HomeMy WebLinkAbout041409 Board of Adjustment MinutesBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2009
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Vice Chairperson Sypinski called the meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and
directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Ed Sypinski Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Ed Ugorowski Doug Riley, Associate Planner
Dan Curtis Keri Thorpe, Assistant Planner
Cole Robertson David Skelton, Senior Planner
Patricia Jamison Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Members Absent Visitors Present
JP Pomnichowski Spencer Anderson
Richard Lee Douglas C. Rains
Crystie Watson
Commission Liaison Jim Harville
Dorie Refling
Mark Chandler
Tony Novotny
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 2009
MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to approve the minutes of March 10, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being Vice Chairperson Sypinski, Mr.
Robertson, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Ugorowski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none.
ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes)
{Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Board Of Adjustment, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
There was no public comment forthcoming.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Simply Windows CUP #Z-09024 (Krueger)
1508 West Babcock Street
* A Conditional Use Permit Application to allow a home based business in an existing residence within an R-3 Zoning Designation.
Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the review was for a home based business due to the classification of the use. He noted the proposal was for the operation
of a window design studio with design services only. He noted the location of the proposal was
in the vicinity of La Parilla restaurant and American Bank. He stated the review included both the single-family residence and the detached garage. He noted the surrounding zoning
designations as R-O and R-3 and that there were commercial uses to the north with residential uses to the east and south. He stated the proposal met the nine criteria from the UDO to
be granted the Conditional Use Permit as there would be no deliveries to the property. He stated an access would be relocated to the 15th Avenue side of the property per Staff conditions
and ADA access would be required on the site from the boulevard path to a handicap ramp. He stated there would be screening required for the parking area and site lighting conformance
would be required. He noted the applicant would be using less than the allowable amount of floor area for the home based business and Staff was recommending approval of the proposal.
Ms. Jamison thanked Planner Krueger for his report. She stated she thought it was great the business was thinking outside the box and seeking a home occupation instead of going out
of business. She asked if the trees on the site would remain. Planner Krueger responded the Forestry department would be spoken with but until the site work was begun it would be
uncertain if all the trees would remain, though the applicant would attempt to maintain the existing vegetation.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated only two of the nine code provisions used to gauge whether or not a CUP for a home based business had been included and suggested all nine criteria be
included to allow for enforcement provisions. Planner Krueger responded Staff was amenable to including all nine provisions in the approval.
Jim Harville - owner, 1508 West Babcock Street, joined the BOA. He stated he had owned the house for 15 years and the Simply Windows business for 11 years. He noted all their business
had been conducted out of the home, but they wanted the option of customers coming to the business and being in a relaxed atmosphere.
Mr. Curtis asked if the applicant did installations and if they had equipment (trailers, trucks, etc.). Mr. Harville responded he did installations, but had no other equipment than
a truck to carry a ladder.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked if the business was considered as upholstery or more design oriented. Mr. Harville responded the business was more a studio for design purposes. He
noted that no more trees would be removed from the site as previous removal had been due to damage or rot; he noted it was not a decision he had made lightly. Vice Chairperson Sypinski
asked if there had been an off site location for his business prior to the applicant deciding to do a home based business and why the applicant had decided on a home based business.
Mr. Harville responded that they had decided to sell the house and most buyers had been interested in purchasing it to turn it into a business, so when it did not sell, they decided
to pursue the home based business.
Ms. Jamison stated she applauded the business for thinking outside the box to continue their business at home in Bozeman and she was in favor of the proposal.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated he would like to see all nine code provisions included in the approval of the proposal.
MOTION: Ms. Jamison moved, Mr. Ugorowski seconded, to approve Simply Windows CUP #Z-09024 with Staff conditions and the inclusion of all nine code provisions. The motion carried 5-0.
Those voting aye being Vice Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Ugorowski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none.
2. Faithful Friends Animal Clinic CUP #Z-09028 (Riley)
205 Edelweiss Drive
* A Conditional Use Permit Application to allow a small animal clinic to occupy an existing structure within a B-2 Zoning Designation.
