HomeMy WebLinkAbout101309 Board of Adjustment MinutesBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 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 Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Ed Ugorowski Keri Thorpe, Assistant Planner
Patricia Jamison Greg Sullivan, City Attorney
Richard Lee Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
JP Pomnichowski
Dan Curtis
Members Absent Visitors Present
Cole Robertson Dan Nelson
Chris Budeski
Michael Shamblin
Katie Malone
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2009
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Sypinski moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to approve the minutes of September 9, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson
Pomnichowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Ugorowski, Mr. Curtis, Ms. Jamison, and Vice Chairperson Sypinski; 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. Rudolf Residences SP/COA/DEV #Z-09154 (Bristor)
801 South Grand Avenue
* A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations to allow the relocation of the existing single-household residence and the construction of a new single-household residence
with related site improvements. (Applicant requests open and continuance to 11/10/09.)
Associate Planner Allyson Bristor noted the applicant had requested an open and continuance of their proposal to the November 10, 2009 meeting of the BOA.
Chairperson Pomnichowski called for public comment. Seeing none, she closed the public comment portion of the meeting and continued the item to the November 10, 2009 meeting of the
BOA.
2. Molly Brown Smoking Patio COA/DEV #Z-09178 (Bristor)
703 West Babcock Street
* A Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations Application to allow the construction of an outdoor smoking patio with related site improvements.
Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting the location of the site and what was being requested. She stated the applicant was requesting partial demolition
of the existing building and the construction of a smoking patio surrounded with a concrete wall and an iron wrought fence. She listed the Deviations which were being requested and
noted there were a total of four being requested. She stated all of the sections of the code had been advertised, but only two exceptions to the UDO were being requested with the four
deviations. She directed the BOA to photos of the site and noted the location of the proposed smoking patio; she added the primary entrance to the structure was on the west elevation.
She stated the patio proposed along West Babcock Street which was an arterial street classification and would normally require a 25 foot front yard setback. She directed the BOA to
the color schematic that depicted the fence and concrete wall that was proposed. She stated the proposal had been publicly noticed in the newspaper, and on the site. She stated one
letter of public comment had been received. She noted Staff had recommended approval of the proposal with Staff conditions as they believed the proposal would have a minimal adverse
affect on the adjacent properties and the encroachments were consistent with the existing pattern in the neighborhood and for the site itself. She stated Staff was supportive of the
requested fence as it was found to be appropriate with the surrounding neighborhood and would ensure public safety for the patrons.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked why under the Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness the new doors and windows proposed had been found by Staff to be inapplicable. Planner Bristor
responded the locations of the doors and windows proposed were both found to be appropriate despite what the Staff report omitted.
Ms. Jamison asked for the definition of a smoking patio. Planner Bristor explained that it was in conjunction with the MT Indoor Clean Air Act and would provide a location for people
to smoke. Ms. Jamison asked if people could drink or eat on the proposed patio. Planner Bristor responded the State liquor licensing requirements would allow consumption of alcohol
in the patio area, but stated the applicant may have more information with regard to the alcohol serving area.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if Planner Bristor could tell her more about the emergency gate. Planner Bristor responded the applicant would be able to better explain the emergency
gate. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the emergency egress would be addressed and if it was a requirement. Planner Bristor responded that Fire and Building Departments had both reviewed
the proposal and had not placed a requirement for emergency egress from the smoking patio.
Dan Nelson, representative, joined the BOA. He stated the emergency gate would be available, but unused unless in an emergency for egress to the sidewalk. He directed the BOA to a
powerpoint presentation he had prepared. He noted the location of the proposed window and door which would lead directly to the patio area. He noted the west concrete wall would contain
perforations in the block for fenestration. He noted the inclusion of the patio would concentrate smokers into a designated area, would increase fenestration of the structure, and would
add architectural upgrades to the Entryway Corridor in which it was located. He stated the noise projection would be blocked by a portion of the wall. He stated the existing beams
assisted in the choice of location as it would be more feasible economically to use as much of the existing structure as possible. He stated the wrought iron fence had been included
at such a height to provide for security of the site and to help prevent under age drinking. He stated there were a lot of porch railings in the neighborhood that were of similar design
of the fence they were proposing. He noted the owner intended to build a dumpster enclosure, remove the nonconforming lighting, and to deal with the pole signage. He listed more repairs
that were planned including the planting of trees along 7th Ave., the re-roof of the structure, and the repair of the masonry. He stated the patio would be cleaned every night as part
of the closing process and cigarette urns and trash cans would be available on the site.
Mr. Lee asked if the owner had agreed to all 21 of the conditions of approval. Mr. Nelson responded he did not see anything that the owner would disagree with. Mr. Lee asked if there
would be an alarm on the proposed fence. Mr. Nelson responded there would be an alarm. Attorney Sullivan suggested Mr. Nelson review the ADA requirements in case the patio work triggered
Building compliance. Attorney Sullivan asked if employees would be serving people on the patio. Mr. Nelson responded the employees would not serve people on the patio; they would need
to bring their own drinks out to the area.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if No Smoking signs would be included on the door from the patio to the establishment. Mr. Nelson responded there would be signs included.
