HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-10 Board of Adjustment Minutes
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2010
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski called the meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order at 6:01
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 Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner
Dan Curtis Tim Cooper, City Attorney
Pat Jamison Chris Saunders, Interim Planning Director
Richard Lee Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Caroline Adams
Cole Robertson
Chris Mehl, Commission Liaison
Members Absent Visitors Present
JP Pomnichowski Rob Campbell
Pamela Olyphant
Lewis Gordon
Rebecca Forbes
Dana Ostermiller
Marty Ostermiller
Karin Broughton
Matt Broughton
Jennifer Grisman
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2010
MOTION:
Mr. Curtis moved, Mr. Lee seconded, to approve the minutes of April 13, 2010 as
The motion carried 6-0
presented. . Those voting aye being Mr. Lee, Ms. Jamison, Mr. Curtis,
Ms. Adams, Mr. Robertson, and Chairperson Pro Tem 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
Board of Adjustment Minutes – May 11, 2010
1. Pickard Remodel/ADU COA/DEV #Z-10068 (
Kramer)
410 West Curtiss Street
* A Certificate of Appropriateness with a Deviation Application to allow
remodel of the existing residence and the construction of a new garage
with an Accessory Dwelling Unit above and a deviation to allow less than
the required minimum lot width.
Assistant Planner Courtney Kramer presented the Staff Report noting the scope of the proposal
and directing the Board to the location and zoning designation of the property as well as its
position within the Cooper Park Historic District. She stated the request was for a second story
addition to the existing residence as well as the proposed demolition of the existing rear garage
and construction of a new garage with a second story accessory dwelling unit. She stated the
Deviation request was for less than the minimum required lot width with regard to the Accessory
Dwelling Unit above the garage. She stated Staff had found the proposed height appropriate for
the neighborhood and the ordinance required the accessory structure to be subordinate to the
principle structure. She stated the garage would be one of the taller buildings along the alley, but
was the smallest accessory structure with habitable space that the Planning Department had
reviewed since Planner Kramer’s employment. She stated Staff had concerns that the proposed
elevations were lacking detail and a condition of approval had been included to address the issue.
She stated the setbacks for the principle structure would be maintained at a larger distance than
required by the ordinance. She stated Staff found the relationship of building masses and scale to
be appropriate in reference to the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the width of the
proposed rehabilitation to be in keeping with the context of the neighborhood. She stated Staff
had recommended a large porch be installed on the front of the residence to help soften the mass
of the building and step down to the street.
Planner Kramer stated the accessory structure would be 19.8 feet in height and the proposed
width of the dormer indicated a two story structure; Staff had recommended the appearance of a
one story building be sought by limiting the width of the sidewall dormers to half the width of the
gable proposed in order to minimize the visual impact. She noted the 12:12 gable pitch for the
proposed roof pitch and added that it was a reflection of attempting to keep the building as short
as possible while maximizing the usable space. She stated the principle residence faced the street
and a full width porch would help emphasize the front façade. She stated the rehabilitated
residence would have minimum architectural details, which was appropriate for the
neighborhood, and the proposed lap siding, shutters, and gables would help accentuate the
building. She stated Staff found the side elevations stark and had suggested a second material be
included to break up the mass of the façade. She stated the accessory building would have more
architectural detail than the primary building and included a “belly band” to help break up the
mass of the structure. She stated Preservation Staff had looked on the project as an approved
demolition with an opportunity to salvage some of the materials. She stated Staff had found that
the existing garage did not contribute to the Cooper Park Historic District.
2
Board of Adjustment Minutes – May 11, 2010
Planner Kramer stated the Bozeman Municipal Code identified three criteria for granting
deviation requests; she listed those items and stated Staff had found that the proposal would be
more historically appropriate, would have minimal adverse affects on abutting properties, and
minimum impact on health, safety, or public welfare. She stated the lot met the minimum lot area
requirements and noted public comment had been received regarding shading of neighboring
structures which the Unified Development Ordinance did not specifically address. She stated
concerns had been raised regarding the loss of privacy to the neighbors and the code allowed the
height that had been proposed. She stated the residence would have a maximum of three
bedrooms and the accessory building would have one bedroom so the parking requirements would
be satisfied. She stated there had been some concern with regard to counting the parking stall
within the garage; the minimum dimensions for the parking stall were not met. She stated Staff
had included a condition of approval with regard to increasing the size of the parking stall within
the accessory building so that it could be counted toward the parking requirements. She stated if
the Board allowed the accessory use on the site, the condition of approval regarding the parking
stall in the accessory building would be necessary. She directed the Board to a rendering of lot
and alley configurations near the site. She stated the maximum number of vehicle trips affecting
the alley would be 9 ½ per day – per the City Engineering Department. She stated Staff was
supportive of the proposal as presented with Staff conditions of approval. She stated she had
outlined a number of options if the Board disagreed with Staff.