Associate Planner Doug Riley presented the Staff Report noting he had included a power point presentation to address the public comment that had been received. He noted the location
of the property and stated it would be within an existing commercial building. He stated the applicant had been considering the site due to the need for additional space. He stated
the site met all the current UDO requirements for the proposed use and the key feature on the site was an existing eight foot tall screening fence to the north of the site. He stated
no exterior changes were being proposed other than a wall sign. He noted the location of the area the animals would be taken out under supervision and their waste would be disposed
of immediately per Staff conditions. He stated animal control had been contacted and indicated they had had no problems with the existing Faithful Friends Animal Clinic. He stated
a phone call had been received in support of the proposal and another call had been received expressing concerns regarding barking dogs, but his concerns had been alleviated due to Staff
conditions of approval requiring that no kenneling operations be conducted on site. He directed the BOA to written public comment that expressed concerns regarding barking dogs, odors,
and parking requirements. He stated he had been to the site and there was a lot of available parking on the north side and the UDO required parking for this use is currently provided.
He noted which Staff conditions addressed not conducting kenneling activities and removal of waste.
Ms. Jamison asked if the building could be two businesses. Planner Riley responded it could be two tenants, but would be occupied by the clinic instead.
Mr. Curtis asked if the fence was owned by the property. Planner Riley responded the fence was part of the property.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated the parking accommodated the employees and would the businesses have shared parking to accommodate customers. Planner Riley responded there was a shared
parking arrangement. Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated he appreciated the other board members looking at the site and Planner Riley’s Staff Report.
Mr. Robertson asked how many animals were being treated in one day. Planner Riley stated he was uncertain, but the applicant would be able to answer.
Spencer Anderson, 205 Edelweiss Dr., stated he was a doctor at the clinic and they just wanted to have a new location with more space as they had outgrown their original location near
Albertson’s. He noted the building would accommodate a separate surgery room as well as an office and additional examining room. He stated there would be no more than four or five
dogs
at once in the holding area; he added the holding area was separated from the outside walls within a contained room. He stated he hadn’t had any complaints from businesses within the
Albertson’s shopping center and barking wouldn’t be an issue. He stated urination and defecation would not be an issue as animals would be walked on a leash while someone immediately
removed the solid waste so odor would not be a concern. He stated their appointments were run on a half hour schedule which would equate to two people an hour; he stated surgeries were
staggered and parking would not be an issue.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked how medical waste products would be addressed. Mr. Anderson responded many of those items would be dropped off at the hospital and urine and feces were
thrown away. Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked if any complaints had been received by City Animal Control.
Tony Novotny, 819 Oakwood Dr. – Belgrade, stated he represented the buyers of the property. He stated the clinic had been in place where they have had no problems even though they shared
a common wall. He stated the psychology was that if they did a good job as renters, chances are they would do a better job as owners. He stated if there were any odors, the prevailing
winds out of the southwest would prevent the condominiums from receiving them.
Mark Chandler, C&H Engineering, stated he was one of the property owners of the building. He stated he was unaware of a no pets rule and he used to bring his little dog to work on occasion.
He noted another owner brought his three black labs to work frequently and had not been aware of the no pets rule either. He stated Steve Parks, another developer of the property,
was in favor of the vet clinic use. He stated he thought this was a better location for the clinic than their present location in the University Square Shopping Center.
Dori Refling, 101 Sunset Boulevard, stated she worked at 233 Edelweiss in unit 10A and they welcomed the clinic as tenants and neighbors if approved. She stated they felt that particular
clinic was not appropriate as parking was a huge issue on the site; the photos were misleading and there was a six-unit office building that was currently vacant of tenants. She stated
Edelweiss Drive turned into a single lane with on street parking due to the lack of parking on the site. She stated she had been told that the Association rules prohibited pets and
she had attempted to negotiate a clause to allow her dog to visit from time to time; she learned later the rule was generally ignored. She stated the north space where urination and
defecation was being proposed was not owned by C&H or the clinic but was instead owned by the owners association. She stated there were significant differences in the clinic’s current
location and the proposed location due to the parking situation.
Ms. Jamison asked Ms. Refling if she owned the property or rented. Ms. Refling responded she rented. Ms. Jamison clarified that owner had voting rights in the condo association.
