HomeMy WebLinkAboutChange of Use and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviation, 600 North Wallace Avenue
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Keri Thorpe, Assistant Planner
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Application for a Change of Use and Certificate of Appropriateness
application, including a deviation request, to allow a 1,832 square foot
restaurant on the first floor of the building located at 600 N. Wallace Avenue,
zoned HMU (Northeast Historic Mixed Use) District. The HMU District
restricts the size of restaurants to 1,500 square feet.
MEETING DATE: February 27, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve application Z-11288 as described in the
staff report and subject to the conditions therein, based on a finding of compliance with all
applicable criteria.
BACKGROUND: Property owner Putter Brown of Brown Building, LLC, represented by Ben
Lloyd and Laura Landon of Comma Q Architecture, has submitted an application to establish a new
restaurant which exceeds the allowable square footage for a restaurant in the HMU District.
Restaurants are an allowable use in the HMU District, but are limited to 1,500 square feet. The
deviation request was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Adjustment (BOA) on January 10, 2012,
but the applicant requested the public hearing be opened and continued. The City Commission
reclaimed jurisdiction of this application on January 23, 2012.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: A moderate amount of public comment has been received for this
application – some supportive, some negative. The public comment can be summarized as follows:
• Opposition to restaurant uses in the neighborhood, particularly restaurants with nighttime
service
• Parking impacts
• Noise impacts
• Support for the restaurant use
ALTERNATIVES: The City Commission has the following alternative actions available:
1. Approve the application as submitted, with conditions as recommended by Staff.
2. Approve the application with modifications to the Staff recommended conditions.
3. Deny the application based on a finding of non-compliance with applicable criteria.
4. Continue the public hearing on the application, with specific direction to Staff or the
applicant for additional information.
158
FISCAL EFFECTS: None at this time.
Report compiled on: February 16, 2012
Attachments: Staff Report
Application materials
Public Comment and NURB meeting minutes
159
#Z-11288 Brown Building Restaurant Proposal COA/DEV Staff Report 1
Report to City Commission for Brown Building Restaurant Proposal in the HMU Zoning District - COA/DEV, File #Z-11288
Item: A Change of Use and Certificate of Appropriateness application including a deviation request to
allow a 1,832 square foot restaurant on the first floor of the building located at 600 N. Wallace Avenue,
zoned HMU, Northeast Historic Mixed Use District. The HMU District restricts the size of restaurants
to 1,500 square feet.
Owner: 600 North Wallace Avenue, LLC, Managing Partner, Putter Brown, 600 N. Wallace Avenue,
Bozeman, MT 59715
Applicant/Representative: Laura Landon and Ben Lloyd, Comma Q Architects, 109 N. Rouse Avenue,
Bozeman, MT 59715
Date: City Commission Meeting, February 27, 2012, 6:00 p.m., in the City Commission Meeting
Room, Bozeman City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana.
Report By: Keri Thorpe, Assistant Planner
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Recommended Motion: I move to approve application Z-11288 as described in the staff report and
subject to the conditions therein, based on a finding of compliance with all applicable criteria.
______________________________________________________________________________
Project Location
The restaurant is proposed to be located on the main floor of an existing two story, 10,270 square foot
building constructed in 2002. The building is located at 600 N. Wallace Avenue and legally described as
Lots 27-32 of Block 106, Plat C-23-A12, Northern Pacific Addition, S06, T02 S, R06 E, City of
Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana.
A vicinity map of the proposed project location is below:
160
#Z-11288 Brown Building Restaurant Proposal COA/DEV Staff Report
2
Proposal/Background
The proposal includes a request to change a portion of the first floor use from light manufacturing to
restaurant use. In conjunction with the restaurant use, a vestibule is proposed at the existing northwest
entrance of the building. The first floor restrooms are being relocated to serve both tenant spaces. The
adjacent tenant space will remain light manufacturing.