Ms. Jamison thanked Planner Kramer for preparing such an excellent Staff Report. She asked the
height of the existing garage. Ms. Pickard responded the existing garage was 15 feet in height.
Mr. Robertson stated the parking calculations were not clear in the Staff Report and asked if the
parking requirements would be met with the condition of approval from Staff regarding the stall
size in the accessory building. Planner Kramer responded Mr. Robertson was correct.
Mr. Mehl asked if the City was requiring a larger building while the community was asking for a
smaller building. Planner Kramer responded Mr. Mehl was correct as the parking stall did not
meet the minimum size requirements and the structure would need to be enlarged to
accommodate the minimum size. Mr. Mehl asked if the application had been deemed complete
by Staff. Planner Kramer responded the application had been deemed complete. Mr. Mehl
reiterated the application would be compliant with setbacks, traffic, parking, etc. if the conditions
of approval were satisfied; the real issue would be the lot width. Planner Kramer responded Mr.
Mehl was correct.
Mr. Lee asked why public comment was asked for if pubic comment was not used to weigh the
decision. Planner Kramer responded that some issues called out in public comment were
addressed by the UDO but some were not addressed; she added that public comment should be
used to help weigh the decision but should not be the basis for the decision.
Mr. Robertson asked if there was a square footage calculation with regard to increasing the size of
accessory building. Planner Kramer responded there had been square footage calculations done
3
Board of Adjustment Minutes – May 11, 2010
with the inclusion of the condition of approval regarding expanding the interior stall dimension
and the total size of the accessory building; the maximum length would be 24 feet. Mr. Robertson
asked if the required setbacks would be encroached upon with the lengthening of the structure.
Planner Kramer responded the required setbacks would still be observed and the structure would
remain under the minimum required height; the north wall would need to be relocated.
Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski stated he did not see any of the recommended design changes in
Staff conditions of approval. Mr. Robertson responded the conditions of approval were on page
20 of the Staff Report. Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski asked for clarification that the definition of
a garage included the parking stall dimensions. Interim Director Saunders responded the
definition included “storage of a vehicle” and because of the physical relationship of parking in a
parking lot there would need to be room to open the vehicle door and exit; a parking spot within a
garage would also need to accommodate exiting the vehicle. Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski
stated there would be 6 or 7 feet difference in height between the principle and accessory
structures and asked when the accessory structure’s height was considered subordinate to the
principle structure. Planner Kramer responded Staff had determined that a subordinate structure
had to be a minimum of one foot of difference to be considered subordinate. Chairperson Pro
Tem Sypinski asked if the maximum size allowable for the ADU was 600 sq. ft. Interim Director
Saunders responded the maximum size allowable for the ADU for the site’s zoning designation
was 600 sq. ft.
Ms. Adams asked if there would be room for parking and egress in the space for the accessory
building as the doors would open that direction. Planner Kramer responded she had not thought
of that issue and stated the Board could include a condition of approval to require the doors swing
the other way or could assume that the owner would prevent the doors from impeding the parking.
Rhonda and Cory Pickard addressed the BOA. Mrs. Pickard stated they knew that they wanted an
ADU on the property and had wanted it located specifically downtown. She stated their intention
was to comply with the ordinance and Planner Kramer had been a great help to them though it
was surprising to find out their lot was short in width by seven feet. She stated they wanted the
option to have a rental space to help them monetarily during the current economy. She stated the
issue with the neighbors seemed to be if the tenant in the ADU would be long term or just
temporary; they wanted it to be long term. She stated they were in agreement with all of Staff’s
recommendations as the project had been redesigned three times already. She stated the height
difference between the existing house and the accessory building was Staff’s suggestion. She
stated when the house was purchased an inspection report had indicated that the roof was failing
on both the residence and the garage. She stated they felt they had tried to take the neighbor’s
concerns into consideration. She stated the gable windows along the alley could be smaller and
they were open to all the suggestions made by Staff. She stated the first floor of the main house
would remain unchanged, only the second floor would be modified. She added they were trying
to give their neighbors privacy, but the City had required more windows. Mr. Pickard added that
the doors of the garage would not cause difficulty with the parking as they would swing open in
the opposite direction. Mrs. Pickard emphasized their desire to work with the City and the
4
Board of Adjustment Minutes – May 11, 2010
neighbors. Mr. Pickard added they liked the downtown and wanted to invest in it to help improve
downtown Bozeman. Planner Kramer added that the Board could open and continue the approval
of the accessory structure if necessary.
