HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-08 Board of Adjustment Minutes.docBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2008
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 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 Doug Riley, Associate Planner
Dan Curtis Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner
Ed Ugorowski Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Ed Sypinski
Jeff Rupp
Members Absent
David Wright
Visitors Present
Albert R. Spottke Jonathan Pytko
Travis Wright Donald Mazzola
Angie Jackson Kris Kailey
Brad Sperry Rob Pertzborn
Bill Bickle Tom & Laurie Michalek
Courtney Walton Guy Kailey
Andy Knight Cassandra Van Horn
E.J. Engler
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 2008
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated that on page 9, paragraph 2, her statement should include the language “attracting” instead of “employing”.
MOTION: Mr. Lee moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve the minutes of June 10, 2008 with corrections. 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
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. (Continued from 6/10/08.)
Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the application was a request for a cabaret license for beer and wine only. He noted the location of the site was surrounded
by B-2 zoning but there was residential zoning near the site. He noted the structure included a catering kitchen, referred to as a food processing facility, and that the previous use
required the food to be cooked on site, but served off site the proposed use is private event dining for prescheduled engagements. He noted current proposal for on-premise consumption
of beer and wine would require the parking calculations be the same as if it were for a restaurant use. He directed the BOA to the PowerPoint slide regarding the existing site and the
current parking arrangement. He noted the UDO required the offsite parking be in a linear pathway less than 1,000 feet from the proposed use and the submittal met that requirement;
he added Staff was supportive of off site and shared parking. He stated no improvements to the building were currently proposed, but the regulations regarding parking in setbacks did
not allow the trailer currently housed on the site and Staff had fashioned a condition of approval to that affect. He stated the applicant had intended the rear porch area would contain
some outdoor seating and Staff had recommended a condition that the property owner screen that side of the porch to provide an additional barrier for the neighbor whom had submitted
public comment; he added the additional screening may alleviate some of the neighbor’s privacy concerns. He noted the public comment included concerns that the cabaret license would
be too near her residence and there would be privacy issues as well as concerns with regard to the required amount of parking. He stated Staff had suggested the institution of a larger
fence in that location to provide the necessary screening and added that a chain link fence between the homes existed on the site. He stated Staff believed the application met the criteria
of a CUP Application and Staff was supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions.
Mr. Lee asked for clarification regarding the trailer that was currently parked on the site. Planner Krueger explained that the trailer would need to be removed from the site, but could
still be used for loading and unloading.
Mr. Sypinski asked if the applicant and Staff would be amenable to restricting the hours of operation to before 2:00 a.m. Planner Krueger responded that unless the BOA could make a
specific finding that there would absolutely be a nuisance if the establishment were open at that late hour, the hours of operation could not be reduced. Mr. Sypinski stated the vacant
Movie Gallery parking lot would be more accessible and he found it unlikely that people would park at Office Express when parking would be more readily available. Planner Krueger responded
the individual property owners would be responsible for disallowing parking on private property and the City had reviewed the parking requirements and found the submittal to contain
adequate parking that would be available to the public and met the requirements of the code. Mr. Sypinski asked if a long term lease had been seen by the City. Planner Krueger responded
the applicant was not required to submit the long term lease agreement until Final Site Plan submittal and the use would be contingent on that agreement.
Ms. Jamison asked if there had been any complaints regarding the current use on site and if the applicant had met with the neighbor who had submitted public comment. Planner Krueger
responded he was not aware of any complaints, and the applicant would have to explain his interactions with the neighbor.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked for clarification between the requested hours of operation and Staff’s recommended hours of operation. Planner Krueger explained the Staff report contained
the recommended hours of operation.
E.J. Engler and Angie Jackson joined the BOA.
Mr. Engler directed the BOA’s attention to a handout he had prepared for the meeting. He noted the applicant had requested the continuance of last month’s meeting to allow time for
a meeting with the neighbor, but it had not come about as of yet.
Ms. Jackson stated she had met with the neighbor to initiate a dialog with the family and Mr. Engler had spoken with the neighbor on the phone in an attempt to resolve the screening
issue.
Mr. Engler noted they were proposing three forms of buffering; a six foot high fence, a green screen, and an orange screening material in that location; he added the site was surround
by a mix of commercial development but transitioned to a residential neighborhood.
