HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12-10 Board of Adjustment Minutes
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2010
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pomnichowski called the meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order at 6:03 p.m.
in the City 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, Vice Chairperson Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Dan Curtis Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Richard Lee Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner
Pat Jamison Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Cole Robertson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson
Chris Mehl, Commission Liaison
Members Absent Visitors Present
Caroline Adams
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2010
MOTION:
Vice Chairperson Sypinski moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to approve the minutes
The motion carried 5-0
of September 14, 2010 as presented. . Those voting aye being Ms.
Jamison, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Lee, Chairperson Pomnichowski, 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.}
Seeing no general public comment forthcoming, the public comment period was closed.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Altemus/Salter CUP/DEV #Z-10241
(Bristor)
th
15-17 South 5 Avenue
* A Conditional Use Permit with a Deviation Application to allow the lawful
establishment of office use on the property with less than the required number of
parking spaces for the structure.
Opened and continued to 11/9/10 to allow the applicant to submit additional materials and more Staff
review time.
1
Board of Adjustment Minutes – October 12, 2010
Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, Chairperson
Pomnichowski opened and continued the item to the next meeting of the BOA.
2. Bar IX Creek Patio CUP/COA/DEV #Z-10200
(Bristor)
307-311 East Main Street
* A Conditional Use Permit with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application with
a Deviation to allow the after-the-fact approval of the installation of a concrete
patio/seating area within the required Bozeman Creek watercourse setback and to
allow the expansion of the alcohol serving area (for on-premise consumption) to
include the patio area. (Continued from 9/14/10.)
Associate Planner Allyson Bristor introduced the development noting the proposed project was a
Conditional Use Permit/COA with one deviation request.
Mr. Robertson joined the BOA.
Planner Bristor noted the proposal was for the after the fact approval of the concrete patio seating area and
noted the CUP was required to allow the expansion of the alcohol serving area to that concrete patio. She
noted the deviation was to allow the patio to be located within the required setback for Bozeman Creek.
She noted the BOA had reviewed a previous application for the on-premise consumption of alcohol for the
building interior and the existing rear deck; final approval was granted on April 1, 2010 after all applicable
conditions of approval and code provisions had been met. She stated there had been conditions regarding
the requirement of additional review and approval for outdoor seating in the watercourse setback; the
concrete pad had been installed without approval from the City north of the existing deck and west of the
creek; the owner was noticed of their violation and the proposal was their attempt at remediation. She
directed the BOA to photographs of the site and noted the location of the existing rear deck immediately
north of the building. She stated she had done a rough estimate of where the 35 foot setback exists and
noted that location on the site map. She stated the City’s Project Engineer was in attendance to answer any
questions pertaining to the floodway. She stated public notice had been given in the paper, posted on site,
and sent to adjoining property owners. She stated there had been two comments submitted by members of
the public. The first spoke to excessive noise from the bar’s front entrance; the police department had
been working with the property owner as well as the adjacent owner with the noise concern; the call
statistics indicated there were no immediate concerns with how the business was operating though the
owner was currently working with adjacent owner to mitigate the noise. She stated the police had visited
the site at night and identified the excessive noise coming from the Pita Pit and the Pourhouse as well as
Bar IX. The second letter of public comment spoke more to a civil dispute with the Bozeman Hotel
Owners Association; that issue is separate from the current application. She stated that Staff was
supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions of approval and found the site to be adequate in size and
location to accommodate outdoor seating and additional alcohol serving area. She stated the site was
larger than some of the downtown properties accommodating similar uses. She stated Staff had identified
specific conditions regarding public health, safety, and human welfare; she directed the BOA to page 4 of
the Staff Report.
Mr. Lee stated he was concerned about the small part of the property owned by the Bozeman Hotel and
asked how the proposal could be approved without the issue being settled. Planner Bristor responded the
ownership was not the issue regarding the current proposal as no part of the concrete patio was in question
as to ownership.
2
Board of Adjustment Minutes – October 12, 2010
Mr. Robertson asked if the original CUP approval had addressed the use of the patio and the ramp.
