Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-08 Board of Adjustment Minutes.docBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 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 Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Patricia Jamison Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner Ed Sypinski Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary JP Pomnichowski Ed Ugorowski Richard Lee Members Absent Cole Robertson Dan Curtis Commission Liaison Jeff Rupp Visitors Present Marty Serena Heidi Parkes Ken Thorsen ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 2008 MOTION: Ms. Jamison moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve the minutes of November 20, 2008 as presented. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Mr. Lee, 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 5. AMENDMENT TO BOA BY-LAWS Item 5 was moved to allow time for the preparation of the presentation of the Project Review by Staff. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated a question had come up regarding Ms. Jamison’s term not being in compliance with the by-laws as written. She noted the UDO allowed her term to be renewed as long as she met one of three criteria. Ms. Jamison responded she met one of the criteria as she did work in the City. Chairperson Pomnichowski noted the proposed amendment would reflect the language of the UDO. Vice Chairperson Ugorowski joined the BOA. MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Lee seconded, to amend the by-laws as proposed. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Sypinski, Vice Chairperson Ugorowski, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being none. 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Clarke Addition/ADU COA/DEV #Z-08271 (Bristor) 538 North Black Avenue * A Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations Application to allow the construction of an addition to the existing single-household residence a new detached garage with a 2nd floor Accessory Dwelling Unit with related site improvements. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting the location of the property and its zoning designation. She noted the applicant had proposed the removal of the rear addition and the construction of a new addition in the same location. She explained the residence had been altered over the years and had included the addition and likely window replacement. She directed the BOA to renderings of the proposed site plan and described the two Deviations being requested; one Deviation to allow an ADU on a lot less than 60 feet in width, the second to allow the accessory structure to exceed one and one-half story in height. She stated the code currently defined a half story as a side wall of five feet or less and the shed roof proposed would surpass that definition; she noted the code line was written more for a gable shaped roof and the shed roof was a different circumstance. An additional Deviation was found during review; the accessory structure exceeds 20% in rear lot coverage. She noted the UDO restricted accessory structures to two Deviations. The last Deviation would be included as a condition of approval from Staff. She noted the original portion of the house would have a new foundation and basement. She also noted that Staff encouraged the construction of an addition to the rear of the structure. She stated Staff was supportive of the proposal and was supportive of the accessory structure design if the footprint was decreased as noted in Staff conditions of approval. Ms. Jamison asked the owner of the parking area on the site. Planner Bristor responded she thought it was the applicant’s property. Mr. Serena responded the neighbor to the south owned the parking area. Mr. Lee asked what the size of the garage would need to be to comply with the 20% lot coverage requirement. Ms. Bristor stated she didn’t know the exact size, but the 20% requirement typically created 600 square foot footprints. Mr. Sypinski asked what would happen if the applicant chose not to go along with the Staff condition of approval regarding the footprint reduction. Ms. Bristor responded only two Deviations could be granted and if the applicant was not amenable to Staff conditions of approval, the proposal would need to be altered. Marty Serena, the applicant’s representative, joined the BOA. He noted the second floor of the existing rear addition of the house was difficult to occupy due to the lack of head space. He noted the original Craftsman home had been in keeping with the neighborhood but the condition of the addition was questionable and made the home cumbersome. He noted the rear addition would be removed and the original cottage home would be opened up for a kitchen/dining area with a one-story height to help maintain daylight and visual access to the neighbors. He noted the property owner had no intention of going more than the allowable 20% rear lot coverage and were amenable to Staff conditions. He noted the applicant had intended to collect rainwater and use it for irrigation of the property and noted they had tried to be respectful of the architecture within the neighborhood character. He directed the BOA to views of the property from different directions. He stated selective shots had been included to show the applicant had been respectful of the neighboring views of sites adjacent. He presented proposed building elevations that would maintain the integrity of the original Craftsman home. He noted which materials were proposed to be used and that they would be natural with vegetative roofs included. He noted the butterfly roof helped to reduce the massing of the project, helped conceal the solar panels, and created a cistern for the collection of rain water. He stated that because of the small/narrow lot width, the portion of built environment to green environment was important to the property owner. He stated the butterfly roof intertwining would almost be like having two buildings and would help the structure stay in keeping with the existing neighborhood. He noted the railings would create detail as architectural elements and would help create articulation and textural changes that would reduce the visual impact. Mr. Sypinski asked the proposed height of the ADU. Planner Bristor responded it would be slightly more than 20 feet high. Mr. Serena responded it would be roughly 22 feet in height. Vice Chairperson Ugorowski asked how the French door on the east elevation would fit into the second floor plan in the original dwelling. Mr. Serena responded the space would be opened up and a shed roof element would be included. Vice Chairperson Ugorowski noted the French door would not go anywhere. Mr. Serena concurred that the proposed French door would be more of a window/light space. Mr. Lee asked if the applicant had reduced the footprint to what had been addressed in Staff conditions. Mr. Serena responded it had not been depicted, but the applicant was amenable to reducing the footprint. Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the public comment portion of the meeting. Ken Thorsen, 617 East Lamme Street, stated he was excited to see the drawings and it would be a unique building that would be a blueprint for generations to come due to the sustainability features included. He stated he thought it would be a great project to see in Bozeman. Seeing no further public comment forthcoming, Chairperson Pomnichowski closed the public comment period. Chairperson Pomnichowski noted the Staff Report included language regarding atypical construction for the proposal and how those criteria in the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District had been met. Planner Bristor responded the new construction would be discernible from the old construction, Staff had found the proposal to be in keeping with appropriate massing and scale, and the applicant had used the length of the lot to the best advantage; she noted Staff’s main concern was maintaining the streetscape (specifically Black Avenue). She noted the contemporary form with the use of traditional materials was in keeping with the intent of the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Because the house is very simple in design, the addition design could have distinguishable construction or similar construction; both would meet the requirements of the Secretary of Interior Standards. Chairperson Pomnichowski suggested Staff be more cohesive in their decisions regarding whether or not new construction should be more or less distinguishable from the existing. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the single-family home would remain single-family. Mr. Serena responded it would remain single-family. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the ADU would be a rental. Mr. Serena responded the ADU would be for the family’s use and would not be rented. Mr. Lee stated he liked the proposed butterfly roof being multi-purpose (reduces massing and helps collect rainwater) and that it is included in the ADU design for a reason. Mr. Sypinski reiterated Staff remarks regarding the façade’s presentation to Peach Street and noted the view from Peach Street would not afford a view of the original home as the real visual impact would be the new construction on the property. Planner Bristor responded the lot did not technically front Peach Street. Staff would not have been supportive of primary residence design elements being included on an accessory structure. She noted Staff had discussed the idea of including windows on the first floor of the garage but had decided instead to be more attentive to the proposed materials. She noted the second story massing would provide an offset from the first to the second floor levels. She noted there was a little more flexibility in this area of town because it is outside of a Historic District, but each proposal would be reviewed independently. Vice Chairperson Ugorowski stated he thought the shed roof over the proposed French door would impact both the north and south elevations as it tied into the existing gable roof form. He suggested it would have been nice to see the shed roof on the elevations to see how it would impact the form. He suggested the French door/shed roof not tie into the highest point of the roof. Mr. Serena agreed and suggested it would be more of a window than a door. Ms. Jamison stated she had found the alley to be constraining and asked if the proposal met the rear yard setback requirements. Planner Bristor responded the proposal did meet the setback requirements and there was a 20 foot alley in that location that would be adequate for maneuverability. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she was supportive of the Deviation request for lot width and height. She agreed with Staff’s findings that the lot was subdivided prior to current zoning/subdivision standards. She noted the application materials were stunning and she liked the innovations instituted on the site (natural planting roof, water collection, solar panels). She stated she had a grave concern due to the number of Deviations requested and noted that Deviations granted as conditions of approval should not be approved by the BOA; she suggested Planner Bristor notify Staff that when additional Deviations are found, a new project review should be required (per City Legal Staff’s recommendation). She noted she was supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions. MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Lee seconded, to approve Clarke Addition/ADU COA/DEV #Z-08271 with Staff conditions. The motion carried 4-1 with those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Vice Chairperson Ugorowski, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Jamison; those voting nay being Mr. Sypinski. Mr. Sypinski reiterated Chairperson Pomnichowski’s comments regarding the number of requested Deviations. 2. Lueck Intensification/Duplex COA/DEV #Z-08269 (Bristor) 522 North Willson Avenue * A Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations Application to allow the legalization of an existing basement apartment on a lot with less than the minimum lot area requirements. Mr. Sypinski left the BOA as he had a prior engagement. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting the location of the proposal and its zoning designation. She stated the applicant was requesting the legalization of an existing basement studio apartment so the structure could operate as a two-household residence. She stated the residence was best described as a non-conforming. She noted the applicant had contacted Staff to discuss the possibility of making the basement legal to rent. Staff reviewed the preliminary request and decided to offer support because of the minimum lot area shortage and the small size of the house. She noted Staff was supportive of the proposal and noted the existing square footage of the lot was 5,700 sq. ft. and was only 289 sq. ft. short of the required square footage for a two-household structure. She noted Staff had conditioned the removal of the kitchen for the Maxwell House Site Plan with Deviations review (this application referred to the original lot at 522 North Willson Avenue prior to subdivision). She noted the primary discussion of the original proposal by the City Commission had been focused on the construction of a new residence on a newly subdivided lot. She stated the parking for both units would not be accommodated on site (the reason for the second Deviation), but would be accommodated using both on site and on street parking. She noted a new policy had been established with regard to the removal of illegal basement apartments; the Code Enforcement Officer now requires the removal of the entire kitchen (stove, refrigerator) and only allowing a bar sink. She directed the BOA to the Land Use Map and the locations of existing two- and three- household residences near the site. She noted one letter of public comment in opposition had been