Mr. Ugorowski asked if the air doors would close automatically or would be able to remain open. Mr. Nelson responded there would be a pad that would automatically open and close the
doors. Attorney Sullivan clarified that if the patio was approved, the employee provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code might apply. Mr. Nelson responded he had attempted to investigate
the Municipal Code requirements and could not get a specific answer as it was so nebulous. Attorney Sullivan responded that the Molly could be in violation of Municipal Code and encouraged
the applicant to contact his attorney to be certain that it would not prohibit the employees from entering the smoking patio while working.
Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the item for public comment. Seeing no public comment forthcoming, the public comment portion of the meeting was closed.
Ms. Jamison thanked Attorney Sullivan for his observation and information. She stated her concerns were that drinks and food were being served in the location and she thought it would
be fine if only smoking were allowed on the site.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated the BOA could not restrict the activities taking place in the patio and would need to limit their comments to what was proposed for the property. He
asked
Attorney Sullivan if he was correct. Attorney Sullivan responded he agreed to the extent that the BOA’s jurisdiction was related to things contained in the UDO. Vice Chairperson Sypinski
stated the encroachment of the patio itself concerned him as the Deviations (encroachment) already in place should be addressed; he suggested the BOA should attempt to alleviate the
existing Deviations already in place. He stated he did not see any other fences adjacent to patios that were made of seven foot tall, wrought iron and was not certain he was supportive
of the Deviation.
Mr. Lee stated the Deviation requested reduced the encroachment of the building footprint and the appearance of the encroachment as open air would be seen through the wrought iron fence.
He stated he thought the proposal would make the building look much nicer and present a better façade presentation to Babcock Street. He noted if the proposal was refused, the building
would look the same and if it was approved, it would diminish the encroachment.
Chairperson Pomnichowski reminded the Board that the findings from the Staff Report and the UDO were within the BOA’s jurisdiction. She directed the Board to the pertinent sections
of the ordinance. Planner Bristor clarified the sections of code pertinent to the review criteria for the proposal.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated when she had first seen the proposal she thought of the Montana Clean Indoor Air Act and had contacted sponsors and coordinators of the Act. She stated
she had come up with the same questions Attorney Sullivan had asked regarding the employees entering the patio area. She stated the purpose of the Act was to provide Clean Air for employees
and public spaces. She stated that per the Act, the proposal complied, but might not comply with the Municipal Code; she added those requirements for proposed Deviations were what the
BOA should review. She stated she appreciated Vice Chairperson Sypinki’s observations that the BOA was asked to grant Deviations that intensified the nonconformity of the site. She
stated the BOA would need to look at State Law, the UDO, and the Municipal Code and even if the proposal were granted, it was not to say another factor wouldn’t halt the practice. She
stated that most instances the patio of a non-smoking restaurant was also non-smoking.
Mr. Curtis stated he found the proposal met the criteria of the UDO and that the modifications were historically appropriate, would have minimal effect, and would insure the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
Mr. Sypinski added that he found the criteria in COA review had been met.
MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Mr. Ugorowski seconded, to approve Molly Brown Smoking Patio COA/DEV #Z-09178 with Staff conditions of approval. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye
being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Ugorowski, Mr. Curtis, Ms. Jamison, and Vice Chairperson Sypinski; those voting nay being none.
3. Tire Rama CUP/COA #Z-08073 (Thorpe)
512 East Main Street
* A Conditional Use Permit Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new building with related site
improvements.
Assistant Planner Keri Thorpe presented the Staff report noting the item had been opened and continued. She stated additional DRC meetings had been held to provide time for site issues
to be remedied and noted those issues had been taken care of. She noted locations of proposed demolition and where new construction would be. She stated the properties zoning designation
of B-3 and was within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. She stated a Code Provision had been included as a termination clause for the CUP and had been included in Conditions
of Approval as it would need to be recorded as part of the Conditions of Approval. She stated the reason for revisiting the CUP Application was that the code called out that dramatic
alteration of the site required new CUP review. She stated Staff was supportive of the project as proposed with Staff conditions of approval.