Planner Bristor responded the first CUP did not have exterior modifications proposed (no Certificate of
Appropriateness) but did include as a condition the requirement for additional approval for the seating area
in a watercourse setback. Mr. Robertson responded those items were outlined in the conditions of
approval. Planner Bristor responded the applicant was notified of those conditions. Mr. Robertson asked
if a Building Permit was submitted for the concrete pad. Planner Bristor responded the installation had
occurred near the time of Sweet Pea festival (first weekend of August 2010) and she didn’t believe the
Building Department approval had occurred.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked the procedure when an applicant violates conditions of approval.
Planner Bristor responded that typically a property owner is contacted and notified of a violation. In this
case, the applicant had been contacted and noticed of a violation. Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated he was
concerned that the applicant was not aware of the condition of approval. Planner Bristor responded Staff
was also concerned. Director McHarg added the patio itself did not require a Building Permit as it was
considered flatwork and noted it in no way spoke to the conditions of approval from Planning review.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated the applicant was to have come before the BOA prior to the expansion of
the outdoor seating; he asked Attorney Cooper to address The Bozeman Hotel public comment. Attorney
Cooper responded that any application for use of the property whether the conditions were on or off the
property could be considered as part of the review of the proposal. He stated the requirement was as much
Building Department and Planning Department jurisdiction; he added that legally a secondary emergency
egress had to be included and had been provided for many years along the existing ramp though he had
seen no documentation establishing an agreement, easement, or right to use the ramp. He stated there were
alternatives if the applicant could not work the issue out with the adjacent property owner and the BOA
could include conditions that they deemed necessary to protect public health, safety, and human welfare.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked if there were enough parking spaces for the establishment. Planner
Bristor responded there had been no identified shortage of parking.
Ms. Jamison asked if any follow up letters had been received from Ms. Milner. Planner Bristor responded
there had not been further correspondence to her, but thought there may have been communications with
Officer Marty Kent that were not forwarded to Planning Staff.
Mr. Lee asked if the concrete slab had been built to current code. Planner Bristor responded she would
feel more comfortable if Mr. Risk from the Building Division answered that question. Mr. Risk responded
that the slab did not require a Building Permit as it was a non-structural slab where grading and thickness
were the primary concerns; he added the pad appeared to meet those requirements but would need to meet
further requirements once seating was installed.
Mr. Robertson asked if the structural upgrades to the existing rear deck would require Building Division
inspection and if the inspection had occurred. Mr. Risk responded the inspections were in process, but
currently on hold. Mr. Robertson asked if it would be alright for the applicant to use the deck area even
though the work had not been completed. Mr. Risk responded the applicant could temporarily use the
deck area, but would need to install or provide the secondary egress if the existing ramp no longer can be
used.
Mr. Mehl stated it was his understanding that the concrete pad was not in use. Mr. Risk clarified that he
was referring to temporary use of the existing deck area while the concrete patio was not in use at this
time. Mr. Mehl asked if the procedure was common for this type of violation. Planner Bristor responded
the situation was somewhat unique because the Planning and Building Department sent the violation notice
3
Board of Adjustment Minutes – October 12, 2010
instead of Code Enforcement Staff. Mr. Mehl asked Attorney Cooper if the BOA could make approval
contingent on the applicant and adjacent owner working out the ownership issue. Attorney Cooper
responded he would not recommend including the ownership in the approval and suggested the
demonstration of egress could be included.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the original approval could be revoked. Attorney Cooper responded
the original approval could be revoked but may or may not be accepted by the applicant; the Supreme
Court had recently ruled for the destruction of a property not meeting the conditions of approval.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked how Staff could find that the proposal could be approved given that
section 18.42 addressed watercourse setbacks and disallowed the installation of impervious surfaces unless
it was through a deviation. Planner Bristor responded the deviation was what was being considered
tonight. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she would be far more likely to find favorably for the
application if there was some requirement for a pervious surface to be installed such as scored concrete to
prevent flooding; she asked how the proposal met the requirement for no impervious surfaces in the
setback. Planner Bristor responded Staff did not believe there was a need to remove the existing concrete
pad to replace it with an impervious surface. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked why the noncompliant
feature had not been required to be removed. Planner Bristor restated the application in front of the Board
tonight was the applicant’s opportunity to get approval before it was removed; overall Staff believes the
outdoor seating area to be an asset to the downtown area. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked the same
question of Director McHarg. Director McHarg responded the applicant was within his rights to make the
request; in Planning Staff’s view, the feature was in a built environment with a significant amount of
impervious surface for that part of town. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she agreed the area would be
nice for use, but she did not see why the Staff Report was supportive of the proposal even though it was a
violation of the conditions of approval. Mr. McHarg responded the BOA could find the application not to
be in keeping with the review criteria. Attorney Cooper responded the BOA should look at the findings of
Staff and agree or disagree with those findings.
