HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-10-08 Board of Adjustment Minutes.docBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pomnichowski called the meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order at 6:04 p.m. in the downstairs City Commission Meeting room, 411 East Main Street, Bozeman, Montana and
directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Patricia Jamison Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
JP Pomnichowski David Skelton, Senior Planner
Richard Lee Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Dan Curtis
Ed Ugorowski
Ed Sypinski
Members Absent
David Wright
Jeff Rupp
Visitors Present
Charles Hinesley Kathleen Bukhindt
Morgan Hinesley Robert Pertzborn
Jesse Sobrepena Bill Seymour
E.J. Engler Paul Yakowich
Tom Milleson Dax Simek
Kristen Kailey Pam Merrell
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2008
MOTION: Chairperson Pomnichowski moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to approve the minutes of May 13, 2008 as presented via e-mail. The motion carried 6-0.
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
Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA/Minor Mods to PUD #Z-08095 (Krueger)
2047 West Oak Street
* A Conditional Use Permit with a Certificate of Appropriateness and minor modifications to the Stoneridge Planned Unit Development to allow an all beverage liquor license
for on-premise consumption and the addition of 443 sq. ft. of outdoor seating with related site improvements.
Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report and power point presentation noting the request was for a property on the west side of the City of Bozeman and was within a
PUD that is partially built out at this time. He stated the PUD approval included smaller scale retail development. He noted the surrounding zoning designations and explained those
commercial designations. He noted the requested tenant improvements for Buffalo Wild Wings had been administratively approved through the Certificate of Appropriateness Application
process. He noted where the applicant had proposed the outdoor seating area and the general depiction of what portion of the structure they would be occupying. He noted seven tables
had originally been proposed and the parking requirements would be increased. He noted the DRC had identified the outdoor seating could not be placed in front of a security door due
to Fire and Building requirements so the original proposal for seven tables had been reduced to six. He stated the site had pedestrian connections that would provide safe routes to
the business if people had to park a ways away; he noted the original approval had focused on minimizing the required amount of parking. He noted the DRB had reviewed the proposal and
had recommended that the applicant not use franchise architecture with regard to the proposed fence; he added they had recommended a black, metal fence. He noted there had not been
any public comment received on the proposal and Planning Staff, DRC, and DRB had recommended approval with conditions as outlined by Planning Staff.
Mr. Sypinski clarified that the applicant was applying for a full beverage license instead of a cabaret license. Planner Krueger responded he had misspoken and it was a request for
a full beverage license. Mr. Sypinski asked for clarification on the reduction in outdoor seating. Planner Krueger responded there was no request in the original proposal for outdoor
seating and the request had been included in the current submittal; he added that seven tables had been proposed originally, but had been reduced to six due to Fire and Building requirements.
Ms. Jamison asked if there would be awning covering the outdoor seating. Planner Krueger responded there was no awning being proposed over the seating area and added that signage was
not allowable on awnings or table umbrellas.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the fence would be a temporary structure. Planner Krueger responded it would be permanent due to the State requirements for enclosure of establishments
serving alcohol. Chairperson Pomnichowski verified the proposed materials for the fence. Planner Krueger responded it would be black metal fencing of steel or iron construction. Chairperson
Pomnichowski asked the width that would be present for the public sidewalk. Planner Krueger responded he could not tell definitively from the Site Plan so had included a condition of
approval to the effect that a minimum width of five feet would be required. Chairperson Pomnichowski responded the workable walkway currently contained a bike rack and asked where that
would be relocated. Planner Krueger responded the ADA required a three foot passage and Staff was requiring a five foot path with the bike rack to be relocated in close proximity to
where it currently resided. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if snow removal requirements had been met to Staff’s satisfaction. Planner Krueger responded those requirements had been
met.
Tom Milleson joined the BOA and stated he was the representative of the restaurant owner Brad Anderson. He stated the amount of pedestrian access and connections would make the site
a nice
place to stop for dinner and a drink and the outdoor seating area would liven up a dead spot in that area of town. He stated he thought the proposal would be a nice entryway into the
development and that he had submitted a revised proposal to the building division for the seating area.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked the width of the sidewalk next to the seating area. Mr. Milleson responded he did not know the current distance, but he had been assured that there would
be five feet of space.