Doug Rains – doctor at the clinic, 33 Sundance Trail, stated he understood Ms. Refling’s concerns as he had encountered those concerns at their current location. He stated his business
was bound by the same conditions that any professional medical facility was bound to. He stated the environmental waste managers for the hospital had arranged to meet him at the biohazard
waste disposal site on a regular basis. He stated the typical fifteen minute appointments were not thorough enough so they do ½ hour appointments but the average would be two vehicles
per
hour with the exception of drop-offs. He stated the customers were called to pick up their pets at intervals. He added the Alberston’s Shopping Center had used their business as a
template for inclusion of other vet clinics in other locations.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski clarified that no boarding would be allowed. Mr. Rains responded there would be no boarding, but after surgery stays would be necessary; he stated his preference
had been not to include boarding.
Mr. Curtis stated the rules of a condo association were not the purview of the Board and was a civil matter between the owners and tenants. He stated it had been adequately established
that there was enough parking on the site to meet the requirements for that use. He stated the Albertson’s Shopping Center was not conducive to the clinic use and he was in favor of
moving to the proposed site.
Ms. Jamison stated she agreed with Mr. Curtis that the use would be more conducive to the proposed site. She stated she loved to see the public participating in the process.
Mr. Ugorowski stated he agreed with previous Board comments and thought the noise and barking would be kept to a minimum by separating the holding section of the establishment and the
actual location of the structure on the edge of the site.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated the application complied with the intent of the Community Commercial zoning designation and the Growth Policy designation for the site. He stated he
thought the parking concerns, odors, and waste issues had been addressed and he was supportive of the proposal.
MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Mr. Robertson seconded, to approve Faithful Friends Animal Clinic CUP #Z-09028 with Staff conditions. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being Vice
Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Ugorowski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none.
3. Hitchcock SP/COA/DEV #Z-09031 (Thorpe)
322 West Mendenhall Street
* A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations Application to allow a change in use from a one story residence to a one story office building and the construction
of a parking lot with ADA ramp at the rear of the property and related site improvements.
Assistant Planner Keri Thorpe presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was conversion of a single-family residence into a commercial office space. She stated special consideration
had been given to the proposal as it had originally been occupied by Nelson Story and was the first a-frame house; she added the house had been relocated to the current site. She stated
the site was within the commercial B-2 zoning designation. She noted parking was located at the rear of the structure, which was preferable for maintaining the residential character
of the neighborhood, but there would need to be an encroachment into a required rear and side yards to accommodate the requirements for parking and ADA accessibility.
Mr. Roberston asked for a description of the properties next to the requested encroachment. Planner Thorpe responded that next to the property was the County Courthouse parking lot,
a single-family residence, an extended stay lodging, and single-family homes that had already been converted to commercial offices.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated the property had been moved three times within the City and the year of construction was 1869 instead of 1969; he asked if the Historic Preservation
Officer had been consulted. Planner Thorpe responded they had been consulted and the current proposal was the second rendition to take into consideration comments made by the Historic
Preservation Planner and Assistant. She added that ADR Staff would be approving the door that had not yet been decided. Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked if the property had ever been
listed on the National Historic Register. Planner Thorpe responded it had not. Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked if the applicant had considered including a plaque with the history of
the structure.
Mr. Robertson asked if the door would have one sidelight. Planner Thorpe responded they would be required to maintain both sidelights and the door would be required to be wood.
Mark Chandler, C&H Engineering, stated the parking lot setback issue was an attempt to offset the improvements required for the building and it would only be a couple of feet.
Ms. Jamison asked if the transom above the door would remain along with the two sidelights. Planner Thorpe responded Staff had not conditioned the restoration of the transom.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked when the structure had last been used as a residential structure. Planner Thorpe responded the latest activity had been in 2005 and she did not know
when the previous owner had moved out.
Mr. Robertson stated he appreciated the Staff Report and supporting documentation and he thought that the parking seemed suitable to encroach into those setbacks to provide fire protection
to adjacent sites. He stated he was supportive of the proposal.
Vice Chairperson Sypinksi asked the type of business that would be located in the building. Planner Thorpe responded it would be financial services offices. Vice Chairperson Sypinski
stated he was concerned with the historic preservation aspect of the proposal and he thought there would be a lot of supportive services in that location. He stated he was glad to see
the building maintained instead of torn down; he added he was supportive of the use of the property but he was concerned with the lack of comments from the Historic Preservation Officer
and Historic Preservation Advisory Board. He stated he had major reservations due to the proposal not being brought before the Historic Preservation Advisory Board and suggested recognition
of the historic nature of the property via a plaque or application to the National Historic Register.
