Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-11 Board of Adjustment Minutes.docBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2011 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pomnichowski called the meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order at 6:01 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 Ed Sypinski, Vice Chairperson Richard Lee JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson Dan Curtis Chris Mehl, Commission Liaison Members Absent Pat Jamison Cole Robertson Staff Present Tim McHarg, Planning Director Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner Tim Cooper, City Attorney Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Visitors Present Derik Pomeroy Pat Behler Nick Chlebeck Sarah Behler James Salter Brian Segal ITEM 1A. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chairperson Pomnichowski added Item 1A - Election of Officers to the agenda. MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved to nominate the current slate of officers – Ms. Pomnichowski as Chairperson, Mr. Sypinski as Vice Chairperson. Mr. Lee seconded. 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 2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2010 MOTION: Vice Chairperson Sypinski moved, Mr. Lee seconded, to approve the minutes of December 14, 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.} No public comment was forthcoming. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Altemus/Salter CUP/DEV #Z-10241 (Bristor) 15-17 South 5th 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. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting the location of the property within the R-4 Zoning District. She explained the request for a secondary office use required the Conditional Use Permit review while the Certificate of Appropriateness was being reviewed for the proposed exterior changes including ADA Accessibility doors and ramp. She stated the history of the site had been summarized in the Staff Report and noted the City had become aware of the on-going mixed use due to a complaint from the neighbor regarding unruly tenants in the building. She directed the BOA to the proposed site plan and added the proposal included improvements to the existing parking conditions on the site. She stated the applicant had done a great job of communicating with the Building Department early in the process and had been working closely with them regarding ADA requirements. She stated a unique feature on the site was an existing easement and noted the ramp on the site could encroach more than other types of encroachment; the minimum allowable setback was being provided with the location of the ramp. She noted a draft agreement with the property to the north to provide 26 feet of backing distance had been prepared; both properties had been used for offices for the last 20-25 years and the encroachment had been arranged between both property owners. She stated the proposed office use required six spaces and Staff was supportive of the request for less than the required number. She noted other improvements the applicant was making to the structure to make it handicap accessible. She stated the hearing had been publicly noticed in the paper as well as posted on site. She stated two letters of public comment had been received and were supportive of the proposal. She stated Staff found the proposal to be in keeping with the review criteria as set forth in the UDO and listed those items. She stated the deviation request to allow three less spaces had been found to be appropriate by Staff as there had historically been parking spaces located at the rear of the structure. She stated Staff was supportive of the proposal as presented with Staff recommended findings as presented in the Staff Report. Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked how the square footage calculations for the office space made the use secondary to the larger residential space as calculated. Planner Bristor responded the shaded areas were exempt from the office calculations. Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated that it would be logical to include that space as it was part of the office use. Planner Bristor responded Staff had found those areas to be exempt from those requirements. Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked if there had been any negotiation regarding the elimination of the proposed outdoor seating amenity. Planner Bristor responded Staff had found the parking in the front and corner side yard setbacks as inappropriate. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if any of the on street parking would be restricted to resident only parking. Planner Bristor responded there would not be restricted parking in that location and added the curb was striped yellow near the corner and had been depicted on the plan. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked why conformance with the existing code had not been mentioned in the Staff Report with regard to the 49.41 feet being nonconforming. Planner Bristor responded the site plan needed to be revised to reflect the existing lot width. Brian Segal and James Salter addressed the BOA. Mr. Segal stated it had been a good experience and a true community experience working with the neighbors. He stated they had worked with the neighbor that had called the City with complaints. He stated the owner was making the effort to come into compliance. He stated Mr. Salter owned many rental properties and added he was working hard with the City to address their issues. He stated the amenity would replace 1-2 parking spaces to comply with the 15 foot required setback. He stated there was a lot of on street parking available that could not be counted toward the requirements for the office use. He stated the owner was at a slight disadvantage as he could only develop the property as R-2 density due to the lot size but was zoned for R-4 development. He stated the parking was addressed because it was a good mixed use plan where residential units used the parking after the offices were closed. Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the item to public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. Mr. Lee stated it seemed the owner had been pretty thorough in attempting to solve the issues with the property given the small size of the lot. He stated he was supportive of the proposal as presented. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated projects need to meet specific review criteria and listed those items. She stated that she had found all the Certificate of Appropriateness criteria had been met with the proposal as well as the review criteria for the Deviation request and Conditional Use Permit criteria had been met. She stated she appreciated the work the applicant and owner had done on the proposal and that they had addressed many of the issues prior to review by the BOA. She stated she was supportive of the proposal. MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Mr. Lee seconded, to approve Altemus/Salter CUP/DEV #Z-10241 with Staff findings as presented in the Staff Report. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, and Vice Chairperson Sypinski; those voting nay being none. 2. Seven Sushi Cabaret License CUP #Z-11011 (Krueger) 270 West Kagy Boulevard, Suite C * A Conditional Use Permit Application to allow the on premise consumption of beer and wine. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the beer and wine license was proposed to be added to an existing use. He noted the location of the property within the South Towne Square development. He noted the zoning for the property was B-1 and the building had been constructed in 2008. He directed the BOA to a site plan view of the project site and noted the approval had originally been for five buildings though only three had been constructed. He stated the restaurant was currently in operation and the application was to add on site beer/wine consumption to the establishment. He stated the project had been publicly noticed through standard measures and no public comment had been received. He stated Staff had reviewed the proposal and found them to be in keeping with the review criteria as set forth in the UDO. He stated Staff was supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the owner/applicant had been given the Staff Report. Planner Krueger responded they had received the Staff Report. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if alcohol leaving the premises had been addressed. Planner Krueger responded outdoor seating had only been discussed but had not been proposed at this time; there was temporary outdoor seating on the site that included specific conditions of approval that would require the developer to come forward with a proposal before the summer use of outdoor seating. Chairperson Pomnichowski clarified that a Special Temporary Use Permit for outdoor seating would not allow the serving of alcohol. Planning Director McHarg responded he had not been the Director at the time the STUP was approved, but they generally had very specific conditions of approval. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked Attorney Cooper if he had anything to add. Attorney Cooper responded the approval could be allowed through the STUP and specific conditions of approval had to be met. Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated the development’s affect on adjacent property owners would be substantial and asked how Planner Krueger saw the rest of the property being developed. He stated he was seeing larger issues that could come to light on the site. Planner Krueger responded that the developer had been put on notice that the uses were more intense than those that had originally been anticipated; Staff was tracking parking as well as general traffic patterns. He added the developer had an offsite parking agreement and were working amongst themselves to remedy the parking issues on the site. He added if the parking count went outside of the requirements the South Towne Square site plan would need to be reviewed. He stated the current proposal would be the third CUP approved for the development and Staff had yet to receive any formal complaints from the community; there had been ample opportunity to bring forward any complaints. He added there had been code sections amended since the original approval that would allow parking reductions; building #4 would provide better information. Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated he was appreciative of the perceived need to help restaurants and businesses succeed in Bozeman through the serving of alcohol, but the development already had two CUP’s. Mr. Mehl noted his day job was located above the applicant’s space. He stated there was a parking ballet during the lunch hour, but at this point the parking was working fine; with the construction of buildings 4 and 5 it would be interesting to see how the parking situation would work. Derik Pomeroy, Pat Behler, Nick Chlebeck, and Sarah Behler addressed the BOA. Mr. Pomeroy stated that all the employees for each business had offsite parking at the Pilgrim Congregational Church to the south of the site. He stated Planner Krueger had addressed any future concerns with regard to parking. He stated Lemongrass and Sola had received no complaints with regard to their serving of alcohol. He stated condition of approval #6 regarding backflow protection would be addressed as the owner had already contacted the water/sewer department. He stated the applicant was aware that outdoor seating would not be allowed at this time. Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked if the cabaret license had been obtained from the Pickle Barrel. Mr. Behler responded it had. Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the item to public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. Mr. Curtis stated he found the proposal to be in keeping with the review criteria as set forth in the UDO. MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Vice Chairperson Sypinski seconded, to approve Seven Sushi Cabaret License CUP #Z-11011 incorporating the findings, conditions, and required code provisions included in the Staff Report as recommended by Staff and the Development Review Committee. Mr. Lee stated he thought the restaurant business was a difficult business and he thought it only fair to allow the cabaret license so they could fairly complete with the other two businesses. Vice Chairperson Sypinski responded fairness was not part of the review criteria though he was all about fairness. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she agreed with Mr. Curtis that the application met the review criteria as set forth in the UDO but added there could be some concerns in the future if the entire site came forth; she recommended not proposing underground parking in the floodplain. She stated the current parking was manageable at this point, but the addition of two more buildings and associated parking spaces would stress the situation. She stated consideration of an outdoor presence in the future might make the review criteria more difficult to meet. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Mr. Lee, Mr. Curtis, and Vice Chairperson Sypinski; those voting nay being none. 3. Cromwell Porches COA/DEV #Z-11012 (Kramer) 602 South 3rd Avenue * A Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations Application to allow a remodeled front porch to encroach into the 15 foot required front yard setback on both the north and west corners of the corner-side yard and a rear addition to encroach into the 15 foot corner-side yard setback along the northern property line. Assistant Planner Courtney Kramer presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was for the construction of two porches. She noted the location of the property within the Bon Ton Historic District and the R-1 zoning designation. She stated the rear porch addition would be in conjunction with modifications to the rear of the residence. She stated the front porch addition would enhance the existing front façade; the porch was failing and needed to be repaired. She stated the proposal included paired columns with an open railing while keeping the closed skirting on the front porch. She stated there was currently no rear porch so the roof line was being proposed to be extended. She directed the BOA to the current rear elevation and noted the proposal would enhance the rear of the structure as well as better marry the historic home with the later addition. She stated Staff was supportive of the proposal with no specific conditions of approval with standard code provisions. Mr. Curtis asked if the house existed encroaching into the corner side yard setback. Planner Kramer responded the house currently encroached into the required setback by roughly 15 feet. Mr. Curtis asked if Staff was concerned with the street vision triangle if the porch were allowed to encroach. Planner Kramer responded the street vision triangle measurements had been done and the porch would be outside of the required street vision triangle. Heather Cromwell addressed the BOA. She stated she was a professional architect that had done work on historic properties. She stated she and her husband were attempting to mitigate the earlier addition as it had been constructed prior to their ownership. She asked the Board to consider the warm community space that would be created with the construction of the new front porch. Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the item to public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. MOTION: Mr. Lee moved, Vice Chairperson Sypinski seconded, to approve Cromwell Porches COA/DEV #Z-11012 with code provisions as included in the Staff Report. Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated he found the application to be in keeping with the review criteria for Certificate of Appropriateness as set forth in the UDO and he was supportive of the proposal with code provisions as outlined by Staff in the Staff Report. Mr. Curtis stated he found the application to be in keeping with the review criteria for the Deviation as set forth in the UDO. 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. Briefing by City Attorney (As necessary.) No items were forthcoming. ITEM 6. Briefing by Planning Staff (As necessary.) No items were forthcoming. ITEM 7. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Mehl thanked the Board members for reapplying to the Board of Adjustment and noted the City Commission votes had been unanimous. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated there was one vacancy on the Board and encouraged members to recruit people. ITEM 8. F.Y.I. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated that in the sake of fairness, she expected each Board member to make findings and specifically address the review criteria. She added she was considering taking turns making those findings to provide each member the opportunity to be more comfortable in their findings. Planning Director McHarg added the Staff Report would include recommended motions and suggested the BOA could provide input if they identified an easier method. ITEM 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the BOA, the meeting was adjourned at 7:11 p.m. JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson City of Bozeman Board of Adjustment