Ms. Jackson stated they had attempted to discuss the screening issues with the neighbor but would not be able to resolve the issue until the neighbor’s sons returned from vacation.
She noted the current hours of operation and that the intention of the business was not to operate during the wee hours of the morning but during the days and evenings.
Mr. Engler noted that conditions of the parking arrangement included the necessity to put directional signs to provide instruction to those areas that were to be parking for the establishment.
Mr. Lee asked how the lighting would affect the neighbor. Ms. Jackson responded the lighting would be compliant with UDO requirements and would shine down instead of outward; she noted
there was no lighting on the other side of the building with the exception of where the ramp was located.
Vice Chairperson Ugorowski asked if the applicant would consider restricting their hours of operation to 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. Ms. Jackson responded she would be open to that as long
as it was no more restrictive; she added that, historically, none of her events had gone beyond 11:00 p.m. Vice Chairperson Ugorowski asked if she would be amenable to 11:00 p.m. Ms.
Jackson responded she would be amenable as long as the last dinner was served by that time and people were allowed to stay on the premises after that.
Mr. Sypinski asked for clarification regarding the expansion of the patio area. Ms. Jackson clarified there was no plan for expansion of the patio area, but the submittal included the
use of the patio as it exists for three, two person tables. Mr. Sypinski asked about the lighting on the
rear of the house. Ms. Jackson explained it was standard residential lighting directed downward to meet the requirements of the UDO.
There was no public comment forthcoming. Public comment was closed.
Ms. Jamison stated she had gone by the site and thought it was an attractive place. She stated she was concerned with the neighbor and was satisfied with the applicant’s proposed screening
for the neighboring property; she added she had hoped to see the ramp contain fencing/screening as well.
Mr. Lee suggested a time limitation of midnight would provide relief for the neighbor.
MOTION: Mr. Lee moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to approve Jackson(Word of Mouth Catering)Cabaret License CUP #Z-08079 with Staff conditions and the modification of condition #9 to require
the hours of operation for use of the cabaret license end at midnight. The motion was withdrawn.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Ugorowski moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, , to approve Jackson(Word of Mouth Catering)Cabaret License CUP #Z-08079 with Staff conditions and the modification
of condition #9 to require the hours of operation for use of the cabaret license end at 11:00 p.m. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Vice Chairperson
Ugorowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Sypinski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none.
AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve Jackson(Word of Mouth Catering)Cabaret License CUP #Z-08079 with Staff conditions and the modification of condition
#7 to require the applicant to provide the outdoor screening submitted to the BOA for review at the meeting. The amended motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski,
Vice Chairperson Ugorowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Sypinski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none.
FINAL MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve Jackson(Word of Mouth Catering)Cabaret License CUP #Z-08079 with Staff conditions and the modification of condition
#9 to require the hours of operation for use of the cabaret license end at 11:00 p.m. and condition #7 to require the applicant to provide the outdoor screening submitted to the BOA
for review at the meeting. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Vice Chairperson Ugorowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Sypinski, and Ms. Jamison;
those voting nay being none.
Stockman Bank CUP/COA #Z-08089 (Krueger)
1433 North 19th Avenue
* A Conditional Use Permit Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 12,500 square foot banking facility and related site improvements.
Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the location of the proposal was within an Entryway Corridor and the surrounding zoning designations. He stated the
rearrangement of circulation on the site had affected multiple lots within the Stoneridge PUD. He stated the 10 parking stalls located west of the drive-thru would be eliminated noting
there was an additional area that was being modified and in which locations the parking was being reconfigured instead of removed. He stated Stoneridge Square had ~600 parking spaces
and one of the best internal circulation designs; adding that private property owners would be responsible for parking issues on their respective sites. He stated Staff did not foresee
any difficulties with the alleviation of 10 parking spaces. He stated the orientation and configuration of the building with an enhanced entryway was being recommended by Staff and
the DRB and would meet the Entryway Corridor design guidelines. He noted the elevations proposed for the bank had been discussed and the applicant had demonstrated that the proposed
architecture would not be franchise architecture; he added Staff and the DRB recommend the elevations as proposed. He noted the materials of the low profile drive-thru would be the
same as the main banking facility. He stated Staff had requested the applicant notify all the tenants within the Stoneridge PUD of their proposal due to the reciprocal parking access
on the site and no comments had been received. He stated Staff and DRB had recommended approval and noted there had been a deficiency in pedestrian circulation on the site so Staff
had required a sidewalk and crosswalk be instituted across the drive isle.
