HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-10 Board of Adjustment Minutes
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pomnichowski called the meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order at 6:00 p.m.
in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and
directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Ed Sypinski Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Dan Curtis Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner
JP Pomnichowski Keri Thorpe, Assistant Planner
Richard Lee Tim Cooper, City Attorney
Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Members Absent Visitors Present
Patricia Jamison Mitch Bradley
Cole Robertson Chris Mehl
Gordon Mundt
Helen J. Frank
Shoel Ann Hargrove
Robert Hargrove
Shana Wood
Velma McMeekin
Anders Lewendal
Chairperson Pomnichowski noted the presence of a bare quorum and that any action taken by the
Board would need to be unanimous or it would fail.
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 9, 2010
MOTION:
Mr. Curtis moved, Vice Chairperson Sypinski seconded, to approve the minutes of
February 9, 2010 as presented. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson
Pomnichowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, and Vice Chairperson Sypinski; those voting nay being
none.
ITEM 3.PUBLIC COMMENT
– (15 – 20 minutes)
{Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Board Of Adjustment,
not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
There was no public comment forthcoming.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Frank Basement Apartment COA/DEV #Z-09236
(Thorpe)
1002 West Babcock Street
1
Board of Adjustment Minutes – March 9, 2010
* A Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations Application to allow the
legalization of the existing basement apartment and the installation of an
egress window and well with related site improvements.
Assistant Planner Keri Thorpe presented the Staff Report noting the project’s location and the
zoning designation of R-4 (Residential High Density District). She stated it had been brought to
City Staff’s attention that a dwelling unit had been included on the property and the Building
Division had required Life Safety Standards be met. She noted the Deviation request was to
allow the second dwelling with less than the required lot area. She directed the Board to adjacent
zoning designations. She noted she had brought floor plans if questions arose. She stated she
had provided two options for the BOA to decide upon, though they could add whatever
conditions they desired; the first option, should they choose to approve the Deviation, would
mean the tenant remains and the Building Division enforces Life-Safety Standards for a second
dwelling. She noted the second option would result in the eviction of the tenant and Life Safety
Standards would still be required to be met for a single-family dwelling. She stated the property
owner had been working with the Building and Planning Departments to bring the property up to
code.
Mr. Lee stated the drawing did not show the extension on the west side of the property and it
could not be seen in any of the photos; he asked why the extension had not been depicted.
Planner Thorpe responded she was uncertain the location Mr. Lee was referencing. Mr. Lee
responded he thought it was in the location depicted as a sun room. Planner Thorpe responded
the previous file for the sunroom was not conclusive, there was no Building Permit found, and it
appeared that it was a work in progress; she added Staff had found the sunroom to be approved.
Mr. Lee responded the sun room would change how much space was between the sunroom and
the property line. Planner Thorpe responded the location would be the corner side yard where
10.5 feet had been provided and 15 feet was what was actually required. Mr. Lee stated he had
noticed that every setback had been encroached upon and was in violation. Planner Thorpe
responded that the encroachments had been approved, but the storage room encroaching in the
rear yard was the only question in Staff’s mind, though they had no way of knowing when this
had been constructed. Mr. Lee stated his concern was that the drawing was incorrect. Planner
Thorpe responded that the site was as it had existed and that City Staff was aware of sun room
construction. No violation had been issued for the addition in question.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked when the basement apartment had been installed. Planner
Thorpe responded that Staff was uncertain of the exact time, but the owner had indicated the
apartment had been in use for 25 years. Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked if there was any way
to address the nonconformance on the site. Planner Thorpe responded Staff felt that
documenting the additional encroachments and no Notices of Violation had been issued. She
stated the additions to the garage had been approved by the BOA in 1979; the front porch
encroachment had been constructed in 1986 and had an approved Building Permit. Vice
Chairperson Sypinski clarified that the rear yard encroachment had been approved by the BOA.
Planner Thorpe responded he was correct and added the questionable encroachment was the rear
yard setback created by the area marked as storage.
Chairperson Pomnichowski noted the Staff Report contained detailed information regarding the
legalities of the nonconforming situations. She asked the distance between the intersection and
2
Board of Adjustment Minutes – March 9, 2010
the driveway. Planner Thorpe responded she had not actually measured the distance and she did
not know if the code would approve the distance currently, but the driveway and the parking
configuration was an existing condition approved by the BOA in 1979. Chairperson
Pomnichowski stated the standard was 330 feet and asked Planner Thorpe to measure the
distance. Mr. Lee responded the distance would be closer to 70 feet. Chairperson
Pomnichowski asked Staff to measure the distance and asked Interim Director Saunders to assist.
Gordon Mundt addressed the BOA. He stated he did not know the distance from the intersection
th
of 11 Avenue to the existing driveway; he did not know if there was 330 feet in the whole
block. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if Mr. Mundt had any further information regarding the
site. Mr. Mundt responded he did not have anything further, and asked Mr. Lee for clarification
of the location he did not think was depicted. Mr. Lee responded the location he was discussing
was near the sliding glass doors. Mr. Mundt clarified it was a shed roof with a stairway and was
roughly four feet in width.
Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the item for public comment. Seeing no public comment
forthcoming, the public comment period was closed.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked Planner Thorpe if the distance from the driveway to the
th
intersection of 11 Avenue had been measured. Planner Thorpe stated that the code provides an
exception from these sites developed before July 10, 2002; the standard is 40 feet. The distance
from the center of the intersection measures roughly 74 feet.
MOTION
: Vice Chairperson Sypinski moved, Mr. Curtis seconded, to approve Frank Basement
Apartment COA/DEV #Z-09236 with Staff conditions of approval.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated his findings were to deny the motion on the grounds that it did
not meet the review criteria as set forth and he did not think it met the purpose and intent of the
City zoning ordinance.
Mr. Lee stated he was concerned with the difference between the minimum lot size for a two
dwelling building and the actual size of the lot. He stated he thought there were too small of
yards already.
The motion failed 2-2
. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski and Mr. Curtis;
those voting nay being Vice Chairperson Sypinski and Mr. Lee.
2. Wood SHR/Garage COA/DEV #Z-10023
(Kramer)
506 East Cottonwood Street
* A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of a
new single-family residence with a two-car, detached garage and related
site improvements.
Assistant Planner Courtney Kramer presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was for an
infill development and the site was located within the Historic Mixed Use zoning designation.
She stated in 2006 a Site Plan had been approved to demolish the existing grain elevators to
make way for new construction of eight new single-household residences. She stated the
3
Board of Adjustment Minutes – March 9, 2010
original application had been approved with four Deviations. She stated a subsequent
modification had been approved to allow three bedroom dwellings and a three car garage had
also been approved for one of the houses. She stated the grain bin portion of the design was
allowed to encroach up to six feet from the property line. She stated the City Commission had
approved greater flexibility in design and had allowed the site to be developed with designs other
than what had originally been approved. She stated the applicant was requesting a Deviation to
allow an eight foot encroachment into the 20 foot required front yard setback. She stated the
HMU District was a combination of R-2 and M-1 zoning to reflect common uses in that district.
She stated most of the residences across from the site had a fifteen foot setback, if not less. She
stated no public comment had been received for the proposal and reiterated Staff conditions;
materials palette and prior to occupancy a plaque for the grain bins would need to be installed.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked for clarification that four of the lots were allowed the Deviation
with the original application and the project site was not included in those allowable deviations.
Planner Kramer responded he was correct. Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked if the application
before the Board had been included in the silo design. Planner Kramer responded the address
had not been granted the silo deviation. Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked the lot coverage for
the design. Planner Kramer responded the lot coverage had been included in the application; the
principle structure with the garage equals lot coverage of 27%.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked for clarification of the equal access agreement with regard to
the lot area requirements. Planner Kramer responded the situation was unusual and there were
not a lot of alleys that were a shared access easement; she stated the 50’X 20’ area had been
included in the lot coverage calculation; the property owner was still being charged taxes and
paid for the maintenance of the area. Mr. Curtis stated it was no different than calculating a
required utility easement which was a portion of the owner’s lot. Chairperson Pomnichowski
stated her concern was with the lot coverage requirements and asked Mr. Cooper to clarify.
Attorney Cooper responded that the easement was counted as a portion of the lot.
Shana Wood addressed the BOA. She stated she had no presentation prepared, but would be
available to answer questions.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if any discussions had been held regarding deeding the alley to
the City. Ms. Wood responded she had heard no discussions.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked if the applicant had investigated building a structure within the
ordinance as opposed to asking for a Deviation. Ms. Wood responded she wished she could say
it was a linear process, but they had fallen in love with the lot and had looked for a house that
would fit the lot, and decided that it would be too tight a fit without a Deviation if they wanted a
garage.
Mr. Lee stated he liked the design of the house and he thought it would be a great addition to
Bozeman.
Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the item for public comment.
Anders Lewendal addressed the BOA. He stated he owned some of the lots. He stated he and
4
Board of Adjustment Minutes – March 9, 2010
his wife were planning on building on the lot next door. He stated he thought the BOA would be
setting a precedent and asked if the BOA would approve similar Deviation requests for the rest
of the lots. Chairperson Pomnichowski responded the Board would not be commenting on
anything other than the application they had before them.
Velma McMeekin stated she lived across the street from the proposed development and asked
the BOA to please approve the requested Deviation as she thought the porch encroachment
would be appropriate.
Seeing no further public comment forthcoming, the public comment period was closed.
Mr. Curtis stated he found the requested modifications to be in keeping with the review criteria
as set forth in the UDO.