received and had addressed the prior Site Plan Application as well as parking concerns. Vice Chairperson Ugorowski asked how the shared property line works with regard to the location of the front and rear yards. Planner Bristor responded that during the Maxwell Site Plan review, the Planning Director determined the rear yard would be the south side of the property as the site was a corner lot. Vice Chairperson Ugorowski asked if the address would typically signify the front of the property. Ms. Bristor responded it would typically be the front but required yard locations on corner lots are reviewed independently on a site to site basis; a lot has to provide a 20 foot rear yard setback somewhere on the property. Vice Chairperson Ugorowski asked if when the parcel was subdivided it had been for two single-family residences. Planner Bristor responded it had originally been intended for two single-family residences, but at this time Staff was supportive of the lot area Deviation request to re-establish a basement apartment. Ms. Jamison asked for clarification with regard to the address for the property. Planner Bristor responded the applicant could choose to have A or B designations for the new apartment and the property had not been legally used as a duplex so had not been issued a separate address. Ms. Jamison asked if the egress and other Building Department requirements had been met. Planner Bristor responded they had been met but would be reviewed again through the Building Department. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked about the new policy regarding the removal of illegal apartments. Planner Bristor responded that features that could promote someone living in a separated room/area would be required to be removed (for example, separate exterior door, kitchen, etc.). Mr. Lee asked if there was a demand for apartments in Bozeman. Planner Bristor responded that a variety of sizes in apartments was desirable and the need for those apartments would be a greater discussion, though as a renter, she saw a need for smaller affordable apartments. Vice Chairperson Ugorowski asked if parking was allowed on the street. Planner Bristor responded parking was allowed on both Willson Avenue and Peach Street. Vice Chairperson Ugorowski asked for clarification of the condition of approval included in the Staff Report regarding complaints about the site. Planner Bristor responded that Code Enforcement would respond to any complaints received regarding the property. If Code Enforcement felt that a significant amount of complaints were received, Planning Staff could revisit the apartment in a new application review. Heidi Parkes, applicant’s representative, joined the BOA. She stated the owner of the property lived in Arizona and had purchased the home as a seasonal second residence. She noted he had chosen the home based on the location and was aware that the basement apartment was illegally installed. She noted the previous tenants had wanted to re-occupy the structure and the owner was attempting to legally allow the occupancy. She stated the owner would be there seasonally and would monitor the parking situation and noted one of the potential tenants did not own a car. Mr. Lee asked for clarification on how close the lot size was to the requirement for a two-household structure. Planner Bristor responded the applicant was only 289 sq. ft. short of the requirement. Ms. Jamison noted the letter of public comment had stated the prior owner had been required to remove the basement living space prior to approval of the Building Permit and asked if that had been the case. Planner Bristor responded the removal of the kitchen had been a condition of the Maxwell Site Plan approval but the stove had been reinstalled without Planning approval. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked Ms. Parkes if the home or apartment was currently occupied. Ms. Parkes responded the house was listed since June 3, 2008 and thought the basement apartment had been vacant since that time. Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the public comment portion of the meeting. Seeing none forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. Chairperson Pomnichowski noted the history of the Board of Adjustment and its jurisdiction. She noted the City Commission approval had included the removal of the basement apartment and she was reluctant to overturn the decision of the City Commission as they were the acting Board of Adjustment at the time of the approval. She suggested a deed restriction be instituted on the site and noted the condition of the City Commission approval had not been satisfied (to not permit a basement apartment). Mr. Lee stated he hesitated to make the current owner suffer for the previous owner’s actions and he saw it as nearly a large enough lot. Vice Chairperson Ugorowski stated it seemed to be a method of skirting the law, though he agreed with Mr. Lee that the current owner should not be punished. Mr. Lee asked if the Deviation had been requested for the apartment in the Maxwell Site Plan Application. Planner Bristor responded no Deviation had been requested for the apartment in the original review and noted the previous property owner’s realtor had specifically called out the illegal basement apartment. Mr. Lee noted a Deviation had not been requested by the applicant in the original approval though it could have been requested. Planner Bristor clarified for the BOA that the condition of approval to remove the basement apartment had been recommended by Planning Staff and not the City Commission. She further clarified that the Maxwell Site Plan Application involved a different lot (the 522 North Willson Avenue lot prior to subdivision) and that the previous Site Plan Application had been to permit a new house on the rear of the lot. Vice Chairperson Ugorowski noted that unnecessary hardship would be a reason to grant the Deviation request and asked the Board to discuss whether or not the proposal had demonstrated hardship. The Board concurred that hardship had not been demonstrated as the owner was aware of the illegality of the structure. Chairperson Pomnichowski suggested a deed restriction be imposed on the site to disallow a basement apartment. MOITON: Ms. Jamison moved, Mr. Lee seconded, to approve Lueck Intensification/Duplex COA/DEV #Z-08269 with Staff conditions. The motion failed 1-3 with those voting aye being Mr. Lee; those voting nay being Vice Chairperson Ugorowski, Chairperson Pomnichowski, and Ms. Jamison. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she would not be able to attend the first few meetings of the 2009 season of the BOA and election of officers would occur on one of the first agendas. She asked that her packets be delivered anyway. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the BOA, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. ______________________________ JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson City of Bozeman Board of Adjustment