Brad Sperry with CTA Architects joined the BOA and noted he had nothing further to add to the presentation made by Planner Krueger.
Bill Bickle of Stockman Bank joined the BOA.
Ms. Jamison asked if any other businesses would be located within the building. Mr. Sperry responded there would not be any other businesses in the building as they would not be leasing
space. Ms. Jamison asked the number of employees. Mr. Bickle responded there would be 14 employees.
There was no public comment forthcoming. Public comment was closed.
MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Vice Chairperson Ugorowski seconded, to approve Stockman Bank CUP/COA #Z-08089 with Staff conditions. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson
Pomnichowski, Vice Chairperson Ugorowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Sypinski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none.
3. La Parrilla Cabaret License CUP #Z-08105 (Riley)
1624 West Babcock Street
* A Conditional Use Permit Application to allow the on-premise consumption of beer and wine.
Associate Planner Doug Riley presented the Staff Report noting he had given the BOA copies of public comment that had been received after packets were distributed. He noted the current
location of the restaurant and that the application was for the approval of a cabaret license. He noted the surrounding zoning designations and the land uses in those locations. He
stated the property had received Site Plan approval and was constructed to UDO requirements last year. He stated there had been concerns from adjoining property owners, primarily to
the south and west, regarding the noise of the exhaust fan system, early morning garbage collection, noise from
patrons, litter, and patron trespass; he noted there had been site improvements to address those concerns and a neighborhood meeting had been held to discuss their concerns. He noted
the applicant had voluntarily implemented some site improvements as a result of the meeting. He directed the BOA to the Site Plan Application and photos of the structure as it exists
on the site. He noted the southern boundary of the property contained a solid metal screening fence to serve the purpose of screening the exhaust equipment, noise, and to eliminate
a lot of the previous trespassing. He noted the west side of the building contained some outdoor seating and the applicant had agreed to eliminate all outdoor cooking due to complaints
from adjacent property owners with regard to odors. He stated the applicant had installed a fence around the outdoor seating area and had instituted a way to attempt to upwardly disperse
the odors generated by the exhaust system. He stated the neighborhood had suggested a larger or additional bike rack be provided on the site to alleviate vehicular traffic. He stated
the required parking spaces had been met, but due to the popularity of the establishment there was overflow parking on West Babcock Street and Staff had suggested a resolution be found;
he added the applicant would obtain a 10 space lease for parking at the old La Parrilla location that could be used for employee parking. He noted American Bank wanted to include termination
provisions for the use of parking stalls and the applicant would be allowed 120 days to find an alternate location for those parking stalls per Staff’s recommended condition. He stated
there were five public comment letters received and explained their concerns. He stated Staff was supportive of and recommended approval of the proposal with Staff conditions; he noted
the applicant had suggested many of the conditions of approval after having met with the neighborhood. He noted Staff conditions included that the hours of operation would be limited
to 10:00 p.m. and the applicant was amenable to that condition.
Mr. Lee asked if the cabaret license limited the amount of beer or wine sold at the premises. Planner Riley responded he thought the gross sales of alcohol could only be 40% of the
total sales.
Brian Caldwell, representing La Parrilla restaurant, addressed the BOA. Mr. Caldwell confirmed the percentage of sales was accurate.
Mr. Sypinski asked if the off site parking would be available for members of the public. Planner Riley responded it was intended for employees as there were no pedestrian connections
to that location. Mr. Sypinski asked if there would be signage for the employee parking locations. Planner Riley responded that had not been a requirement of the application.
Mr. Caldwell noted the applicant would not be allowed to serve only beer in the establishment and alcohol could only be purchased with food. He noted which items had been included for
the purpose of buffering and noted the application had been conditioned more than any other cabaret license CUP Application. He added that visual screening and outdoor cooking had been
addressed and the restaurant would be located on the site whether or not a cabaret license was approved. He noted the public comment lead the BOA to believe that no other restaurant
was adjacent to residential uses and added it was simply untrue; he noted the location of Dave’s Sushi. He noted the parking requirements had been met with the Site Plan Application
review process and the air handling equipment had been upgraded at the cost of $30,000 in an attempt to alleviate some of the neighbors concerns.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated Mr. Caldwell had misspoken with regard to the fact that cabaret license requirements did not disallow someone from just purchasing alcohol at the establishment.