Mr. Lee stated a report from Madison Engineering had been submitted that indicated the stream had not
flooded in that location to address those concerns.
Lowell Springer addressed the BOA. He stated he was the architect working with the owner on the
proposal as well as the original application. He apologized the application had come to the BOA with the
work already being done. He stated the applicant had intended to come back to the BOA for approval of
the expansion of the outdoor seating area; he added he should have discussed the conditions of approval
with the applicant and some of the blame was his. He stated the back yard area of the building had been
dirt and mud had been tracked into the establishment; a patron of Bar IX had indicated who would need to
be contacted to add a concrete pad and those entities had not indicated he would need to go back to the
City for review and approval. He stated the concrete had been poured prior the City issuing a stop work
order though the issue had been discovered prior to the installation. He stated a continuous drain on the
stream side would be included to let the water runoff the slab into the creek. He stated Mr. Yurashak was
a young, aggressive businessman that regretted his mistakes; he added it was hard to know all of the
approvals necessary for the project. He stated he believed the project would enhance the entire area and
would be a good addition to the City; they were amenable to Staff conditions of approval though they
might have questions on one or two of them.
Chad Yurashak addressed the BOA. He apologized for not obtaining the necessary approvals for the
concrete patio to be installed and he was not aware he would be in violation of the conditions of approval
for the previous CUP Application. He stated he blocked off the area immediately after he was noticed of
4
Board of Adjustment Minutes – October 12, 2010
the issue. He stated a drain had been included to address the impervious surface and he hoped that it
would be enough. He stated they were continuing work on the existing deck seating area to bring it up to
code but the egress issue had been stalled until the ownership issues were resolved. He stated he had
spoken with Nishkian Monks to determine another method of egress if the shared use isn’t established.
Mr. Springer stated the applicant had been working on the interior of the building and there was a six inch
deflection over the creek that could have been catastrophic; Mr. Risk had identified that the deck structure
needed upgraded. He stated there had never been a question about the easement where the ramp was
located; he added there was a way to include the ramp independently of the easement if it were four feet
wide though he would prefer to see the owners work the ownership issue out. He stated he hoped the BOA
would see that the error had occurred unintentionally.
Mr. Robertson asked why the loft area had not been represented on the plans and if was represented in the
parking calculations. Mr. Springer responded the parking had been calculated with the inclusion of the loft
square footage.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked if the applicant had received any indication from the non-City entities
that approved the concrete slab that it would be located within the watercourse setback. Mr. Springer
responded they had heard no such recommendations.
Mr. Robertson asked Mr. Yurashak if there were plans to allow smoking in the outdoor seating area. Mr.
Yurashak responded it was difficult to force people not to smoke so he would provide a separate area for
smokers. Mr. Robertson stated the State websites included recommendations for outdoor smoking such as
a setback requirement; he suggested the smoke could directly vent into the interior building area and
suggested the applicant investigate some of those options. Mr. Yurashak responded it was difficult, if not
impossible, to detour people from smoking; he would prefer to have a designated smoking area and he felt
it was his responsibility to maintain the streets and provide a designated area for smokers to help contain
the refuse.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked Mr. Springer to clarify which questions he had regarding Staff
conditions of approval. Mr. Springer responded condition #2 addressed the alley fence which they did not
intend to work on at this time and he had investigated an underflow waterwheel to water the vegetation in
the alley while maintaining the interest of a water feature. He stated Planner Bristor, Planning Staff, and
the Building Division had done a thorough review of the proposal. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated
water feature language had been removed. Mr. Springer responded it had been removed and would be
submitted for review at a later date.
Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the item for public comment.