Mr. Curtis stated the BOA was reviewing the deviations and he saw no big deal with the requested encroachment for the parking lot. He suggested the BOA could add historic protection
to the property through the conditions of approval and include language regarding Historic Preservation Advisory Board review prior to altering the structure.
Mr. Ugorowski noted that preservation of the structure had been included in Mr. Hitchcock’s letter.
MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to approve Hitchcock SP/COA/DEV #Z-09031 with Staff conditions and the addition of a condition to require the applicant to submit any
structural remodeling proposals to the Planning Department for review and approval.
AMENDMENT: Vice Sypinksi moved, Mr. Ugorowski seconded, to amend the original motion to include language that signage be installed to recognize the historical significance of the structure.
The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being Vice Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Ugorowski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none.
FINAL MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to approve Hitchcock SP/COA/DEV #Z-09031 with Staff conditions, the addition of a condition to require the applicant to submit
any structural remodeling proposals to the Planning Department for review and approval, and to include language that signage be installed to recognize the historical significance of
the structure. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being Vice Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Ugorowski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none.
4. Pickle Barrel Cabaret License CUP #Z-09004 (Skelton)
809 West College Street
* A Conditional Use Permit Application to allow the on-premise consumption of beer and wine.
Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the BOA had received a digital version of the Staff Report due to an error in sending the draft document. He stated public
comment had been received for the proposal and directed the Board to those comments. He stated the site in question had been a sandwich shop since the early 70’s. He stated there had
been no requests for variances or deviations requested for the site and that a Certificate of Appropriateness was unnecessary as there were no exterior changes or modifications planned
for the site. He discussed the purpose and intent of a Conditional Use Permit stated that each one of the applications for a CUP is on a case to case basis based on the merits of each
proposal and the mitigation of any impacts it would have on the surrounding area. He stated he had outlined some deficiencies in parking, screening, and front yard encroachments and
noted Staff attempted to bring sites into compliance with the current requirements. He stated parking reductions had been allowed up to sixty percent due to the zoning designation and
the proximity of a transit stop. He stated the application had been reviewed and the site had been deemed appropriately sized for the use. He stated he had chosen to be assigned to
the proposal as he was familiar with the background information for the proposal. He stated Staff was generally supportive of the project as proposed. He stated there had been indicators
that the site might not lend itself to the expansion of the use. He stated the parking scenario had been improved as the property had been noticed as customer parking only. He stated
there would be adequate parking on the street with the exception of peak hours at the college. He stated the best observations of the property had been made and the intensification
of use had required the MSU Police and City of Bozeman Police be contacted to provide comments, though they did not express major concerns. He noted
that the Planning Department would not be responsible for enforcement of the open container law and the State Department had thresholds that had been met by the application. He stated
there was a concern with the use of alcohol within the proximity of schools, but Staff had concluded that it would be difficult to identify the outcome of the intensification of use.
Because of staff’s concerns comments solicited of the City and campus police department did not demonstrate a significant concern with a cabaret license at the site. He stated Staff
had issued a favorable recommendation for the proposal based on those agency comments. He stated he had received only one e-mail of public comment from the MSU campus police unless
someone made comments this evening. He added that improvements related to lighting, mechanical screening, etc., could be financially guaranteed and ADA requirements would be addressed
with through the Building Department.
Mr. Robertson stated he did not hear where the alcohol was proposed to be served. Planner Skelton responded beer and wine could only be served with food and adequate seating area.
Therefore the alcohol would be served in the ice-cream/soup section of the establishment and not the order and take-out side.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated his concern was that the Planning Department lacked the authority to thoroughly review and approve applications for liquor licenses. He suggested GIS
mapping for liquor licenses within the City as violence, vandalism, and socioeconomic unrest increase with the number of establishments serving alcohol. He suggested the site might
not accommodate the use. Planner Skelton responded the UDO was the only criteria or method by which the proposal could be reviewed and Staff relied heavily on City and Campus police
to identify and provide methods of mitigation for those uses; he added the limited size and function of the site limit the intensification of use and conditions of approval had been
added to further mitigate impending issues with the proximity to the university.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated he could not compare Casa Sanchez and Columbo’s to Pickle Barrel as they were vastly different; he noted the site was not self contained. He stated
the parking agreement would need to be maintained in perpetuity. Planner Skelton responded the parking spaces had been granted approval for use by the Pickle Barrel and the cabaret
license would be lost if the allotted spaces were not maintained; he added use of the adjacent property owner’s site for parking would need to be more than a gentleman’s agreement.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked the design of the lighting. Planner Skelton responded there were three key light fixtures that would need to comply with the UDO to be in compliance.