Mr. Caldwell responded that it was a State requirement but some establishments may not follow that requirement.
Albert Spottke 1703 W. Olive, #2 stated he had lived in that location since 1997 and the applicant for La Parrilla had done a lot of improvements to the business. He suggested they
should have stayed in their original location and the sounds generated by the exhaust system still existed. He suggested the owners had property values to consider and their nice, quiet,
well-kept area had the potential for disturbance with the approval of the application. He stated the quid pro quo of the cabaret license galled him considering the difficulties with
the Site Plan Application. He suggested disapproving the cabaret license and limiting the hours of operation to 9:00 p.m.
Jonathan Pytka 1703 W. Olive St., #10 stated he had written the lengthy public comment letter and stated he thought the project was a bad location for a restaurant and a worse location
for a cabaret license. He stated he thought 9:00 p.m. would be sufficient for hours of operation and stated the cabaret license would lower his property value and have adverse affects
on himself and his neighbors. He noted his bedroom was located to look directly over the patio area of the establishment and he could hear conversations in that location as if they
were in his home. He noted the exhaust fan was a persistent noise that caused him to have to wear earplugs to sleep; he added that the building was too near the residences. He stated
patrons of the establishment and employees did not have to live next to La Parrilla day in and day out.
Cassandra Van Horn 1703 W. Olive St., #9 stated that the fence at the rear of the property discouraged graffiti and provided some screening. She stated she had asked how many trees
would be planted to provide buffering as it seemed they were supposed to be closer together to provide a virtual fence. She stated the applicant had explained to her that gaps had been
left to allow patrons of the establishment a way through. She suggested a fence, such as the one that exists at the rear of the property, could be instituted to the west along the property
line. She stated the trash had not been that bad, but a fence would help control the trespassing issues.
Public comment was closed.
Zach Anderson, Manager of La Parrilla, addressed the BOA. He stated the business had been relocated to allow for employee safety, parking requirements, upgrades to the building, and
a better overall location. He stated the landscaping requirements had been met with Site Plan approval and they had instituted more landscaping to provide a buffer zone when neighbors
began voicing complaints; he added he could extend the fence but it would not be feasible in some locations. He stated there were no current regulations pertaining to the hours of operation
and the CUP Application was the perfect opportunity to regulate those hours. Mr. Caldwell added that fencing could not be extended to a property that was not owned by the applicant.
Mr. Sypinski suggested the BOA address the hours of operation and the right to serve alcohol at any time and added that the establishment would not be hurt if the hours of operation
were ceased at 9:00 p.m. He noted over-consumption of alcohol was a safety issue and suggested the serving of alcohol outside the establishment be discussed.
Vice Chairperson Ugorowski asked if the garbage collection issues could be discussed. Chairperson Pomnichowski responded the City had only so much legal recourse over private contractors
and Code Enforcement was currently working with the refuse collectors.
Mr. Lee asked if the cabaret license could be revoked if it were abused. Planner Riley responded if there were violations against the issuance of the cabaret license, the state had
a method in place for revocation of that license.
Ms. Jamison asked for clarification regarding the noise complaints and if there was a noise ordinance. Chairperson Pomnichowski responded there was a nuisance ordinance, but it did
not define decibels of noise.
Mr. Curtis suggested adding language to include limiting hours of operation for the exhaust fan. Chairperson Pomnichowski concurred.
MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve La Parrilla Cabaret License CUP #Z-08105 with Staff conditions and the amendment of Staff condition #1 to allow fan operation
one half hour before and one half hour after close of operations. Mr. Ugorowski suggested the opening time be included in the motion. The motion was withdrawn.
MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Vice Chairperson Ugorowski seconded, to approve La Parrilla Cabaret License CUP #Z-08105 with Staff conditions and the amendment of Staff condition #1 to limit
fan operation to one half hour before opening at 8:00 a.m. and one half hour after close of operations at 10:00 p.m. Ms. Jamison suggested she would like to see the close of operations
at 9:00 p.m. The motion was withdrawn.
MOTION: Mr. Lee moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve La Parrilla Cabaret License CUP #Z-08105 with Staff conditions and the amendment of Staff condition #1 to limit fan operation
to one half hour before opening at 8:00 a.m. and one half hour after close of operations and to limit the hours of operation from Sunday – Thursday to close operations at 9:00 p.m. with
Friday and Saturday to close operations at 10:00 p.m. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Vice Chairperson Ugorowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, Mr.