Mr. Robertson asked the number of bedrooms in the main house. Mrs. Pickard responded there is
currently one bedroom on the main floor with one room proposed on the second floor; she added
they had not decided if they should include a third bedroom on the second floor in the residence.
Ms. Jamison asked the total square footage of the house after the rehabilitation. Mr. Pickard
responded the main floor was 1,000 sq. ft. with roughly 1,700 sq. ft. proposed for the second
floor.
Mr. Lee stated one of the letters addressed the existing parking area and asked how the parking
would be usable if it was already full. Mr. Pickard responded the existing stalls would be used.
Mrs. Pickard added that the area had been filled with rock and would easily accommodate the
vehicles they currently owned.
Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski opened the public comment portion of the meeting.
Rob Campbell, 411 W. Koch Street, stated the proposed remodel looked well thought out and
would significantly help the neighborhood. He stated his objections were specific to the ADU
and intensification of residential use on the property. He stated the Pickards had indicated the
ADU would be a guest space. He stated the larger concern of creating a rental space was a
question of setting a precedent; he suggested everyone along the alley could be allowed the
dwelling. He suggested the setback be reconsidered as 6 feet would not be enough for vehicle
maneuverability. He suggested the Board deny the deviation request and select option #2 from
the Staff Report.
th
Matthew Broughton, 315 S. 4 Avenue, stated the reference to a more historically relevant
structure did not apply to the proposal. He stated there were carriage houses on the same street
and his house had been surrounded by accessory buildings. He stated the neighboring properties
did not have to go through the same review process and this type of construction would have
negative impacts on the neighborhood. He stated the traffic increase would have affect for
adjacent properties as his house had been hit a number of times. He stated he would feel terrible
if the outcome of the project was the ADU being constructed and the property sold.
th
Marty Ostermiller, 311 S. 4 Avenue, stated the building would look directly into their dining
room. He stated instead of sitting on the porch and enjoying the evening the large structure would
be blocking those views. He stated there were certain codes in the books to prevent the type of
construction on the site. He stated the exceptions being made to the rules will change the way
they live as a result of the construction. He stated the two main concerns he had were the impact
to their privacy and the safety of their children on the street.
5
Board of Adjustment Minutes – May 11, 2010
th
Pamela Olephant, 414 S. 4 Avenue, stated when the house was built higher and the accessory
structure built behind it, she would feel squished in.
th
Dana Ostermiller, 311 S. 4 Avenue, stated her primary concern was the additional traffic with
regard to the safety of her children.
Rebecca Forbes, 407 W. Koch Street, stated she was opposed to the deviation request for the
ADU. She clarified that the neighbors were not creating an uprising and they intended no malice.
She stated the ADU was a bad idea. She stated none of the neighbors agreed that the proposal
would help the neighborhood and added that the owners had operated a home based business from
their back yard and those items had recently been mysteriously removed. She stated Mr. Pickard
also frequently loaded and unloaded vehicles during the day which did not jive with the traffic
counts provided by the City Engineering Department. She stated Mr. Pickard had hit their fence a
number of times and the applicants had not been forthright with regard to their intentions for the
ADU. She stated the only constant had been that the owners had not followed the rules with
regard to their property.
Jennifer Grisman, 411 West Koch Street, stated the main point was whether or not the proposal
would be a minimal impact on the neighbors and she did not think the impacts would be minimal.
She stated some of the windows would look right into the neighbor’s back yard.
th
Karin Broughton, 315 S. 4 Avenue, stated she thought remodeling the house and rebuilding the
garage would be a great idea but she did not think the ADU was a good idea. She stated her
primary concern was safety with regard to increased traffic.
Lewis Gordon, 407 W. Koch Street, asked the Board to review the map he had provided with his
public comment submittal. He stated it was easy for someone that didn’t live there to classify the
proposal as having no negative impacts or minimal impacts. He stated he did not object to the
second story on the main residence or the construction of a new garage; it was really a house
masquerading as a garage. He stated the law only allowed the proposal if the law was bent and
the exception was made. He stated all of the properties in the area would have to block the view
of the house. He asked why the rights of the many were being ignored when the owner had no
right to build the structure. He stated the proposal was black and white and was an over the top
request.
Seeing no further public comment forthcoming, the public comment portion of the meeting was
closed.
Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski reiterated the five review criteria for members of the public. He
stated he found the application to be in keeping with the review criteria as set forth in the UDO.
Mr. Curtis stated he had two issues with the application; modifications to the existing residence
and construction of a secondary structure, and the legalization of an ADU. He stated there were a
6
Board of Adjustment Minutes – May 11, 2010
considerable number of questions with regard to design. He stated it had become apparent that
the neighbors found the proposal would negatively impact their properties.
Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski asked for clarification of whether the COA was separate from the
deviation request. Planner Saunders responded Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski was correct.
Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski suggested the Board separate the COA request from the deviation
request.
Mr. Robertson stated he found the application hard to follow even though a tremendous amount
of time had been put into the proposal. He stated he struggled with the lack of information and
the vagueness of the conditions of approval. Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski stated the conditions
of approval were necessary for any proposal and the application could not be decided without
them.
Mr. Lee clarified that just the primary residence was being discussed at this time. Chairperson
Pro Tem Sypinski responded Mr. Lee was correct.
Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski stated he found the proposal to be in keeping with the review
criteria and in conformance with the development standards. He suggested the Board discuss the
ADU separately.
Mr. Curtis stated he had several issues with the ADU; the size of the lot being a considerable
amount less than required, the ADU would have to be above the garage and not on the main level,
and the parking requirements.
Mr. Lee stated he hesitated to call the proposal a garage as the residential aspect of the structure
would be primary.
Mr. Robertson asked for clarification of which review criteria he should be referencing. Attorney
Cooper responded the criteria were on page 14 of the Staff Report.
Mr. Mehl asked Planner Kramer to reiterate the R-2 Zoning Designation. Planner Kramer
explained.
Ms. Jamison stated the project had been determined to generally meet review criteria 3 and asked
if there was something more specific that could be explained by Staff. Planner Kramer responded
that with the findings and discussion also contained in the Staff Report the application did meet
the criteria as it would be difficult to say that there would be no affect on surrounding properties
at all, but there would be a minimal adverse affect.
Ms. Adams stated she thought it would be important to keep in mind that not only the health,
safety, and welfare of the neighbors, but the community as a whole should be considered.
7
Board of Adjustment Minutes – May 11, 2010
Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski stated the parking was a concern for him and the minimal adverse
affect to the abutting properties with regard to the use. He stated the Board was unsure if the four
parking spaces required would be met as they did not know how many bedrooms would be
included in the proposal.
City Attorney Cooper stated if the first option passes, the discussion would be over; he suggested
the preferred option could be included in the motion.
Ms. Jamison asked if the code provisions for home based businesses as detailed in the Staff
Report had anything to do with the proposal under BOA review. Attorney Cooper responded that
the home based business was not a part of the application and would be required to be located in
the primary residence at such a time as it was requested. Interim Director Saunders responded a
home based business would have to be located in the principle building and would need to be
reviewed through a separate application process.
MOTION
: Mr. Curtis moved, Ms. Adams seconded, to approve Pickard Remodel/ADU
The motion failed 0-6.
COA/DEV #Z-10068Staff option #1with Staff conditions of approval.
Those voting aye being none; those voting nay being Mr. Lee, Ms. Jamison, Mr. Curtis, Ms.
Adams, Mr. Robertson, and Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski.
MOTION
: Mr. Lee moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to approve Pickard Remodel/ADU
COA/DEV #Z-10068 Staff option #2 with Staff conditions of approval.
Ms. Adams asked if option #2 were approved, would the garage have to meet the minimum
standards of the ordinance regarding the size of the parking stall. Interim Director Saunders
responded it would not be pertinent.
Mr. Lee suggested the removal of the kitchen be included in the motion. Interim Director
Saunders responded the kitchen would not be allowed without the approval of the ADU.
AMENDMENT
: Ms. Adams moved to include a condition of approval to require a usable
parking space in the accessory building. No second was forthcoming, the amendment failed.
Mr. Lee stated he had assumed that recommending option #2 included all of Staff conditions.
Attorney Cooper responded Mr. Lee was correct.
The motion carried 5-1.
Those voting aye being Mr. Lee, Ms. Jamison, Ms. Adams, Mr.
Robertson, and Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski; those voting nay being Mr. Curtis.
ITEM 5. Briefing by City Attorney (As necessary.)
No items were forthcoming.
8
Board of Adjustment Minutes – May 11, 2010
ITEM 6. Briefing by Planning Staff (As necessary.)
Interim Director Chris Saunders invited the BOA to attend a training session on May 18, 2010 @
5:30 p.m. at the Planning Office.
Chairperson Pro Tem Sypinski asked Interim Director Saunders how the Commission bus tour
went. Interim Director Saunders responded he thought the tour went well.
ITEM 7. NEW BUSINESS
There were no items forthcoming.
ITEM 8. F.Y.I.
There were no items forthcoming.
ITEM 9.ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the BOA, the meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
______________________________
Ed Sypinski, Chairperson Pro Tem
City of Bozeman Board of Adjustment
9
Board of Adjustment Minutes – May 11, 2010