HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-10-11 Board of Adjustment MinutesBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pomnichowski called the regular 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
JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson
Dan Curtis
Chris Mehl, Commission Liaison
Pat Jamison
Cole Robertson
Members Absent
Staff Present
Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner
Tim Cooper, City Attorney
Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Visitors Present
Joanna Nute
Bob Nute
Mark Prince
Kevin Cook
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2011
MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Vice Chairperson Sypinski seconded, to approve the minutes of February 8, 2011 as presented. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski,
Ms. Jamison, 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.}
Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the general public comment period. Seeing no general
public comment forthcoming, the public comment period was closed.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Goodwill Building CUP/COA #Z-11067 (Krueger)
2135 Boothill Court
* A Conditional Use Permit with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the establishment of a retail conditional use in an M-1 (Light Manufacturing District) zoning
district on the property as well as permit the construction of a 17,000 square foot commercial building and other related site improvements.
Mr. Robertson joined the BOA.
Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the location of the site and that the parcel was undeveloped with a zoning designation of M-1. He stated the Conditional
Use Permit was to allow the retail conditional use within the industrial zoning designation. He stated an irregular sidewalk layout might be seen to accommodate an existing power box
on the site. He directed the BOA to a photo of that location and noted where on the site future phases would occur and the potential layout. He noted the proposed floor plan of the
building and the locations of the warehouse use, the loading dock, and the retail/office areas. He stated Staff had recommended conditions regarding the treatment of the southwest corner
of the structure and the applicant was continuing to develop that elevation. He stated no public comment had been received on the proposal and Staff had found the application to meet
the CUP criteria as well as the Site Plan criteria as set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance and were supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions of approval.
Mr. Robertson asked if a bike path would be included along the corridor. Planner Krueger responded that the north side of Baxter Lane did not include a separated shared use bike trail
and all that existed was a bike lane in the right of way with an existing sidewalk. He added there was a pedestrian connection along the west side of the site and there would be pedestrian
access but no separate bicycle trail system.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked the threshold for a retail use in an industrial zoning district. Planner Krueger responded the threshold was 20% retail gross square footage or 10,000
square feet, whichever was less.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked for clarification of the artificial lot provisions. Planner Krueger responded that the Planning Director could determine an artificial lot which was a
determination that the balance of the lot would remain in pre-development condition and was used in part to determine setbacks for the first phase of site development.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski clarified that there would not be a lot of visibility to the lot from the Interstate and the site was located in the Entryway Corridor Overlay District. Planner
Krueger responded the Design Objectives Plan Design Guidelines could be applied discretionarily based
on the distance of the site from the Corridor and the view shed to the site from the corridor as well as the use of the site.
Mr. Robertson asked if there was consideration of material changes from the Planning Department and cited recommended materials from the Design Guidelines. Planner Krueger responded
that within this industrial zone more generalized, durable, and industrial materials were found to be appropriate given the location and proposed use of the site.
Attorney Cooper stated it was his understanding the lot would be leased from the State of Montana and asked if a sewer service line agreement had been included. Planner Krueger responded
that the Engineering Department had included that requirement in their Code Provisions.
Kevin Cook, 1276 N. 15th Avenue, addressed the BOA as the applicant for the proposal. He thanked the Board for hearing their application. He stated Goodwill had come to them looking
for an economic way to move into Bozeman and had investigated other locations that were not cost effective. He stated the State was providing a reasonable lease and he thought the
use would be a good fit for the location. He stated he thought the location would be heavily used due to local traffic counts for Baxter Lane and North 19th Avenue. He stated he was
working with other clients to build out the site for industrial use in a future phase of development. He stated the retail aspect would be strong, but the donation aspect of the structure
would be stronger. He stated they had gotten an agreement with Craig Campbell from the State of Montana for the service line between the two lots.