Sypinski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none.
AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to approve La Parrilla Cabaret License CUP #Z-08105 with Staff conditions and the amendment of Staff condition #13 to exclude
the word “outdoor” from the language of the condition. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Vice Chairperson Ugorowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, Mr.
Sypinski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none.
FINAL MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Mr. Lee seconded, to approve La Parrilla Cabaret License CUP #Z-08105 with Staff conditions, the amendment of Staff condition #1 to limit fan operation
to one half hour before opening at 8:00 a.m. and one half hour after close of operations and to limit the hours of operation from Sunday – Thursday to close operations at 9:00 p.m. with
Friday and Saturday to close operations at 10:00 p.m., and the amendment of Staff condition #13 to exclude the word “outdoor” from the language of the condition. The motion carried
6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Vice Chairperson Ugorowski, Mr. Lee, Mr.
Curtis, Mr. Sypinski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she was pleased with the conditions as presented by Staff and amended by the BOA. She stated the popularity of La Parrilla drew such an amount of clientele
that the cabaret license would be an addition, either good or bad, to an established business and its operations.
Knight Remodel COA/DEV #Z-08082 (Kramer)
626 North Bozeman Avenue
* A Certificate of Appropriateness Application with Deviations to allow the remodel of the 2nd story of the residence and renovations to the existing porch.
Assistant Planner Courtney Kramer presented the Staff Report noting the location of the property within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and its zoning designation of R-2.
She noted what the proposal included and that a single deviation was requested to allow the proposed front porch to encroach up to three feet into the required setback. She stated
the Staff report separated the deviation request from the proposed second story addition. She stated the second story addition was often referred to as a “pop-up” due to the premise
that the property was valued at more than the house. She noted the property was often irrevocably altered with the institution of a second floor addition and suggested that those properties
could no longer be considered as historic places within a potential historic district. She stated the house had been listed as an intrusive element to the neighborhood and did not meet
the 50 year water mark of potentially eligible properties with the original historic inventory; she added the house has since met the 50 year water mark and Staff had found the property
a potential contribution to the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. She stated the minimal traditional style of the house made it a contributing element to the community and
added the 600 and 700 blocks of North Bozeman Avenue reflected those design characteristics. She stated Staff believed the residence contributed to a potential historic district and
those qualifications. She stated the Secretary of the Interior Standards used 7 measures to determine the standards for historic preservation and noted the structure was in the same
location as in the period of its significance and contained the materials, integrity, design, and feeling of the neighborhood. She noted the applicant was seeking to make exterior alterations
that would include the second floor addition, porch, new siding, windows, and related site improvements. She stated Staff was supportive of the request for the porch height and its
encroachment into the required setback; she noted Staff was not supportive of the proposed second story addition but was supportive of the windows proposed for the addition if it were
relocated to the rear or side of the existing structure. She noted the traditional scale of single-household residences dominated the neighborhood and the proposed new construction
would not maintain the established scale of the existing residences. She stated Staff suggested a second story addition that was setback from the front of the structure to minimize
the scaling and impact of the new construction. She stated the construction of a porch would further solidify the directional expression of the property toward the street. She stated
Staff felt the architectural detailing had been found to be inappropriate to the surrounding neighborhood and recommended approval of the proposed porch with Staff conditions and the
denial of the proposed second story addition.
Ms. Jamison asked if this was the first “pop-up” proposal that was to come before the BOA of
the five applications the Planning Office had received. Planner Kramer noted the locations of the proposed “pop-ups” and explained that this application was unique as Deviations were
requested so BOA review was required; she added that the rest of the applications would be reviewed by the Planning Director and ADR Staff.
Mr. Lee asked for clarification regarding the properties intrusive designation. Planner Kramer explained the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation and the historic
inventory. Mr. Lee asked the reason that Staff had denied the second story addition based on the grounds that none of the other residences in that neighborhood were two-story structures.
Planner Kramer responded that Staff had learned over the last several years that the historic inventory was a good place to start but that it had not been updated and the City Commission
had found that it would not be funded until 2010 – 2012 as there were current budgetary concerns.
Mr. Sypinski asked if the applicant would have to wait until the historic inventory was updated to do any renovations to the residence. Planner Kramer responded Staff would support
other alterations and an addition at a different location on the structure.
