Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071409 Board of Adjustment MinutesBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2009 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem 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 Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner Ed Ugorowski Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Dan Curtis Greg Sullivan, City Attorney Patricia Jamison Richard Lee Cole Robertson Members Absent Visitors Present JP Pomnichowski Bobbi Clem Kirsten Blunck Wayne Jennings Nancy Jennings Commission Liaison ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 2009 MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Mr. Lee seconded, to approve the minutes of June 9, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Ugorowski, Mr. Robertson, 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. Kidstuff LLC/Habitat Interiors CUP #Z-09118 (Bristor) 802 North Wallace Avenue, Suite A * A Conditional Use Permit Application to allow use as a retail/resale outlet for children’s clothing in the existing property, which is zoned “M-1” (Light Industrial District). Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting the location of the property and that it was a part of the Wallace Bottling Property (802, 810, and 820 North Wallace Avenue. She noted the zoning of the subject property and that the CUP request was to allow a retail use on the property in Suite A of 802 North Wallace Avenue. She directed the Board to the location of the site and presented a site plan of the property. She presented the floor plan being proposed for the structure and how much space the retail use would occupy. She stated Staff had issued public notice in the newspaper and had posted the site, but had not received any letters of public comment. She stated Staff was supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions. Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski asked if the Wallace Bottling building was on the National Historic Register. Planner Bristor responded the brick portion of the building was listed on the National Historic Register. Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski asked if Aspen Street would be the vacated street. Planner Bristor responded the application for street vacation had not yet been submitted, but an encroachment permit had been approved for the outdoor seating located in the Aspen Street right of way. She added that the only portion of Aspen Street that had been vacated was across the street from the site (adjacent to the Brewery project). Bobbi Clem, property owner and President of Wallace Bottling, apologized for the lack of the applicant’s presence as she was ill and unable to attend. She noted the Engineering Department condition for a back-flow preventer had been met. Mr. Lee stated he would prefer to see the property occupied rather than sitting empty. Kirsten Blunck, applicant and owner of Kidstuff, apologized for being late as she was ill and stated she thought the location would be wonderful and her business would be a nice addition to the community and a nice tie-in to the salon next door. Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski opened the item for public comment. Seeing no public comment forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. Mr. Lee stated he thought the building was important to the community and he was supportive of the proposed re-use of the existing structure. Mr. Robertson stated he agreed with Mr. Lee regarding the use of the structure and its importance to the community. Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski stated he concurred with Staff findings from the Staff Report. MOTION: Ms. Jamison moved, Mr. Robertson seconded, to approve Kidstuff LLC/Habitat Interiors CUP #Z-09118 with Staff conditions of approval. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Ugorowski, Mr. Robertson, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none. 2. Jennings Porch & Detached Garage COA/DEV #Z-09117 (Bristor) 212 South 3rd Avenue * A Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations Application to allow a front porch addition to encroach into a front yard setback and a detached garage construction to encroach into a side yard setback. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting the location of the site and it’s zoning designation of R-4. She noted two deviations had been requested with the application; to allow the covered front porch to encroach into the required front yard setback and the detached garage to encroach into the required side yard setback. She noted the property had recently undergone renovations and the owner was seeking to finish the second phase of that work. She directed the Board to photographs of the existing streetscape in that location and noted that covered porches were common. She stated that the applicant had just contacted her and said that likely only a two foot encroachment would be necessary, rather than the three feet as originally requested. She noted no public comment had been received with regard to the proposal and added that Staff was supportive of the proposal as submitted. Mr. Curtis stated the site plan showed the garage protruding into the rear yard setback by six feet. Planner Bristor responded that an accessory structure (600 sq. ft. or less) could be as close as six feet from the property line, but must provide backing distance for the cars parking within the structure. Mr. Lee asked if someone lived in the house next door to where the garage would encroach. Planner Bristor responded she assumed there was a tenant, but the property owner would be able to answer that question. Mr. Lee asked Planner Bristor to present the photographs of the site and noted that the garage could be located elsewhere, observing the setback, to prevent the removal of mature trees on the site. Planner Bristor responded that one mature crabapple tree is the focus of the applicant’s preservation means. Mr. Ugorowski asked for clarification of the setback for accessory structures. Planner Bristor responded that accessory structures 600 sq. ft. or less in size were allowed the option to be as close as six feet from the rear property line, but must still observe the required backing distance. Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski asked if the applicant was already in noncompliance as the existing porch was encroaching. Planner Bristor responded that the renovations previously done on the property did not add to the nonconformance of the structure; the house had an existing encroachment into the front yard setback (an existing covered front entry). Mr. Lee stated that he understood that porches were more often forgiven for encroachments. Planner Bristor responded that Mr. Lee was correct and added that an allowable encroachment was for five feet into a required 20 foot setback, but the setback for the property was only fifteen feet, which required the deviation process for approval. Mr. Lee asked if the reason for encroachment was the lack of a walkway when the structure was first constructed. Planner Bristor responded that was a possibility, and added that to promote the rehabilitation of structures the Deviation process had been created. Mr. Lee stated he thought the proposed would be a nice addition to the community. Mr. Robertson stated the conditions of approval addressed the protection of the eave and asked for clarification. Planner Bristor responded that previous applications had eaves that caused building code issues and the condition was to provide for those regulations. Mr. Robertson asked why it wasn’t a condition of approval for the fire wall protection. Planner Bristor responded that the Building Department would oversee the requirements of the fire wall. She added the Board could choose to add the fire wall review to Staff condition #1. Wayne Jennings, 212 S. 3rd Ave, owner, apologized for coming in late. He stated the porch should be a no-brainer and he meant no disrespect. He stated his house had been there for a long time. He stated the removal of the asbestos siding had shown the original siding and the original paint line for the front porch; he noted his request was not to be out of sink with the district, but rather to bring the house more into sink within the district and return the residence to its original state. He stated the neighboring house was essentially the sister house to his home and had the same floor plan, roof structures, etc. He stated he wanted the front of his house look more like the front of the neighboring house; he added the front did not currently look right as it was a two story structure with nothing to break up the façade. He stated the trees Mr. Lee had mentioned were always intended to be removed if a garage was built; he added he had not arrived at the decision to remove the trees lightly. He stated the crabapple tree on his property was one of the more spectacular trees in Bozeman and he was attempting to impact that tree as little as possible. He stated the narrow lot made things difficult as well and noted the location of the underground power and gas lines. He stated if it came down to a choice of building the garage or losing the crabapple tree, the tree would stay. He stated he didn’t really want to remove the other trees on the site, but they were volunteers that they had let grow because they didn’t really like cutting down trees; he noted the volunteer trees were the sacrifice he was willing to make. He stated there was no hedge on the property other than a lilac bush that was actually on the neighbor’s property. He noted the neighboring structure was a duplex and it was currently occupied. Ms. Jamison asked if the proposed garage would have an apartment above. Mr. Jennings responded there would be an area for storage above. He added that the red garage on the southeast corner of the block had a similarly designed garage with a storage area above. He stated he had doubled the space inside the house by throwing some things away and putting some things in storage, though the house seemed full despite the fact that it was twice as large as before. Ms. Jamison asked if the shingling on the house would also be installed on the garage. Mr. Jennings responded they would likely use comparable shingles to what exists on the rehabilitated house. Mr. Ugorowski asked that when Mr. Jennings had referred to the gas and power lines, had he done a locatation for those services. Mr. Jennings responded they had installed those lines last fall and those locations were accurate. Mr. Ugorowski asked if the lines had been installed as close to the tree as possible. Mr. Jennings responded the equipment could not get too close due to the proximity of the tree, but had installed the lines as close to the tree as possible without disturbing it. Mr. Ugorowski asked if the utilities were in between the tree and the proposed sidewalk. Mr. Jennings responded the utilities were more closely situated where the sidewalk was depicted. Mr. Ugorowski asked if Mr. Jennings had considered a one-car garage that would not require an encroachment into the setback. Mr. Jennings responded the cost of the one car garage did not compare to the cost of the two car garage for their purposes and what they would be getting. He stated they were planning to live out their life in that home and thought that the eventual sale would be more attractive with a two car garage. Mr. Ugorowski asked if Mr. Jennings was certain that the garage would not be constructed over the utilities. Mr. Jennings responded he was certain though the tree was larger than depicted on the site plan; he added part of the tree would hang out over the top of the garage. Mr. Ugorowski suggested the garage man door could face west so it would be under the gable and a path of stone could be included instead of concrete. Mr. Jennings responded it did not occur to him that the walkway would be set in stone and was not necessarily the way in which the landscaping would be installed. Mr. Ugorowski asked if there were no concrete path, could the garage be moved out of the setback. Mr. Jennings responded the only way the garage would be out of the way of the utilities would be to encroach into the required setback; he added that their main concern was the crabapple tree and not the utilities. Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski called for public comment. Seeing no public comment forthcoming, the public comment portion of the meeting was closed. Planner Bristor added that any modifications to the approved COA Application would have to be presented to Staff through the COA application process. Mr. Jennings responded the footprints would be maintained as proposed and the walkway and man door would be the only changes to the proposal; the shingling would remain in keeping with the existing residence. Mr. Lee stated that on page five of the Staff Report, the Historic Preservation Office and Planning Staff had determined the proposal was in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and suggested the BOA concur with Staff. Mr. Ugorowski stated he had a problem with approving an encroachment into a five foot side yard setback as the five feet was minimal already. Mr. Robertson stated he felt the COA was incomplete as it did not depict the location of the utility lines and he found there to be a lack of information to make a conceded decision with regard to a Deviation request. Mr. Sypinski asked for recommendations from Mr. Ugorowski. Mr. Ugorowski recommended the item be opened and continued to the next meeting of the BOA to allow time for the applicant to provide utility locations. Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski stated he generally found the proposal appropriate for the neighborhood and the Conservation Overlay District though he did share some of the concerns of the BOA. Mr. Lee stated he would like a more accurate description of the drip line of the crabapple tree so that could be considered, as well as the location of the utilities. Mr. Jennings responded he would not build any closer to the crabapple tree but he would be more than happy to acquire more detailed information regarding the drip line and the location of the utilities; he suggested he would not jeopardize the crabapple tree and if that was the issue, the BOA could deny the project right now. Mr. Robertson responded that the intent was to review more detailed information regarding the utilities and the drip line; he added he thought the project would be feasible. MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Mr. Robertson seconded, to open and continue the proposal to the next meeting of the BOA to provide the applicant time to provide a detailed location of the utilities on the site, the drip line of the mature crabapple tree, the age and life expectancy of the species, the reduced encroachment into the setback, and any other pertinent modifications to the proposal. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Ugorowski, Mr. Robertson, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. Briefing by City Attorney Greg Sullivan (As necessary.) City Attorney Sullivan introduced himself to Mr. Robertson. ITEM 6. Briefing by Planning Staff (As necessary.) Planner Bristor noted the BOA’s schedule and added that the continuance of the proposal would set back the construction period, an architect had reviewed the proposal, and the BOA was not charged with the redesign of the application. Ms. Jamison asked if Planner Bristor could have interjected that the porch Deviation could be approved without the approval of the garage deviation request. Planner Bristor responded she did not want to speak out of order with regard to the proposal but would always be available for questions. Mr. Lee stated Planner Bristor had been doing this for a lot longer than the Board and he would have appreciated the input from Staff to prevent the applicant from being held up. Mr. Curtis responded that he viewed the application in its entirety and did not feel comfortable viewing the proposal separately. Attorney Sullivan responded that the BOA had the discretion to review the proposal in a manner in which could be supported through BOA findings; he added two separate Deviations had been requested and each proposal would be reviewed differently. Planner Bristor responded that the utility lines should have been depicted, but those locations would be checked during the Building Permit review process. She noted the applicant had indicated that the purpose of the deviation had been the tree. Attorney Sullivan stated there was a clear distinction between the substance of the conversation and the process or rationale behind the review process. Planner Bristor responded that Staff would be more particular with regard to utility lines in the future. Mr. Roberston stated he did not think utilities would need to be depicted as it would increase the overall cost to the applicant. Mr. Sullivan noted the utilities should not be discussed with regard to the proposal as the applicant was no longer in attendance at the meeting. Attorney Sullivan stated he thought the Board’s questioning of the review process was appropriate and he appreciated the Pro Tem Chairperson’s request to hold comments until after the public hearing portion of the meeting. He suggested the BOA refer to the findings of the Board and Staff when making their decisions. Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski formally requested the Recording Secretary provide the number of absences for Chairperson Pomnichowski during the year of 2009. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the BOA, the meeting was adjourned at 7:19 p.m. ______________________________ Ed Sypinski, Chairperson Pro Tem City of Bozeman Board of Adjustment