Brian Stoppel, 2340 Butch Cassidy Drive, stated he was one of the owners of the Bozeman Hotel as well
as the contract for management of the hotel. He clarified they liked the intention of the owner with regard
to the property and had no problem with Mr. Yurashak, but with the owner of the building itself. He stated
he had attempted to have meetings with the owner and was stood up so contacted the owner’s attorney. He
stated the existing ramp had been co-used and there had never been an official easement agreement; there
was a total change in use of the 307-311 East Main Street building with a lot more liability issues that
needed to be discussed. He stated the majority of the people leaving Bar IX come out by using the ramp
and the Bozeman Hotel could be held liable. He stated an agreement had not been reached and a tougher
stance had to be taken. He stated the Bozeman Hotel had always done the maintenance of the ramp and
there were a lot of factors involved in the decision. He stated he was concerned as a citizen in that it
5
Board of Adjustment Minutes – October 12, 2010
would be a dangerous situation to allow the outdoor seating expansion as the alleyway was very busy and
there was no lighting. He stated they were trying to get some cooperation from the owner but they had
troubles such as dumping of snow on their roof, use of their dumpsters and recycling bins, and use of their
parking spaces. He clarified that the Bozeman Hotel did not know what they would do and had been
promised an agreement by the property owner that had not been drafted.
Mack Butler, 3443 Kent Spur Road, stated they had not received notice of the proposal. He stated he had
75 offices in the Bozeman Hotel (roughly 40,000 square feet of space) and he had come in one morning to
smoke in all of his offices. He stated he had attempted to get the City involved regarding the BBQ smoke
and had not been assisted. He stated the second thing he had noticed was the installation of the concrete
patio. He stated he was in opposition of the proposal and noted the owner had not attended tonight’s
meeting. He stated the Bozeman Hotel owned two feet of the ramp and the site boundaries should have
been checked. He stated he was angry about the process and all that had happened; the City Manager had
determined a way to remove the barbecue smoker that had been installed in the rear yard. He stated the
Bozeman Hotel was not the problem and suggested the only decision the BOA could make was denial. He
stated he hoped if an agreement was not reached he would strongly discourage the installation of a four
foot ramp in that location.
Seeing no further public comment forthcoming, the public comment period was closed.
Ms. Jamison asked for clarification of noticing the property owner. Planner Bristor responded the owner
had to be involved in the application process but did not have to attend meetings and had delegated an
applicant and representative.
Mr. Curtis asked if references to noise had been included in previous CUP approvals as it was not included
in the Staff Report. Mr. Mehl responded condition of approval #1 addressed the noise issues. Mr. Curtis
stated the language to revoke the CUP approval regarding noise complaints was not included. Mr. Mehl
responded the condition #1 addressed all complaints and the CUP revocation was included in the Code
Provisions. Vice Chairperson Sypinski applauded the applicant on his meeting with the neighbor
regarding the noise complaints and a method of alleviating their concerns. Mr. Curtis stated both the
representative and owner were present during the initial CUP request where there had been extensive
discussion regarding the installation of additional outdoor seating and that it would need to be reviewed by
the Board.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski clarified the review criteria as set forth in the UDO. He stated he was
supportive of the redevelopment of the downtown area but was concerned with the actual violation. He
stated he was also concerned that the underlying zoning requirements to ensure the protection of public
health, safety, and human welfare had not been met due to the lack of control of the patronage, poor
lighting, and parking locations. He stated the compatibility of uses within the totality of downtown needed
to be taken into consideration. He stated he would have difficulty approving the application as presented.
Mr. Curtis stated he agreed with Vice Chairperson Sypinski that the human welfare was not being
provided for as the egress was not up to code.
Mr. Robertson stated he was concerned with the establishment’s approach to the clean air act and the affect
it has had on the abutting properties.
6
Board of Adjustment Minutes – October 12, 2010
Ms. Jamison stated her primary concern was the egress and added she thought there needed to be
cooperation between the owners to provide that egress.
Mr. Lee stated he thought it was a shame to have a beautiful area that was not being utilized. He stated he
thought there was some way to work it out so the area was a benefit to the whole block; some items of
concern would be worked out before the project was completed. He stated the owners would need to sit
down and figure out who could use the egress without the BOA denying the proposal. He suggested no
smoking could be instituted on the site as the owner could not force employees to walk through a smoky
environment.
Mr. Robertson asked what the applicant could do as recourse if the project was denied. Attorney Cooper
responded a similar application could be submitted with some of the issues addressed prior to the hearing.