Vice Chairperson Ugorowski asked how an addition to the back of the house would occur and where. Planner Kramer responded that a rear addition would be something Staff would explore
with the applicant.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if any more direction had been given by the City Commission regarding the mass, scale, etc. of pop-ups. Planner Kramer responded there had not been much
direction given as an area’s potential significance would need to be gauged on individual basis.
Andrew Knight joined the BOA. He stated the downstairs would not be an option for an addition as it had six foot high ceilings and was not considered a usable space; he added the attic
was the same. He noted an addition in the rear would require the removal of two trees and an addition in that location would leave fifteen feet of usable space in the yard. He stated
the setback of ten feet from the front of the structure for the second floor addition would cause him to have to remove the entire roof and rebuild it. He stated the residential zoning
requirements allowed for one and two household development and he had met many of the requirements of the UDO. He stated his proposal was in keeping with the Bozeman 2020 Community
Plan and noted the location of a pop-up residence kiddy corner to his site. He stated there were also ranch style homes, the City Shops complex, and apartment buildings within that
same block. He stated the crux of the issue was the potential eligibility of the property in a potential historic district. He noted that until two months ago there had been no discussion
regarding a potential historic district or the residence’s contribution to that district. He stated the minimal tradition style of his home was not located in a historic district but
a nebulous potential historic district. He stated it was true that his home lacked architectural style and would not be approved by today’s standards. He noted the previous owner had
difficulty selling the home due to its small size; he added it was too high a price to pay to take notice of the homes depression area standing. He stated he was a detective for the
City of Bozeman, he was one of few of the officers that lived in the city limits of Bozeman, and he thought it important for all officers to live in their community. He stated the Planning
Department was being unfair and discriminatory; he added the scale shown in the PowerPoint presentation was an unfair scale as it did not depict the surrounding fences and trees. He
stated his proposal would pale in comparison to the 30 foot high apartment
complex near his property and added that 17 out of 31 homes between Main Street and Tamarack Street on his side of the street were already two-story homes.
Ms. Jamison noted Staff had provided the BOA with a thorough packet that depicted the larger structures Mr. Knight had referred to.
Vice Chairperson Ugorowski asked Mr. Knight if the stairs for the second floor plan were normal. Mr. Knight responded the stairs were steep but already existed and the only change to
the massing of the structure would be an increase in height of 6.5 feet. Vice Chairperson Ugorowski asked if the second story windows would remain in keeping with the existing residence.
Mr. Knight responded he had previously been told one window style by the Planning Department, but they had suggested another for the current proposal. Vice Chairperson Ugorowski suggested
staying in keeping with what existed.
Don Mazzola 612 N. Bozeman Ave. stated he had lived in the Northeast Neighborhood for six years and lived within a block of Mr. Knight. He stated he thought Mr. Knight’s proposal was
appropriate for the existing neighborhood and would not be too large even with the proposed addition. He stated the added height would not adversely affect the property to the south
as there were existing trees in that location. He stated another neighbor had submitted public comment in support of the proposal and provided the BOA with that information.
Rob Pertzborn 518 N. Tracy Ave. stated he agreed that the established scale of the neighborhood was mixed and that was a good thing. He stated the integrated roof pushed down into the
second floor would be a nice feature and corner houses were traditionally larger than those interior to the block.
The public comment period was closed.
MOTION: Mr. Lee moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded to approve the requested Deviation for the Knight Remodel COA/DEV #Z-08082 porch. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson
Pomnichowski, Vice Chairperson Ugorowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Sypinski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she had driven through the neighborhood, had taken the City Commission determinations into consideration, and had found that it was contradictory that
this proposal was appropriate for in-fill but not an existing project. She stated she was sensitive to neighboring properties due to the changing character of neighborhoods and added
that maintaining the existing footprint was very important and the shadowing of properties would not be an issue due to the existing trees.
Mr. Lee added that the proposed addition took a plain looking house and made it look much better.
Mr. Sypinski noted the neighbors would have come forward if they thought the proposal would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. He noted the City Commission had given leave
to evaluate the proposals on an individual basis and the current proposal had passed the test. He noted he was supportive of the proposal as presented.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she would be sensitive to architectural characteristics, but the house lacked those characteristics. She noted the crux of the issue was that 17 out
of 31 residences were already two-story structures. She stated she was supportive of the proposal as presented.