MOTION
: Mr. Curtis moved, Mr. Lee seconded to approve Wood SHR/Garage COA/DEV #Z-
10023 with Staff conditions of approval.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she found the proposal to be in keeping with the review
criteria and added that she was sensitive to the question of precedent and one of the first things
she was ever taught was that a Deviation was intended for a circumstance that could not be met
in any other way; this was a blank piece of land with a footprint that met the requirements for the
site other than the request for the porch. She stated she did not wish to set a precedent that the
allowance would apply elsewhere, but was aware the City Commission had granted differences
in design; she did not expect the application would stand as precedent setting.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated he disagreed that there would be no adverse affects on abutting
properties as they were currently vacant and the Board did not know what would be on the
property. He stated he would not be supporting the application. Chairperson Pomnichowski
responded that the situation on the ground now made it so the abutting properties would not be
adversely affected as they were vacant.
Mr. Lee asked the distance of the requested encroachment. Planner Kramer responded the
request was for 6 feet of an encroachment into the required front yard setback.
The motion failed 3-1 with Mr. Sypinski voting in opposition
. Those voting aye being
Chairperson Pomnichowski, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Curtis; those voting nay being Vice Chairperson
Sypinski.
3. Heeb’s Grocery Sign COA/DEV #Z-10005
(Bristor)
544 East Main Street
* A Certificate of Appropriateness with a Deviation Application to allow the
existing sign to be modified and to remain within the 15 foot required
setback.
Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting the original proposal was to
allow the existing signs to remain on the poles and a reduction in pole height. She stated the
business owner had agreed to modify the proposal after review by the Design Review Board
5
Board of Adjustment Minutes – March 9, 2010
which had suggested the historic integrity of the sign be maintained and the poles not be covered,
but painted black instead. She stated the Deviation would still be applicable as the pole itself
would need to be allowed to remain with the 15 foot required setback. She stated the applicant
had already removed the reader board, which had been a condition of approval for the prior
modifications made to the grocery building. She stated no public comment had been received
and Staff was supportive of the proposal as presented as the sign had been there for ~30 years.
She stated the sign height would be appropriate for public safety and would provide 8 feet in
clearance. She stated she would be happy to answer any questions the Board may have.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked the original height of the existing sign. Planner Bristor
responded the height was 26 feet. Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked if reader boards were
allowed in the future, would there be enough room to install one on the proposed sign design.
Planner Bristor responded the required eight feet clearance height would not leave room for a
reader board sign.
Mitch Bradley addressed the BOA. He stated he had no prepared statement and thanked Planner
Bristor for all her work on the proposal. He stated he thought it would be a shame to take away
the distinct and historic sign from downtown Bozeman. He stated it was important to him for the
sign to be out on the street as it made his business more obvious; the lower sign would be more
attractive and still maintain the character of downtown Bozeman. He thanked the BOA for the
opportunity.
Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the
public comment period was closed.
Mr. Curtis stated he found the application to be in keeping with the review criteria as set forth in
the UDO and would be appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood.
MOTION
: Mr. Curtis moved, Mr. Lee seconded, to approve Heeb’s Grocery Sign COA/DEV
#Z-10005 with Staff conditions.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski concurred that the application was in keeping with the review criteria
as set forth in the UDO.
Mr. Lee stated he thought, with the new construction of the Tire Rama store the sign, would be
more visible in the current location and would be appropriate for the site.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated it was very helpful to have the DRB minutes when
considering the application.
The motion carried 4-0.
Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Mr. Lee, Mr.
Curtis, and Vice Chairperson Sypinski; those voting nay being none.
ITEM 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Chairperson Pomnichowski opened nominations.
6
Board of Adjustment Minutes – March 9, 2010
Mr. Lee nominated Ms. Pomnichowski for Chairperson. Seeing no further nominations
forthcoming, nominations were closed. The nomination for Ms. Pomnichowski as Chairperson
carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Ms. Pomnichowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, and Mr. Sypinski;
those voting nay being none.
Mr. Curtis nominated Mr. Sypinski for Vice Chairperson. Seeing no further nominations
forthcoming, nominations were closed. The nomination for Mr. Sypinski as Vice Chairperson
carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Ms. Pomnichowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, and Mr. Sypinski;
those voting nay being none.
ITEM 6. Briefing by City Attorney (As necessary.)
Attorney Cooper stated have a nice Spring Break.
ITEM 7. Briefing by Planning Staff (As necessary.)
There were no items forthcoming.
ITEM 8. NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Mehl asked the Board for suggestions on possible BOA members. Chairperson
Pomnichowski responded that those who had sounded interested had never turned in an
application. Commissioner Mehl responded he would assist in recruitment as the Board members
were few, but strong.
ITEM 9. F.Y.I.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked Recording Secretary Hastie to direct Staff that too many
applications contained errors/omissions that should have been called out by Staff as the BOA was
seeing too many of those types of mistakes.
She stated questions and answers had occurred during Board discussion and directed Board
members to refrain from including Staff/applicant during those times as it was procedurally
inaccurate.
ITEM 10.ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the BOA, the meeting was adjourned at 7:27 p.m.
______________________________
JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Board of Adjustment
7
Board of Adjustment Minutes – March 9, 2010