He stated the BOA had a number of options; the CUP, COA, and DEV were separate pieces of the
submittal. Chairperson Pomnichowski clarified that all current activities would remain. Mr. Robertson
clarified that the applicant could return to the BOA with an amended, more detailed submittal.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated he was not comfortable approving the application with unresolved
issues.
Mr. Lee suggested the application could be opened and continued to the next meeting of the BOA to allow
the applicant time to resolve some of the issues such as egress.
Mr. Curtis agreed with Vice Chairperson Sypinski that the BOA could not approve the application with
“what if” scenarios.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she agreed with most BOA member statements. She stated if the
applicant could meet the conditions of approval, the application could be granted. She stated she did not
feel the application met the first three review criteria for CUP.
MOTION
: Vice Chairperson Sypinski moved, Mr. Curtis seconded, to approve Bar IX Creek Patio
Those voting
The motion failed 0-6
CUP/COA/DEV #Z-10200 with Staff conditions of approval. .
aye being none; those voting nay being Ms. Jamison, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Lee, Chairperson
Pomnichowski, Mr. Robertson, and Vice Chairperson Sypinski.
3. Baker Addition COA/DEV #Z-10249
(Kramer)
619 East Mendenhall Street
* A Certificate of Appropriateness with a Deviation application to allow the
construction of a sunroom/guestroom addition with an encroachment of 14 feet
into the required 20 foot front yard setback.
Assistant Planner Courtney Kramer presented the Staff Report noting the location of the proposal. She
stated the proposal was for an addition off of the front façade of the existing building and noted the
proposal did not exceed the cap of a 20% increase in footprint. She stated the residential use had been
allowed as legal nonconforming within the M-1 zoning designation. She noted the existing pergola would
nearly be enclosed and would have a shed roof design. She stated Staff found the proposal to mimic a
front porch addition. She stated Staff was supportive of the proposal as submitted and added there was
very little historic integrity due to extensive renovations to the property. She stated she was confident in
7
Board of Adjustment Minutes – October 12, 2010
saying there would not be a future historic district in that location. She stated no public comment had been
submitted for the proposal. She stated the addition was planned toward the street and would have little or
no impact on the neighboring properties. She stated Staff had felt uncomfortable insisting the addition be
located elsewhere to accommodate a better residential feeling as the zoning designation of the property is
M-1 and the Growth Policy designation is industrial.
Ms. Jamison asked if the addition would remain inside the existing footprint. Planner Kramer responded
the addition would be located inside the footprint of the pergola. Mr. Lee asked if there were requirements
for fence and hedge height. Planner Kramer responded there were height requirements for fences and
hedges in that district.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked for clarification of why Staff had not suggested another location for the
addition; there was more room at the rear of the structure. Planner Kramer responded the elderly person
living there needed easy access to the existing restroom to prevent larger costs; the applicant had the right
to request the deviation. Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated he had some concerns but would address them
to the applicant.
Mr. Robertson asked for clarification of historically appropriate criteria. Planner Kramer responded the
historic integrity of the property had not been maintained and the criteria were more pertinent to Historic
Districts or Contributing properties; she added no historic resources were evident and so none had been
destroyed.
John Baker addressed the BOA. He stated he would be happy to answer questions. Vice Chairperson
Sypinski asked for clarification of why the addition had been proposed for the front of the structure instead
of the rear. Mr. Baker responded the rear of the house was a living room with a daylight basement which
would be more expensive; his main intent was to have a room with a bathroom on the same level.
Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the public
comment period was closed.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she found the COA review criteria had been met by the submittal and
that the review criteria for a Deviation request had also been met though she felt there was historical
appropriateness with regard to the surrounding lots. She stated the reduced setback would meet the
requirements for emergency and response and would meet the criteria for public health, safety, and
welfare.
MOTION
: Mr. Curtis moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to approve Baker Addition COA/DEV #Z-10249
Those voting aye being being Ms.
The motion carried 6-0
with Staff conditions of approval. .
Jamison, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Lee, Chairperson Pomnichowski, Mr. Robertson, and Vice Chairperson
Sypinski; those voting nay being none.
ITEM 5. Briefing by City Attorney (As necessary.)
No items were forthcoming.
ITEM 6. Briefing by Planning Staff (As necessary.)