Mr. Robertson stated the views of the building would be 360 degrees and asked if architectural detailing would be included on the south and west elevations instead of just the north
and east elevations; he suggested those elevations should be addressed if cost allowed. Mr. Cook responded the intent was to make the color palette the same on all elevations and the
metal had been proposed to reduce the overall costs; he added it was in their best interest to make those buildings look as good as possible. Mr. Robertson confirmed that the applicant
would be willing to work with Staff regarding the Design Guidelines and the south and west elevations. Mr. Cook confirmed that they would be willing to work with Staff.
Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the public comment period. Seeing none forthcoming, the public comment period was closed.
Ms. Jamison stated she thought the application was in keeping with the review criteria for a Conditional Use Permit as set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance and she was supportive
of the proposal with conditions of approval as outlined by Staff in the Staff Report.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if a condition should be added that there must be an agreement with the State of Montana on file. Planner Krueger responded the Engineering Code Provisions
included a requirement to provide that information with the Final Site Plan submittal. Attorney
Cooper responded that an extra condition would not be necessary as satisfying the requirements of the Water/Sewer and Engineering departments would suffice.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated there were review criteria that must be met prior to approval of the Conditional Use Permit. She stated she found the proposal to be in keeping with
the review criteria as set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance.
MOTION: Mr. Robertson moved, Vice Chairperson Sypinski seconded, to amend condition of approval #6 to include the language “south façade, west façade”.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated he was supportive of the amendment to the conditions of approval.
The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Ms. Jamison, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Robertson, and Vice Chairperson Sypinski; those voting nay being none.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Sypinski moved, Mr. Robertson seconded, to approve Goodwill Building CUP/COA #Z-11067 with Staff findings as outlined in the Staff Report and amended by the
Board.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski stated he was supportive of the proposal with Staff findings as outlined in the Staff Report and amended by the Board; he added he found the application to
be in keeping with the Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness review criteria as set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance.
The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Ms. Jamison, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Robertson, and Vice Chairperson Sypinski; those voting nay being none.
2. Nute Addition COA/DEV #Z-11077 (Kramer)
308 South Tracy Avenue
* A Certificate of Appropriateness Application with a Deviation to allow the construction of an addition within an existing easement between two properties and to encroach into
the required 5' side yard setback.
Assistant Planner Courtney Kramer presented the Staff Report noting the location of the proposal and the site’s zoning designation of R-2. She stated the proposal was for extensive
repair and reconstruction of the residence. She stated the property dated to 1872 and had been developed on a larger portion of land; she added the structure existed across a lot line
which was allowed via an existing property easement. She stated the applicant was proposing a gable dormer on the north and south sides and Staff was supportive of the proposal as submitted
with Staff conditions of approval. She stated the easement holder had provided a letter of permission to the applicants and were supportive of the proposal. She added one letter of
public comment had been received in support of the proposal.
Ms. Jamison asked if tax abatement was being pursued by the applicant. Planner Kramer responded the applicant had applied for tax abatement but the requirements were that the project
would need to be approved and completed before they would receive tax abatement funds.
Mr. Robertson asked the proximity of the neighboring building with regard to fire separation. Planner Kramer responded she thought there was a five foot separation from the residence
to the neighboring residence and the property to the south was a duplex that had been constructed within the last 20 years; fire separation of more than five feet had not been identified
as being necessary for the site. Mr. Robertson stated fire separation requirements would affect the cost of the project.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski asked for clarification of how the window dormers and siding could be more historically appropriate as per the condition of approval in the Staff Report. Planner
Kramer responded the windows in question would need to be expanded to meet egress requirements from the Building Department; she added allowing the building to be located where it has
been for the last 140 years was more appropriate than relocating the structure. She added that allowing a historic structure to continue to be used as intended was a key aspect of historic
preservation; Staff policy had been that if evidence was presented that the existing siding or something similar was fiscally impossible to acquire, allowances could be made. Vice Chairperson
Sypinski stated he disagreed that allowing non-historic materials would maintain the historic integrity of the residence.