Mr. Ugorowski asked if item #16, appropriate treatment of remaining exterior wall, was referring to the west wall. Planner Thorpe responded Mr. Ugorowski was correct. Mr. Ugorowski
asked what the potential treatments for the wall would be. Planner Thorpe responded painting would occur, but the specific treatment had been left open to allow for the applicant to
include the appropriate material.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked the distance between the drive access and South Church Avenue. Planner Thorpe responded she would defer to the applicant, but would estimate the distance
to be 75 or 80 feet. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated the distance should have been 200 feet according the requirements. Planner Thorpe responded an Access Deviation request had been
included as part of the conditions of approval from the Engineering Department. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated there was a reference to a 26 foot backing distance and asked what the
distance in the front parking lot would be to allow for backing; she noted the proposal tapered to the east for the backing distance. Planner Thorpe responded she had reviewed the proposal
when it was first submitted and the back up maneuverability distance requirement had been met.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked if there were any unmet code provisions or noncompliance on the site. Planner Thorpe responded she did not review the old site to see how it compared
to the old code and had only reviewed the current proposal under the current ordinance. Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked for clarification of the conditions of approval and code provisions
suggested by Staff. Planner Thorpe clarified Staff conditions of approval; she added the alley had never been dedicated and it would be uncertain if they would get the whole alley to
use. She noted the future fence would be reviewed by Staff to ensure that it met the character and dimensional standards in the ordinance. She stated the site had been under the same
type of use for several decades.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she had assumed old tires would be stored in the old semi trailer which would periodically be moved off the site and asked why they couldn’t be stored
inside a building. Planner Thorpe responded the Fire and Building Department’s had preferred the tires be located outside of any structure. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked how the semi
trailer would be removed with only 26 feet of backing space. Planner Thorpe responded she would let the applicant answer that question. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked how a longer
than 26 foot trailer would fit into a 26 foot space. Planner Thorpe responded there would be available backing distance and would back up to the hitch to retrieve the trailer.
Attorney Sullivan added that condition of approval #29, 18.44.090H granted the authority to the City Engineer to allow relaxations from access standards.
Mr. Ugorowski stated the conditions of approval had addressed the access and suggested the site plan could have been modified prior to the meeting; he suggested the plan did not reflect
what had been approved. Planner Thorpe responded there had not been any preliminary approval of the proposal and to have the applicant modify the plan prior to approval would be adding
a step to the process that we don’t currently require. Recording Secretary Hastie added that requested modifications to the proposal had been the result of several different review
agencies.
Chris Budeski, Madison Engineering, 517 S. 22nd Ave., Ste. 4, representative and Michael Shamblin, architect, joined the BOA. Mr. Budeski noted the project consisted of removing the
two existing structures and the construction of a new tire center. He stated their intention was to construct a building that would be better than what existed. He stated the Access
Deviation for spacing would be addressed. He stated the site plan would allow 26 feet of backing. He stated tire storage would be located on the second floor and a lift would be used
to take the tires to storage. He stated used tires were put into a short trailer and were removed promptly. He stated a turning template had been used on the site to ensure the trailer
had enough maneuverability space.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she only saw one handicapped parking stall. Mr. Budeski responded the requirement was for one handicapped stall per 25 spaces and they had met the requirement.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked the length of the trailer to be used. Mr. Budeski responded it was roughly 20 feet in length. Mr. Shamblin added the trailer was on site and was quite
small; roughly 20 feet. Mr. Budeski added both front and rear backing isles met the 26 foot requirement.
Chairperson Pomnichowski called for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the public comment portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr. Ugorowski stated he had been concerned with outdoor storage so had visited some other tire stores in Bozeman; he suggested he agreed that tires should be stored inside the building.
Mr. Sypinski suggested Planning Staff always include CUP approval process requirements if the project did not go forward. He complimented Staff on the inclusion of their provisions
and recommendations.
Mr. Lee stated he thought the proposal would be an improvement to an existing eyesore and would alleviate some of the problems common in old structures. He stated he was pleased with
the minimum number of Deviations being requested.
Mr. Curtis asked if other members of the Board remembered denying trailers on sites overnight. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated that was part of the reason she had asked where tires
would be stored and she did not understand why the old tires would need to be stored in a trailer on the site; she suggested the trailer could instead be a garage bay. Mr. Ugorowski
stated the turning radius difficulty on the site would be compounded by attempting to back it into a garage bay; he stated the removal of the tires would be necessary. Attorney Sullivan
reminded the BOA that their review of the proposal should not include past applications that had been reviewed; though he
appreciated their efforts to be consistent. Planner Thorpe responded Staff made the distinction with regard to the location of the trailer being in a loading/unloading area.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated many of her concerns had been addressed and she liked the treatment that respected the Main Street side with the single-story portion of the structure.
She stated for the improvement to the site and for the BOA’s jurisdiction, she was supportive of the proposal and found it to be in keeping with CUP and COA review criteria with Staff
conditions of approval.
Mr. Ugorowski stated he would like to make a note of concern that he thought there might need to be more than paint included to repair the wall after demolition of the west building.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Sypinski moved, Mr. Lee seconded, to approve Tire Rama CUP/COA #Z-08073 with Staff conditions of approval. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being
Chairperson Pomnichowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Ugorowski, Mr. Curtis, and Vice Chairperson Sypinski; those voting nay being none.
ITEM 5. Briefing by City Attorney Greg Sullivan (As necessary.)
Attorney Sullivan stated he had no items for discussion.
ITEM 6. Briefing by Planning Staff (As necessary.)
Planning Staff had no items for discussion.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the BOA, the meeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m.
______________________________
JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Board of Adjustment