Mr. Robertson asked if there were any fixtures at the rear of the structure. Planner Skelton responded he had noted only three fixtures that needed to be brought up to code and the
BOA would need to ask the applicant.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated Staff had not had the authority to enclose the site but had imposed a condition to install an four foot high fence on the site.
Mr. Robertson stated his concern was that the threshold would be met for occupancy and the overflow would become an issue.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated there seemed to be too many improvements to too small a space and he didn’t see how Staff conditions of approval were following the UDO. Planner Skelton
responded the burden would fall on the applicant to comply with the conditions of approval and enforce the open container law. Vice Chairperson Sypinski suggested the City of Bozeman
should act before the police department would have to react. He asked if there were any changes to the signage proposed. Planner Skelton responded the sandwich board must be removed
from the right-of-way.
Brian Caldwell-Thinktank Design Group, 600 North Wallace Ave., Loft 3, stated that Staff conditions 1-17 as outlined addressed the three findings of fact. He stated the control of off-premise
consumption of alcohol was mitigated by the scale of the operation the applicant was seeking; the serving of food is the primary source of income. He stated condition #14 most specifically
addressed the public health, welfare, and safety. He stated the adequacy of seating would be met with the enclosed outdoor seating available in the summertime. Vice Chairperson Sypinski
asked the number of available seats outside. Mr. Caldwell and the owner responded there were 20 seats outside. He stated when a property was built and developed prior to Planning regulations,
it was considered under the legal non-conforming chapter of the UDO and the physical nature of the site was not affected other than parking provisions and ADA requirements. He stated
he was generally supportive of Staff conditions with the exception of four of them. He stated Staff condition #4 addressed mechanical equipment and the majority of the rooftop unit
was screened with the parapet and the condition could be omitted. He stated that sufficient lighting would need to be provided for parking but only a spot light was located on the back.
Mr. Robertson stated his concern would be glaring lights and suggested low pressure sodium lighting. Mr. Caldwell responded that all lighting would comply with the regulations per
Staff condition. He stated the State of Montana never specifically reference the need for a gate and the applicant felt the wrought iron entryway would be adequate instead of imposing
Staff condition #6 to require the installation of a gate; he added he thought condition #14 would more than adequately address the enclosure of the establishment. He stated Staff condition
#8 seemed to be a downer; the applicant had no intention of cranking up the music past ten and there was an adequate level of protection in the noise ordinance. He stated the applicant
was generally supportive of Staff conditions 1-17. He stated there have been no public comments other than letters of support and it was inherent in the land use type that it be adjacent
to residential uses. He requested amendments to conditions 4, 6, 7, & 8.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski suggested the language “outdoor” be removed from Staff conditions.
Mr. Ugorowski asked what it was that made the applicant not want to comply with condition #7. Mr. Caldwell responded the applicant would prefer to keep the bike rack on the sidewalk.
Keri Olson – owner of the pickle barrel, stated she would like to be able to offer a beer or glass of wine to patrons of their establishment during the summer. Vice Chairperson Sypinski
stated the enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance was unnecessary hardship and he saw no hardship evident in the application. Ms. Olson responded she disagreed as there was
more competition in Bozeman and 1/3 of their income was gone due to the downtown explosion and they needed to change with the times and be more competitive in the local market.
Mr. Curtis stated the Pickle Barrel is an iconic part of Bozeman and the BOA had seen and approved a number of cabaret licenses; he noted he would like to continue to approve those requests.
He asked if the fence was a State requirement. Planner Skelton responded the State criteria was for 12 enclosed seats and did not require a gate or a fence. Mr. Curtis stated he understood
the requirement of a fence as a way to detour patrons from leaving with alcohol; he added he was supportive Staff condition #6. He stated the cabaret license gave the City the opportunity
to bring the property more into compliance with the current requirements; he did not see a problem with Staff condition #4. He stated he thought the Staff condition disallowing outdoor
speakers should be included as well. He stated he was in favor of amending Staff condition #14 to remove the language “outdoor”.