Mr. Mehl asked for clarification of a “vernacular pre-railroad” time period. Planner Kramer responded “vernacular” was applied to structures built without an architect and most of the
materials were supplied locally as the railroad had not yet arrived. Mr. Mehl stated the Commission was aware of the existing language and noted it implied that the structure would
need to be renovated to its original construct; Staff would be considering changes to the language. He stated if an improvement seemed fiscally impossible or a hardship on the owner,
Staff generally tried to encourage the applicant.
Mark Prince, applicant, addressed the Board. He stated one thing that commonly gets overlooked in renovation projects is that sometimes it is very difficult to salvage the existing
siding cost effectively, the wood has deteriorated enough that it wouldn’t hold the paint; it would be doomed to a coat of paint every five years or sooner and would not be fiscally
worth salvaging. He stated the siding would be matched exactly and the owners were very concerned with maintaining the integrity of the house.
Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the public comment period. Seeing none forthcoming, the public comment period was closed.
Mr. Curtis listed the review criteria and noted he found the proposal to be in keeping with the criteria as set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance. He stated he was supportive
of the proposal with Staff findings as outlined in the Staff Report.
MOTION: Mr. Curtis moved, Ms. Jamison seconded, to approve Nute Addition COA/DEV #Z-11077 with Staff findings as outlined in the Staff Report.
Chairperson Pomnichowski reiterated that every application for a Deviation must meet the review criteria as set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance. She stated she had the same
concern as Mr. Robertson with regard to fire safety separation between buildings. She stated she found the application to be in keeping the Deviation review criteria as set forth in
the Unified Development Ordinance.
Vice Chairperson Sypinski added that he found the review criteria to be in keeping with the Certificate of Appropriateness criteria as well.
The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Ms. Jamison, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Robertson, and Vice Chairperson Sypinski; those voting nay being none.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated Planner Kramer had indicated she was proud to support the proposal during her presentation to the Board. She stated she expected City Staff to be the
gatekeeper of public safety through ordinance requirements though she understood they were also an advocate of the applicant at the same. She stated she expected to see the review criteria
put in place where necessary and equally amongst applications. She stated she appreciated the consideration of fiscal impacts by Staff, but keeping costs down was not the function of
the Board though it could be a consideration in their decision. Mr. Curtis responded the language in the Unified Development Ordinance indicated that literal enforcement of the code
could not cause financial hardship. Chairperson Pomnichowski responded fiscal limitations were not considered as part of public health, safety, or welfare though it was considered.
Mr. Curtis responded negative comment from abutting properties would need to be considered to satisfy review criteria #2. Mr. Robertson stated his concern was that the Building Department
was not aware of the existing conditions. Mr. Curtis responded the fire safety code would take jurisdiction over the historic integrity of the property. Planner Kramer responded that
an application of this nature does not trigger DRC review prior to the Board of Adjustment hearing and the Building Division requirements would be met upon submission of their Building
Permit. Chairperson Pomnichowski suggested the DRC should review the proposal once prior to the public hearing for any project requiring public noticing and suggested the Unified Development
Ordinance amendments should include that requirement.
ITEM 5. Briefing by City Attorney (As necessary.)
No items were forthcoming.
ITEM 6. Briefing by Planning Staff (As necessary.)
Recording Secretary Hastie stated she would forward a recommendation from the BOA to Staff to require one DRC meeting for projects that would be publicly noticed so Building Code issues
could be identified prior to the Board of Adjustment hearing. Attorney Cooper stated the
applicant would want to receive approval for the first stage of review prior to becoming financially obligated for the next stage of review when the project might not be approved. Mr.
Curtis added he agreed with the City Attorney that the “cart before the horse” would not be a good method and could be a financial hardship for the owner.
ITEM 7. NEW BUSINESS
No items were forthcoming.
ITEM 8. F.Y.I.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked the Board Of Adjustment if they had received their e-mail from the Deputy City Clerk regarding their financial disclosures and suggested they complete
the form if they had not done so already. She asked the Board members to please recruit people if they had ideas for members.
ITEM 9. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the BOA, the meeting was adjourned at 7:18 p.m.
JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Board of Adjustment