8
Board of Adjustment Minutes – October 12, 2010
No items were forthcoming.
ITEM 7. NEW BUSINESS
1. Planning review process recommendations.
Director McHarg stated Mr. Mehl had suggested the Board provide recommendations to the City
Commission with regard to the subdivision review process and suggested the Board members could e-mail
comments to Staff that would be forwarded to the Planning Board and the City Commission. He stated if
the BOA thought there were items appropriate to the BOA either operationally or code based, they would
be open for suggestions.
Mr. Lee stated when an application was before the Board, any outstanding issues were difficult for the
Board to approve and suggested those issues be taken care of prior to the hearing. Director McHarg
apologized and explained that some of those issues had come up prior after the item was scheduled for
public hearing.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated an ongoing issue was the balance of development within residential
neighborhoods. Director McHarg responded many form based codes had a build to line with certain
elements of the structure being allowed to extend beyond that point; those requirements would need to be
fine tuned to a neighborhood prior to their institution.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated there had been discussions of form based zoning. Attorney Cooper
responded a variance for a particular code requirement could and should be codified, but older
neighborhoods were permitted the deviations as part of the exchange for redevelopment of those areas.
Mr. Robertson stated he has had issues with approving applications with conditions of approval not being
met and suggested recommendations or ideas generating oversight of the approval. Mr. McHarg
responded Staff was trying to put a program together for Staff in the field to get the Building Division
more versed in the Planning process and vice versa; his goal was to have zero conditions of approval
which would remove the onus from Planning Staff. He added it would be easier to rely on less conditions
of approval.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski added it was a red flag for him when a proposal came forward with 15 or 20
conditions of approval.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated the BOA was the Board tasked with hearing exceptions in applications
and she did not mind conditions of approval. She stated a complete code based system was one issue, but
when applications came forward the conditions of approval were included to bring the submittal into
compliance.
Mr. Mehl stated he had spoken with Bar IX and suggested they get a letter from the Planning Department;
he suspected they would resubmit their proposal. Mr. Curtis stated he would be hesitant to see the City
Commission review the proposal after the BOA had reviewed the site two times previously. Mr. Mehl
noted Mr. Curtis’ objection to the City Commission reclaiming jurisdiction of the proposal and stated he
would let the Commission know.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked the timeline for Planning Board review of the Planning review process.
Director McHarg responded the intention was to provide recommendations by December so perhaps
9
Board of Adjustment Minutes – October 12, 2010
Planning Staff could present the information to the Commission early 2011. Mr. Mehl noted the Planning
Board would be reviewing the subdivision process at their next meeting and had reviewed the site plan
process at their previous meeting; people would have an awareness the item would be discussed.
Director McHarg stated his advice to Bar IX would be to focus less on the patio area and more on the
structural issues with regard to Building and Fire Codes prior to submitting another application.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated her concern was the impervious surface; she expected all of it to be
brought to bear as soon as it was practicable. Director McHarg responded it may not be the best time of
year to rip out the concrete as no vegetation could replace it; he would investigate options and possibly
require a financial guarantee. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she was not opposed to the use of the
area, but the noncompliance of the pad within 10 feet of the watercourse and suggested storm water
velocities would be increased and other surfaces could be used in place of concrete.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked Mr. Mehl the decision by the Commission on the proposed REMU
zoning district. Mr. Mehl explained the item had been reviewed informally and were presented with three
questions at the end of the meeting that they were struggling with. He stated the Commission would
review the formal proposal in the future. He stated there would be opportunity for public comment and his
concerns reflected the concerns of the Chairperson of the Zoning Commission. Director McHarg
responded the applicant was committed to doing the Master Site Plan and added he thought it would be
difficult for a member of the public to participate in the formation of a new zoning district; he would not
be surprised if the new zoning district needed amended after the first submittal. Chairperson
Pomnichowski clarified that the BOA would hear requests for relaxations or deviations from the zoning
district requirements. Director McHarg responded he did not think there would be many requests for
variances or deviations.
Mr. Lee stated he would miss the next meeting of the BOA.
ITEM 8. F.Y.I.
No items were forthcoming.
ITEM 9.ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the BOA, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
______________________________
JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Board of Adjustment
10
Board of Adjustment Minutes – October 12, 2010