and grow the city's tax base and enhance entryways to the city. The proposed development is not in conformance with these stated goals and guidelines. The zoning regulations were adopted to specifically require the placement of surface parking lots to the side or rear of buildings to minimize the inefficient use of land on the street frontage, create street frontages that benefit the community at large, minimize the need for over-sized signs, and allow for the sustainable and adaptable use of commercial land. 

Section 27-1627.E
2) In granting any variance, the Board may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with this Zoning Code. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms upon which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Zoning Code;

Staff is not recommending conditions for the variance request. Below are draft conditions if the Board adopts different findings for the above criteria that what staff has presented.