Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051209 Board of Adjustment MinutesBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pomnichowski 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 Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Dan Curtis Cole Robertson Patricia Jamison JP Pomnichowski Members Absent Visitors Present Richard Lee Chris Berman Kelly Wiseman Commission Liaison Ben Lloyd Laura Landon ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 14, 2009 Mr. Ugorowski stated that on the last page on the first amendment he voted in favor with Mr. Curtis voting against the amendment. MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to approve the minutes of April 14, 2009 with corrections. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, 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. Food Co-op Kitchen CUP/COA #Z-09032 (Krueger) 711 West Main Street * A Conditional Use Permit with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the expansion of the baking/grocery storage area with related site improvements. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was to allow for an increase in the amount of space the Food Co-op currently occupies, which is also the former location of the Blockbuster Video outlet. He stated that in early 2006 the Community Food Co-op had been granted permission to operate their commercial kitchen facility out of the space. He stated the building had historically been used for retail and office uses. He stated the proposal would more than double the amount of space being used in the building and the expansion would be used for food processing and storage. He noted one remainder space would be left unoccupied and the proposed exterior changes to the building required Certificate of Appropriateness approval. He noted the front elevation of the building had been reviewed by Staff and they had reviewed the overall site with regard to the proposal. He noted some aesthetic and safety upgrades had been proposed with the current application including; parking lot circulation improvements, a buffering landscape island, an additional door, etc. He stated the loading area would be fine with Staff as proposed as the loading use would be accessory to the conditional use. He stated the building itself was currently in disrepair and Blockbuster had removed the awnings; he noted the owner had been considering more intensive changes to the building façade in the future but would be painting the structure with this proposal. He stated the proposal had received no public comment but had been appropriately noticed and the site had no record of outstanding violations. He stated Staff was supportive of the proposal as presented and Staff had included standard conditions and code provisions. He stated the applicant intended to install appropriate lighting on the site and the building. Ms. Jamison asked if both lots were included in the proposal. Planner Krueger responded that many lots made up the site including the parking area to the north. He stated all the lots were owned by a common owner and a public alley would provide access. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if there would be any retail use on the site. Planner Krueger responded retail would not be part of the Food Co-op use but was allowable in the existing vacant retail space on the site. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated the site was legal nonconforming and asked what requirements would be necessary. Planner Krueger responded conformance would only be required with major improvements to the site, such as an addition. Chairperson Pomnichowski clarified that the frontage facing Main Street would not be the space the applicant would be occupying. Planner Krueger responded she was correct. Kelly Wiseman, 402 N. Church Ave., General Manager of the Community Food Co-op, stated he was the tenant of the building and the owner of the structure would be commenting on façade improvements. He stated Staff condition #10 to provide a grease interceptor was an item of contention and he had investigated the inclusion of a interceptor with the commercial division of Williams Plumbing; he noted a gas line would need to be relocated to provide the interceptor and would cost roughly $50,000. He stated he was not supportive of the condition as the use would not be intensified; he noted neither bakery along the alley had included grease interceptors and they had not been required to install a interceptor on the primary Food Co-op building. He requested the condition instead include language that no frying of foods be allowed on the premises. He stated he was supportive of all other Staff conditions of approval but the approval of Staff condition #10 as written would be a deal breaker for him. Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked if Mr. Wiseman had any intention of expanding their use into the vacant tenant space along Main Street. Mr. Wiseman responded that they currently had no idea what would go in that space; it might be retail and in the future they might purchase it for future expansion. Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked the type of design changes that would be proposed in the future. Mr. Wiseman responded the owner of the structure would have to answer those questions. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if grease traps were included under the sinks. Mr. Wiseman responded there were grease traps under the sinks with the exception of the kitchen sinks. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked the difference between a grease trap and a interceptor. Mr. Wiseman responded the interceptor was much larger and had to be located on the exterior of the building; he added this was a new issue for them and must have been a new Engineering requirement. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked why the interceptor couldn’t be installed in the building. Mr. Wiseman responded everything in the structure would need to be relocated and would cost more than they were prepared to pay. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked for clarification on if the bakery use had been expanded. Mr. Wiseman responded dry storage, loading/unloading services, and staging areas would be the only expansion into the space. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if any other baking would be done on the site. Mr. Wiseman responded salad preparation and some bread baking had been planned. Mr. Robertson asked the number of employees that would be using the site. Mr. Wiseman responded there would be roughly eight total employees at any given time. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she did not feel there was expertise on the Board to determine if the requirement for a grease interceptor could be removed; she noted if Planner Krueger could speak to the requirement that would be fine, otherwise, the Engineering Department would need to speak to that item. Planner Krueger responded there was leeway for Engineering Staff to determine if there was enough of a hardship on the site to allow for another provision in lieu of the interceptor; he added there was the possibility of a sink based interceptor filter for the proposal and it could be worked out between Engineering Staff and the applicant prior to Final Site Plan approval. He stated Staff did not go out of their way to highlight the applicant working out of compliance for the last two years; he noted permitting in the City was used to catch issues like this and Engineering had been administering the condition in question over the last two years. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked Planner Krueger to draft language for the condition to provide for waste control and the applicant working with Staff. Planner Krueger responded the code provision would override the condition of approval as long as the applicant could provide written documentation regarding the hardship imposed by Engineering condition #10. Chairperson Pomnichowski called for public comment. Laura Landon, Comma-Q Architecture, stated there was one item the owner had wanted discussed and noted the locations of the proposed landscaped islands. She stated Staff condition #1 would require another landscape island in the northwest corner of the parking lot and the owner had requested the elimination of two of the parking lot islands if possible (the one adjacent to the new dumpster enclosure and the one to be located in the south parking lot) as they did not function to control traffic as the other landscape islands would. She stated the owner’s primary concerns had to do with expense and maintenance of those landscaped islands as he thought they would be damaged by passing vehicles. Mr. Robertson asked for clarification of which islands the owner was requesting the removal of. Ms. Landon noted those locations. Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked if Ms. Landon had been directed to only include one landscape island in the proposal. Ms. Landon responded there would be a total of three islands installed. Mr. Ugorowski asked if the island would be inside or outside of the beige area depicted near the snow storage area. Ms. Landon clarified it would be outside of the beige area depicted on the site plan. Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked the types of design changes proposed for the structure. Ms. Landon responded cleaning, painting, non-conforming light fixtures would be removed, and mechanical screening would be included; she added the owner would prefer to keep other improvements to the structure in a separate application to be submitted at a later date so the Food Co-op would not get held up in their review. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the dumpster enclosure would be constructed of wood. Ms. Landon responded it would be a steel structure. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked Ms. Landon if she had an updated drawing of the owner proposed landscaped island. Ms. Landon responded she did not. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if Ms. Landon could sketch the proposed island out for the Board. Ms. Landon complied. Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated his concern was with condition #10 and he would like to be able to see an agreement reached between the Engineering Department and the applicant. He stated he was generally supportive of the proposal otherwise and he thought the structure would enhance that section of downtown once improvements to the building had been made. Mr. Curtis stated he was supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions of approval. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the recommended conditions of approval were on pages 2 and 3 or were they also contained on page 9. Planner Krueger responded the current format of the Staff Report had been requested by the City Commission and all Staff conditions of approval were first in the report and located on pages 2 and 3; he noted the items on page 9 were Code Provisions and were non-negotiable. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the Code Provision regarding landscaping would need to be a Staff condition of approval. Planner Krueger responded the landscaping requirements had been decreased due to the existing mature vegetation and suggested that a landscape island, even next to a dumpster, would mitigate traffic; he noted under normal landscaping requirements the parking lot would be required to be screened and include parking lot landscaping. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated Staff was playing fast and loose with requirements; screening was not required for the loading door as a provision, dumpster enclosure, etc. Planner Krueger responded his recommendation would change if current proposal were altered with the removal of the proposed landscaping that was supported by Staff. Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked for clarification that if the landscape islands the owner had requested to be removed had been removed from the original submittal Staff would not have supported the proposal. Planner Krueger responded Vice Chairperson Sypinski was correct. Ms. Jamison stated she was in favor of the application as it was originally submitted though she was still not certain how the applicant would be allowed to change the condition regarding the interceptor. Chairperson Pomnichowski responded she thought the issue would be cleared up with her subsequent comments. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she was supportive of the proposal overall and that she was confident the current Code Provision could be administered by the Engineering Department to allow the applicant some leeway. She stated the use would be appropriate for the existing structure and added that the landscaping would need to be improved on the site so she was not supportive of the owner’s request. She stated she was supportive of Staff condition #1 as well and she expected landscape screening of the dumpster. She stated she had reviewed the application as originally proposed and she was supportive of it as such with Staff conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Vice Chairperson Sypinski seconded, to approve Food Co-op Kitchen CUP/COA #Z-09032 with Staff conditions. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Vice Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Ugorowski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none. Mr. Sypinksi suggested the motion should include an amendment to Staff condition #10 to require the applicant to work with City Engineering to provide for an alternative method in lieu of an interceptor. Planner Krueger responded that the Engineering Department would oversee all requirements for the proposal with regard to Engineering Code Provisions and suggested an amendment would not be necessary. Chairperson Pomnichowski agreed with Planner Krueger and responded she was confident that an arrangement could be made between the Engineering Department and the applicant to provide a method in lieu of a grease interceptor, if necessary. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she had new business to discuss with the Board; she had asked the City Attorney’s office to attend the BOA meetings regularly and she would be making a formal request to that affect. Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated powerpoint presentations had not been included for the evening’s meeting and suggested that on some projects a powerpoint would be helpful if major site alterations were proposed. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the BOA, the meeting was adjourned at 6:56 p.m. ______________________________ JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson City of Bozeman Board of Adjustment