Mr. Sypinski asked why a full beverage license had been applied for. Mr. Milleson responded it was a franchise requirement and the restaurant would not be opened if the full license
were not obtained.
Mr. Lee stated he thought the proposal was a good use of the B-1 zoning designation and would be a good addition to the City of Bozeman.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated all the CUP requirements, as well as the conditions of approval from Staff, and the conditions of approval for the PUD. She noted she was supportive
of the project as proposed and conditioned.
Mr. Curtis stated he thought the project would be a nice addition to the City of Bozeman, but he was concerned with the umbrellas being yellow and black checkerboard design. He suggested
he would not like to see such a design while driving down North 19th Avenue.
MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to approve Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA/Minor Mods to PUD #Z-08095 with Staff conditions. The motion carried 6-0.
2. Jackson(Word of Mouth Catering)Cabaret License CUP #Z-08079 (Krueger)
609 West Mendenhall Street
* A Conditional Use Permit Application to allow on-premise consumption of beer and wine.
Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented a request from the applicant to open and continue Jackson (Word of Mouth Catering) Cabaret License CUP #Z-08079 to the July 8, 2008 meeting
of the BOA due to the arrival of late public comment that the applicant would like time to address.
MOTION: Ms. Jamison moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded to open and continue Jackson(Word of Mouth Catering)Cabaret License CUP #Z-08079 to July 8, 2008. The motion carried 6-0.
3. Laurel Glen Office Complex CUP #Z-08065 (Skelton)
Flanders Mill Road
* A Conditional Use Permit Application to allow the construction of one two-level office building, four single-level office buildings, and related site improvements.
Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report and power point presentation noting that many of his comments would be directed to members of the public. He noted the location
of the subdivision and that it would be a four phase development. He noted the property under review was a roughly two acre parcel and activities commonly seen within the Community
Commercial zoning designation would set the tone for a master plan in the major subdivision. He stated the proposal was the commercial node that would provide services for the residential
development adjacent. He noted which zoning designations were surrounding the property and showed examples of the scale and massing of the development as a whole. He noted the proposal
would ultimately be infill and continue development from Harvest Creek Subdivision to the west end of Laurel Glen Subdivision. He noted the locations of natural and man-made features
on the property. He noted the subject property had a ground water depth of six feet and that the concept of a neighborhood commercial node had been planned with annexation and subdivision
and was in keeping with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan.
Planner Skelton stated the zoning designations had been approved during Zone Map Amendment, Annexation, and Subdivision review by the City Commission and had also established the zoning
designations that would be served by the commercial node. He noted which buildings on the site plan would be two-level and which would be single-level. He noted that future retail
commercial would require CUP review and approval. He noted the parking, circulation, and pedestrian paths had met the requirements of subdivision review and City Commission approval
had included improvements to Durston Road with regard to how much of the development could be built before those improvements had been completed. He noted how the parking requirements
had been calculated and that parking would be kept track of in case a proposed use required more parking. He noted the accesses had been located as proposed due to Annie Street being
designed as a collector street, though not designated as such. He stated the alley across Laurel Parkway would need to be addressed with the next phases of Laurel Glen Subdivision.
He stated the rear yard setback had been reduced from twenty feet to seven feet to promote pedestrian and bicycle use of the site. He noted the refuse areas would need to be set back
a minimum of fifteen feet due to their proximity to the adjacent residential development. He noted a Staff condition had been included that the applicant would need to construct a fence
along the south boundary as buffering for three residents; he added the residents may or may not want a fence constructed in that location. He noted Staff would prefer to see landscape
features as opposed to washed rock and Staff suggested more emphasis would need to be placed on the landscaping of the proposed seating areas which would also increase the number of
landscaping points achieved by the development. He stated there would be scored concrete where sidewalks crossed driveways and at crosswalks.
Planner Skelton stated the application was supposed to be a master plan for the Laurel Glen development and a lot of attention would be given to landscape and architectural features.
