Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-14-08 Board of Adjustment Minutes.docBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pomnichowski called the meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order at 6:02 p.m. in the Upstairs Conference Room, Alfred Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Patricia Jamison Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner JP Pomnichowski Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Dan Curtis Ed Ugorowski Ed Sypinski Members Absent Richard Lee Visitors Present Brian Heaston John Amsden Bob Mechels ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to approve the minutes of September 9, 2008 as presented. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Sypinski, 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. Lindley Home COA/DEV #Z-08207 (Kramer) 406 East Olive Street * A Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations Application to allow the restoration of the 1911 Lindley Home, the construction of a second building with an apartment above, and related site improvements. Vice Chairperson Ugorowski joined the BOA. Assistant Planner Courtney Kramer presented the Staff Report noting the location of the site and the properties zoning designation of R-2. She stated she had asked the project engineer Brian Heaston to attend the meeting to address the engineering aspects of the site. She directed the BOA to photographs of the site after the original phase of the Certificate of Appropriateness had been approved. She stated the City Commission had denied the original request for Deviations due to the proposed massing and size of the project within the stream corridor and its adjacency to Bogert Park. She stated she would address the original proposal and then the revised proposal to provide a point of context. She stated there were five Deviations being requested; to allow encroachment of the porch into the required front yard setback, to allow encroachment of a fence into the required watercourse setback, to allow the construction of a pervious parking stall within the required 75 foot watercourse setback, to allow the construction of a drive access in the required 75 foot watercourse setback, and to allow less than 100% of the pervious areas to be planted with ground cover to allow for the location of the drive access. She directed the BOA to color elevations of the proposal. She stated Staff was concerned with the amount of metal cladding proposed and would leave it to the applicant to decide how to make the proposed metal cladding an accent. Mr. Sypinski asked if some of the Deviations would be alleviated with the Planning Director Administrative decision to reduce the required watercourse setback to 35 feet. Planner Kramer responded encroachments would still be within the required 35 foot watercourse setback for the requested Deviations. Ms. Jamison asked for clarification with regard to who would make the final decision. Planner Kramer responded the Staff Report had a typo and the BOA would make the final decision instead of the City Commission. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked Planner Kramer to site the section of the U.D.O. that allowed the Planning Director to make the determination to reduce the required 75 foot watercourse setback to 35 feet. Planner Kramer directed the BOA to U.D.O. Section 42-8. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the application was sufficient for lot coverage requirements. Planner Kramer responded they did not exceed the requirements. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the lot square footage requirements had been met. Planner Kramer responded they did meet the requirements under the legal nonconforming uses of the code. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the 100 year floodplain had been addressed on the site with regard to setback extension to the 100 year floodplain. Engineer Heaston stated site specific floodplain delineation had been done for the proposal and an approved floodplain permit had been acquired by the applicant. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked for clarification of what items had been approved. Engineer Heaston responded the applicant had been approved for any improvements made in the floodplain that were in the original proposal; he added the new site plan had only modified the size of the structure. Mr. Mechels added that the snow storage area had been relocated and everything had been removed from the 35 foot watercourse setback; he added the paving and driveway had stayed the same through both proposals. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked what the pervious paving material had been proposed to be. Mr. Heaston responded asphalt, concrete, or other improved paving were allowable per the U.D.O. Mr. Mechels responded it would be concrete paving and their goal was to minimize the amount of asphalt on the site. Bob Mechels, Dowling Sandholm Architects, stated several neighbors had shown up during the original review by the City Commission and had voiced concerns regarding the proposed scale and mass of the structure. He stated the size of the structure had been reduced and no public comment had been forthcoming so he took it as a sign that the application was more amenable to the neighbors. He stated the parking would all be on-site and the site lines for the proposal had been considered with regard to the view shed from the street and from Bogert Park. He stated the owner had cleaned up the existing foliage and trees with the assistance of the City Forester. He stated the applicant wanted to do split faced masonry for the front porch to match the existing house and the new construction would mimic the back of the existing house; he added the materials had been modified to include clapboard siding with core tin or bonderized standing seam metal. He stated the loading dock feature on the adjacent site would be screened by landscaping and the applicant did not have a problem using the metal cladding as an accent. He stated the Deviations were only to replace what had existed in those locations with regard to the porch, paving, and access. He explained the layout proposed for individual units on the site and stated the fence would include masonry with pilasters and plantings to make it a green fence in the summer and more transparent in the winter months. He added he had been told for the last year that the Planning Director had the authority to reduce the required watercourse setback from 75 feet to 35 feet; he added surface paving would be the only item located in that required setback. He stated the density of the proposal had been reduced and neighboring property values had been increased due to the restoration that had already been completed. Mr. Sypinski stated one of his concerns had been parking and confirmed that the parking would all be located on the site. Mr. Mechels responded it would be entirely on the site. Mr. Sypinski stated he liked the idea of the reduction of the massing at the back of the property, but he was concerned with the paving inside of the floodplain. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the neighbors had been included on the discussion for the new proposal. Mr. Amsden responded that he had met with the neighbors and they had suggested the proposed coloring and did not seem concerned with the proposal as presented. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if there would be any excavation for the new garage. Mr. Mechels responded there would be no excavation and it would be a slab on base grade garage. Mr. Sypinski stated he liked the downsizing of the proposal and the idea of rehabilitation for the property. He stated he did not have a problem with the requested porch or driveway Deviations; though he was concerned with construction in the setback due to flooding. Planner Kramer added that the code required the improvements to the asphalt be completed despite the location in the floodplain. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated the applicant had done an exquisite job with the existing structure and it meant a lot that the owner had worked with the neighbors with regard to the proposed design. She stated she had grave concerns with the proximity of the watercourse to the site; she added the UDO called out that no fence, residential or commercial structure, or paving shall be located in the required watercourse setback. She stated that in order for the BOA to grant the Deviations there would have to be minimal adverse affect; she noted the structure itself would be impervious and would cause adverse affects. She stated the BOA approval could allow for only a 20% change in the site and the structures proposed for the site had been almost doubled. Mr. Mechels responded that the civil engineer had designed the site with a detention pond to prevent water release in amounts greater than historic rates and had it been engineered to handle a 10 year flooding event. Mr. Amsden added the pervious concrete was also a flood mitigation technique and the concrete would be repaired with the reconstruction of the approach access. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if there was a storm drain on the property. Mr. Heaston stated he was uncertain where the storm drain was located. Mr. Amsden added that previous City Commission, Staff, and neighbors concerns had been addressed. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the owner of the site owned the neighboring lot. Mr. Mechels responded the owner did not own the adjacent lot. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if there could be a joint access agreement with that neighboring site. Mr. Amsden responded he had asked the neighbor, but they did not seem interested in sharing the placement of a fence, much less sharing an access, and had politely declined. Vice Chairperson Ugorowski stated what had been done with the existing house was wonderful and not destructive to the property. He suggested if water displacement in the floodplain was a concern, a post structure with break away flood panels would allow the water to flow freely through the site. Mr. Amsden stated he thought they could make the pervious and semi-pervious parking areas drain into the detention pond through site grading. Engineer Heaston responded it had been approved with that grading plan through the floodplain permitting process; he noted if it was not cool as proposed, the Engineering Department would require the necessary modifications. Mr. Curtis asked if it had been established with certainty that the watercourse setback could be reduced by the Planning Director. Chairperson Pomnichowski responded it had not. Recording Secretary Tara Hastie sought clarity from Assistant Planning Director Saunders regarding the legal interpretation of the U.D.O. and clarified the section of the code pertinent to the Administrative decision to reduce the required watercourse setback. Chairperson Pomnichowski suggested the item should be opened and continued to the next meeting of the BOA until clarification of the U.D.O. by the City Attorney could be obtained with regard to whether or not the Planning Director could legally reduce the required watercourse setback; she noted the BOA’s findings were first for public safety and welfare. Mr. Sypinski added that if the options were denial or waiting a month, the applicant would likely prefer to wait a month for the possibility of approval. Mr. Amdsen concurred that waiting would be better than being denied and added that he had spent $1,000’s of dollars improving the aesthetic of the property with the work that had been completed and asked the BOA to keep that in mind. MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to open and continue Lindley Home COA/DEV #Z-08207 to the next meeting of the BOA. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Vice Chairperson Ugorowski, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Sypinski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY-LAWS Mr. Curtis noted there were not any substantial changes being made to the existing by-laws other than common sense and updating. Chairperson Pomnichowski concurred. MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Vice Chairperson Ugorowski seconded, to approve the amendments to the By-Laws as presented. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Vice Chairperson Ugorowski, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Sypinski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the BOA, the meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m. ______________________________ J.P. Pomnichowski, Chairperson City of Bozeman Board of Adjustment