Mr. Robertson stated he would not mind seeing speakers outside as it would add to the culture of the neighborhood and existing noise ordinances would suffice. He stated he agreed with
Mr. Curtis’ comments regarding Staff conditions. He stated with the history of the area it would be helpful to know there were adequate provisions and stated he hoped the applicant
would do more than the minimum requirements.
Ms. Jamison responded she was supportive of the proposal as it was a Bozeman icon. She suggested there were establishments that sold alcohol all around the site and they should be allowed
to be on level playing ground. She stated she would only amend the Staff condition #14 to remove the word outdoor and replace it with all.
Mr. Ugorowski responded he agreed in part with most of the previous Board comments. He stated he disagreed with Staff condition #4 that screening would be necessary, he disagreed with
Staff condition #6 that a gate should be included, and he agreed with Ms. Jamison that college students could get beer at the gas station. He stated he was supportive of the removal
of Staff condition #7 to allow the bike rack to be removed, but he thought the outdoor seating from the sidewalk should be removed.
Vice Chairperson Sypinksi stated he thought it would be detrimental to the community and public safety. He stated an enclosed, sit-down restaurant had the means to adequately enforce
the alcohol regulations and he found there to be a lack of seating. He stated the patrons of the establishment would be families, kids, and college kids. He stated he did not see unnecessary
hardship in not approving the cabaret license. He stated justice to the community as a whole would not be served by approving the application.
Mr. Curtis stated the State requirement for outdoor fencing was likely not what the State was used to seeing when outdoor seating was usually accessed through the establishment. He
stated literal enforcement of the requirements would cause unnecessary hardship. Mr. Curtis asked what would prevent him from walking across the street with his beer. Vice Chairperson
Sypinski stated the BOA was not reviewing the requirements of the cabaret license. Mr. Curtis responded he did not think they would be going against the charter of BOA review if they
approved the application.
MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to approve Pickle Barrel Cabaret License CUP #Z-09004 with Staff conditions and the amendment of Staff condition #14 to remove the language
“outdoor” and replace it with “all”. The motion carried 4-1. Those voting aye being
Mr. Robertson, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Ugorowski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being Vice Chairperson Sypinski.
AMENDMENT: Mr. Robertson moved, Mr. Ugorowski seconded, to remove Staff condition #8. The amendment failed 2-3. Those voting aye being Mr. Robertson and Mr. Ugorowski; those voting
nay being Vice Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Curtis, and Ms. Jamison.
AMENDMENT: Mr. Ugorowski moved, Mr. Robertson seconded, to remove Staff condition #4 to require screening. The amendment failed 2-3. Those voting aye being Mr. Robertson and Mr. Ugorowski;
those voting nay being Vice Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Curtis, and Ms. Jamison.
AMENDMENT: Mr. Ugorowski moved to modify Staff condition #4 to remove the language “and gate”. The amendment failed 1-4. Those voting aye being Mr. Ugorowski; those voting nay being
Vice Chairperson Sypinski, Ms. Jamison, Mr. Robertson, and Mr. Curtis.
Planner Skelton added that an attachment to the fence or other features could be investigated if the Board so desired. The applicant agreed that they would work with Staff regarding
the location of the bike rack.
AMENDMENT: Mr. Ugorowski moved, Mr. Robertson seconded, to modify Staff condition #7 to require the removal of all existing outdoor furniture in the West College Street public right
of way with the exception of the bike rack with Staff being charged to work with the applicant on a solution for the location of the bike rack. The amendment carried 5-0. Those voting
aye being Vice Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Ugorowski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none.
FINAL MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to approve Pickle Barrel Cabaret License CUP #Z-09004 with Staff conditions, the amendment of Staff condition #14 to remove the
language “outdoor” and replace it with “all”, and the amendment of Staff condition #7 to require the removal of all existing outdoor furniture in the West College Street public right
of way with the exception of the bike rack with Staff being charged to work with the applicant on a solution for the location of the bike rack. The motion carried 4-1. Those voting
aye being Mr. Robertson, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Ugorowski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being Vice Chairperson Sypinski.
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the BOA, the meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
______________________________
Ed Sypinski, Vice Chairperson
City of Bozeman Board of Adjustment