He noted the allowable height in B-1 zoning was 38 feet; which was common in that zoning designation. He stated the importance of the double frontage lots was to place the parking
internally and there would always be a utility service façade. He noted Staff recommended the proposed architectural features be carried to the rear of the structures to present an
architecturally designed façade to the adjacent residential development. He stated a retaining wall would be required if there would be more than a 25% grade. He noted the utilitarian
functions on the rear facade would be less obvious with more architectural features.
Planner Skelton noted Staff had received public comment and directed the BOA to those items in
their packet materials. He noted that State development criteria are separate from Municipal Code. He stated the track record of the subdivision would not be a point of discussion
at this meeting and those concerns could be addressed at public hearings held during subdivision review for Phases III and IV of Laurel Glen.
Planner Skelton noted that Planning Staff and the Park and Recreation Advisory Board would require the parkland requirements be met before the completion of the development. He noted
there were concerns that the HOA had not been activated as of yet and stated activiation did not often occur until around 50% of the development had been built out. He noted Planning
Staff did not enforce subdivision covenants but did conditionally require the HOA to maintain the open spaces within the subdivision. He noted Staff was recommending approval with Staff
conditions 1-26 as presented in the Staff Report.
Mr. Lee asked if the proposed duplex back yard setback was only ten feet. Planner Skelton responded the orientation of the building made that façade an actual side yard which contained
no rear yard functions. Chairperson Pomnichowski clarified the rear yard requirement of a 10 foot setback had been met.
Mr. Sypinski clarified the parking calculations. Planner Skelton responded the requirements had been met as the commercial development did not get credit for on-street parking spaces.
Mr. Sypinski asked if the requirements would still be met if there were medical offices included. Planner Skelton responded there would be a “parking legend” kept for the development
to allow Staff to reassess the parking based on proposed uses.
Vice Chairperson Ugorowski asked for clarification regarding the uncompleted open space. Planner Skelton responded park land requirements would be resolved and required to be completed
in Phase III of the development; he noted the park improvements would need to be in place within a year of approval and wetlands had been included with Phase I.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the internal turning radius and fire hydrant requirements had been met. Planner Skelton responded the Final Site Plan would depict an adequate turning
radius and a second fire hydrant, or relocation of the first, would be forthcoming. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the proposal was for all office and no retail. Planner Skelton
responded office was the current proposal, but retail uses were allowable and being encouraged by Staff. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the B-1 lot to the north would have street
frontage on all four sides. Planner Skelton responded that it would; he added that comments with regard to the conceptual layout of the lot to the north were not a part of the current
review. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the tenants of the businesses would be part of the HOA. Planner Skelton responded they would be a part of the Property Owners Association
and suggested the addition of a condition to modify the covenants to include language that the business tenants be part of the HOA. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the access off
of Annie Street met the required distance to an intersection. Planner Skelton responded the proposal met the requirements and added that Annie Street was a local street that had been
constructed as a collector street. He noted the applicant had concurred that the accesses should be located on Annie Street and Laurel Parkway. Chairperson Pomnichowski suggested,
for the sake of public safety, the access from Loxley Drive be considered. Planner Skelton responded the Fire Department had seen the proposal as workable and had no issues other than
the location of the fire hydrant. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the proposal was for a single lot. Planner Skelton responded it was.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked why the Zoning Commission had not seen an application for a zoning designation more accommodating to office uses (such as Business Park). Planner Skelton
responded the long term plan envisioned the current arrangement with the inclusion of a neighborhood commercial node. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the parking calculations would
be kept up for a period of years or if there would be a deed restriction imposed to prevent medical or dental offices occupying those spaces. Planner Skelton responded the tenant improvement
building permit would not be issued until the required amount of parking had been determined to be met and the parking legend for the development would be consulted at that time.
Jesse Sobrepena joined the BOA stating he was the architect for the commercial portion of the development. He noted the developer wanted to be sensitive to the residential neighbors
and the overall feel of the development. He noted the single-level structures proposed with this submittal would have a lower impact than the proposed commercial development to the
north. He noted the architectural features would be carried to the rear facades making them appear much the same as the front facades. He noted the locations of accesses had been carefully
considered to lessen the impact of traffic on the residential neighbors.