Vice Chairperson Ugorowski stated that starting with a smaller house which was affordable was a way to begin and should be allowed to be added upon if it was done tastefully. He added
not allowing it might set a precedent. He stated he was supportive of the proposed addition.
MOTION: Mr. Lee moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve Knight Remodel COA/DEV #Z-08082 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Vice
Chairperson Ugorowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Sypinski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none.
5. King Garage/Guesthouse COA/DEV #Z-08116 (Kramer) (Cont. to 8/12/08.)
419 North Black Avenue
* A Certificate of Appropriateness application with Deviations to allow the construction of a garage with a roof height of 22', a footprint of 28' X 26', and related site
improvements.
At the request of the applicant, King Garage/Guesthouse COA/DEV #Z-08116 was opened and continued to the August 12, 2008 meeting of the Board of Adjustment.
6. 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. (Continued
from 6/10/08.)
Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the application had been reviewed by the BOA on June 10, 2008 and was opened and continued to this date. He provided the
BOA with updated information and clarified that the public hearing portion of the proposal had not been closed. He stated the applicant had proposed to eliminate the structure at the
southwest corner of the site to address the need for off-street parking spaces and the requirements of a medical/dental use; he noted the applicant had provided more than the required
amount of parking. He noted Greg Megaard of the Fire Department had responded that the applicant could relocate the fire hydrant to the center of the block which would alleviate the
need for another hydrant. He stated the alignment of the alley had to occur or the median would be closed with a right-in, right-out entrance; he added the Loxley street access had
been discouraged and City Engineering would work out a solution with the applicant. He stated a major concern had been the building B elevations facing Loxley Drive and noted Staff
was comfortable with the elimination of the proposed doors. He stated Staff was supportive of the proposed elevations and suggested horizontal expression and architectural detail could
be achieved by making the appearance of the doors more like a storefront. He stated the rear yard 10 foot setback had been contentious so the applicant had provided a 12 foot setback
due to the location of utilities in that area and noted Staff had suggested the applicant work with the adjoining property owners to
provide a reasonable means of buffering. He explained the separation of the residential Homeowners Association and the B-1 Association and noted that ownership would entail voting rights
and the voting rights of the commercial development would depend on the type of ownership that was ultimately achieved by the development (i.e. condominiums, leases, etc.). He stated
Staff suggested creating HOA documents specific to the B-1 zoning designation and noted that 75% of the development would need to be sold before the HOA legally had to be instituted.
He stated the open space areas were an issue that would be resolved during subdivision review but clarified when the parkland would be completed (Phase III) and that the applicant was
amenable to that timeline.
Ms. Jamison clarified that park improvements would be made with phase III of the development. Planner Skelton responded the remainder of the parkland for all phases would be completed
with phase III of the development; adding they would have one year after approval to complete those improvements and would need to financially guarantee them until they were completed.
Jesse Sobrepena joined the BOA. He stated Planner Skelton had done a fine job of presenting the revisions and modifications. He stated the garbage dumpsters had been relocated and
the 23 landscape point criteria had been modified to meet the requirements.
Tom Michalek 743 Loxley Dr. stated he and his wife had no disagreement with the current design and noted that their concern was the current lack of an HOA and its enforcement.
The public comment period was closed.
Mr. Curtis stated he thought the applicant had done a great job and he was supportive of the proposal.
MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve the amended Laurel Glen Office Complex CUP #Z-08065 with 27 Staff conditions. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye
being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Vice Chairperson Ugorowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Sypinski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none.
Mr. Lee noted the applicant had made more important changes than he had expected and the proposal was well thought through.
Chairperson Pomnichowski commended the applicant on taking to heart the public and Board comments from the previous meeting and amending those portions of the proposal. She stated compatibility
with the surrounding development was of utmost importance to her and she could not be more pleased that the applicant had taken consideration for parking allocations and more space between
the development and the residences. She stated she was keenly sensitive to the issues regarding the HOA and the additional condition was the only way the BOA could address that issue
as the HOA was a subdivision requirement that would be decided by the City Commission during Preliminary Plat review. She noted the proposal was zoned for neighborhood commercial and
small scale retail and suggested that, in this case, she was supportive of the request due to the surrounding uses.
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the BOA, the meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m.
______________________________
J.P. Pomnichowski, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Board of Adjustment