Mr. Sypinski asked if a lighting plan would be submitted with Final Site Plan. Mr. Sobrepena responded they were intending to light the parking lot with building lighting on the internal
parking lot façade. Mr. Sypinski asked if there would be parking lot lighting. Mr. Sobrepena responded there would be minimal parking lot lighting and it would include automated lighting
with photo cells.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked Mr. Sobrepena to address the distance to intersection issue with the access proposed on Annie Street. Mr. Sobrepena responded there was not currently
a distance to intersection issue and clarified that the southern access alignment with a nonexistent was the issue. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if there was a raised median on Annie
Street and asked if that median was part of the concern. Planner Skelton responded the median would be part of the issue, but the assumption of an alley in that location would be the
major issue. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the two utility boxes on site would be easy to relocate due to features such as a retention pond being proposed in those locations. Mr.
Sobrepena responded he thought there was flexibility in the relocation of those boxes.
Vice Chairperson Ugorowski clarified the presentation of the buildings to Loxley Drive. He noted if there were a door located on the Loxley side, there would be the temptation of parking
in a non-parking area.
Kristen Kailey – 823 Loxley Drive – voiced her concerns regarding safety issues due to the amount of traffic that would be generated on Loxley Drive and that she had received no notification
of public meetings. She stated there had been no move to create an HOA by the developer of the subdivision. She stated the arrangement of the accesses would create an excessive demand
on residential streets as they were not created for business purposes. She stated the addition of another fire hydrant would be necessary due to the number of dwellings. She stated
no construction had been commenced at this time and suggested the developer could modify the zoning designation for a more appropriate use. She recommended the BOA deny the proposal
until such a time as an HOA could be created to attempt to persuade the developer to modify the proposal.
Kathleen Bukhindt – 847 Loxley Drive – stated she understood the development had a B-1 zoning district within it and added the residents would be impacted the most. She stated she did
not feel Staff had considered insurances of safety and well being for resident’s families that should take priority over business development. She stated the residential development
could be located on one side of Laurel Parkway and business development could be located on the other side of Laurel Parkway. She stated her children would be playing in the front yard
and the commercial structures would be located directly across from her. She noted businesses would be located near an open space area that would better serve residential development.
She noted the entire residential aspect of the neighborhood would be lost due to Loxley Drive being covered with commercial development and the residents would have no say over what
the business aspects of the development would be doing. She stated her final concern was that the commercial development would be located in the center of residential development and
other developments that contained both types of development had located the commercial portions on the fringes.
Pam Merrell -4563A Ethan Place-stated she was concerned with the ten foot setback between her property line and the proposed structures as it would create the image of a wall behind
her house. She stated traffic was already a concern in the neighborhood due to the entrance from Durston Road and she thought Loxley Drive had not been intended to be a major street.
She stated she was concerned about what appeared to be an ad hoc nature of approval of businesses and buildings in that area. She stated she agreed with previous public comment with
regard to delaying the approval of the proposal so that a HOA could be formed and their input could be included in the proposal.
Dax Simek-765 Loxley Drive-stated he appreciated Mr. Hinesley’s right to develop the property but would discourage an access on Loxley Drive. He stated it should be taken into consideration
that the lot would be built out in 3-5 years and current open space areas were not being maintained; noting he was concerned the property would revert to weeds.
Paul Yakowich-4541D Ethan Way -stated his main concerns mimicked previous public comment. He noted the proposed structure in the center of the site plan was his primary concern due
to the 10 foot setback and that he would step out into his backyard to see a wall of buildings. He stated he appreciated the offer of screening with a fence, but did not think a fence
would be adequate or appropriate screening.
Bill Seymour-4563A Ethan Way-stated the flow of the structure from one to another would change the entire structure so that what was being proposed might not be what was constructed.
He stated he hoped the development met the dark sky requirements.
Public comment period was closed.
Morgan Hinesley-15525 Horse Creek Road -joined the BOA. He stated he appreciated Planner Skelton’s attempt to limit the conversation to issues pertinent to the Conditional Use Permit
Application. He stated City Staff had insisted the access be located off of Laurel Parkway and noted that the zoning would permit a more obnoxious building (two-story retail) through
Site Plan Review without the approval of a review body other than Staff. He stated the subdivision conditions of approval contained improvements to Durston Road and a park and the applicant
had applied for relief of condition #9 to allow the construction of the park without being required to complete Durston Road. He noted that at no time had Hinesley Development been
able to build a park due to City Commission rulings on condition of approval #9 which they had originally imposed on the subdivision. He stated City Staff had narrowed the street widths
as a method of traffic calming and had done so against the wishes of the owner. He stated the individual property owners were responsible for their property and there was no HOA to
address those issues through direct maintenance. He stated the developers had been maintaining a body to function as an HOA and Architectural Review Committee to keep the standard of
development. He stated the zoning of the subdivision and their locations had been a direct result of a decision made by the City Commission. He stated the subdivision had always complied
with the dark sky ordinance and he appreciated the opportunity to clarify that the City had imposed any unpleasant conditions on the subdivision.
Mr. Curtis asked if the covenants of the subdivision included the B-1 property. Charles Hinesley responded they were addressed as a B-1 zoning within the covenants and individual owners
would need to answer to the Board unless they were condos that would have a separate Board that would answer to the HOA.
Planner Skelton noted that Planning Staff had been charged with seeing that requirements of the UDO had been attained. He noted this submittal was not for subdivision review, but site
plan review and added that subdivision items should not be discussed at this time as they were inappropriate to site plan review. He noted City Commission approval had relocated the
commercial node away from the arterial street corridors.
Vice Chairperson Ugorowski asked for clarification of the density of the B-1 zoning district with relation to parking. Planner Skelton responded in B-1 zoning, exclusive of setbacks
and parking lot landscaping, the parking requirements could be met in other ways such as subterranean parking.
Chairperson Pomnichowski suggested the application be opened and continued until such a time as the applicant can address the required parking, public safety, and HOA concerns.
Mr. Sypinski suggested the allowed uses should be identified and he noted that he viewed the proposal as office space.
Mr. Lee asked if more parking could be provided on the site. Planner Skelton responded he did not know if more parking would fit on the site and clarified that the applicant had achieved
slightly more parking than had been required of them; he added his professional observation was that the site was built out as proposed. Chairperson Pomnichowski suggested one solution
might be to reduce the size of the proposed structure.
Vice Chairperson Ugorowski stated that the overall difference between retail and office uses would be the major issue and added that it was unfortunate to have a commercial node of development
within a residential subdivision. He stated he thought the buildings were well designed and the BOA could not address parking requirements. He stated he thought the overall design
would be a good addition to the City but some points should be addressed such as parking requirements and the elimination of doors proposed facing Loxley Avenue.
Chairperson Pomnichowski noted Neighborhood Commercial indicated something other than office uses and was supposed to be serving a half-mile radius of residential development, not attracting
people from all over the City.
MOTION: Ms. Jamison moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to open and continue Laurel Glen Office Complex CUP #Z-08065 until the July 8, 2008 meeting of the BOA to give the applicant time to
address the required parking, public safety, the participation of the commercial tenants in the HOA, and the proposed uses within the development. The motion carried 6-0.
The Board requested the applicant provide clarification on the development of the park, the HOA and business owner’s participation in the HOA, the elimination of the proposed Loxley
Drive doors, revised elevations (including heights and sections), landscaping, and the proposed uses within the development.
4. Tire Rama CUP/COA #Z-08073 (Thorpe)
512 East Main Street (Opened and continued until date uncertain.)
* A Conditional Use Permit Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the renovation of the existing building and the construction of an addition with related
site improvements.
Tire Rama CUP/COA #Z-08073 was opened and continued until a date uncertain at the request of the applicant prior to the meeting. Public comment on the item was suspended until such
a time as the application was resubmitted for review and approval.
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the BOA, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
________________________________
J.P. Pomnichowski, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Board of Adjustment