Restaurant Uses in the Northeast HMU District are restricted to 1,500 square feet or less per Bozeman
Municipal Code (BMC) Section 38.14.020, “Authorized Uses for the Northeast HMU district”, so a
deviation to dimensional requirement is being requested to allow a restaurant that is approximately
1,832 square feet in floor area. The proposal restricts the hours of operation for the restaurant to 4:00pm
to 11:00pm and restricts the hours for seating patrons to 5:00pm to 9:00pm.
The current building was constructed on a vacant site in 2002 after completing the site plan review
process under file #Z-02039. Two deviations were granted as part of that review:
1) to allow a reduction from the required 26 parking spaces to 19 total spaces including 2 ADA
parking spaces, and,
2) to allow the parking lot to encroach into the rear yard setback.
The building is currently occupied with office and light manufacturing uses and one vacant 555 square
foot tenant space which the owner is advertising for 9am – 5pm use only. No complaints have been
received by the Department of Planning and Community Development regarding parking or any other
code violations. These previously approved deviations are not a component of the current application.
As part of an informal review conducted in August of 2011, the Planning Department recommended that
the applicant vet the project proposal with the neighborhood. Mr. Brown presented his proposal at the
October 2011 Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA) meeting. Mr. Brown also discussed the
project with the Northeast Urban Renewal Board (NURB) during the public comment period of their
September 6, 2011 meeting. After receiving feedback from residents at these meetings, Mr. Brown
proceeded with the formal application process. The NURB discussed the project again at their January
3rd and February 7, 2012 meetings. Minutes from these meetings are attached. Other public comment
has been received and is attached.
This review is being conducted for the deviation request to the restaurant size limit of 1,500 square feet
in the HMU zone district. Please note that restaurant uses of 1,500 square feet or less are a permitted
principal use in the HMU zone district. Therefore, conditions related to mitigating the impacts of the
proposal must be focused on the potential incremental impacts of a restaurant use that exceeds the 1,500
square foot limit.
The size of the restaurant proposed is 22% larger than what is allowed as a principal use in the Northeast
HMU District. Staff’s analysis and conclusion is that the proposal mitigates potential impacts (parking
congestion, noise, odors, etc.) that could result from the proposed deviation from the limit of 1,500
square feet for restaurants in the HMU zone district. Therefore, as proposed and with the proposed
conditions, Staff finds that the application meets all applicable criteria.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
Based on the subsequent analysis, the DRC and Staff find that the application, with conditions and code
provisions, is in general compliance with the adopted Growth Policy and the City of Bozeman Unified
Development Code (UDC). The following conditions of approval are recommended.
Recommended Conditions:
161
#Z-11288 Brown Building Restaurant Proposal COA/DEV Staff Report
3
PLANNING
1. Total gross floor area of the restaurant shall not exceed 1,832 square feet without further City
approval.
2. The indoor seating area for the restaurant is limited to 850 square feet unless sufficient on-site
parking, or an alternate method to meet required parking, is provided for a larger area.
Alternative methods for parking, such as a shared use parking agreement, shall be in compliance
with all applicable requirements of the BMC and are subject to approval by the Planning
Department.
3. One ADA parking space is required. It shall be maintained as a van accessible ADA space.
4. The serving of alcohol is not permitted until all required permits are approved by the City and
State.
5. There shall be no outdoor seating permitted with this restaurant use.
6. The only tenant doing business during the evening hours (after 5:00 pm) shall be the restaurant
unless otherwise approved by the Planning Department.
7. If cooking odors or noise are determined by the Planning Department to be a nuisance, as
defined in Sections 16.05.050, 16.06 or 38.21.070, BMC, it shall be the responsibility of the
restaurant to mitigate the nuisance.
8. Two boulevard trees shall be planted along N. Peach Street. At least a 10 foot separation between
the trees and water/sewer service lines shall be provided. Species selection shall be from the
current list of acceptable boulevard trees distributed the Bozeman Forestry Division.
9. Applicant shall comply with all fire/building code standards for the restaurant use and the mix of
uses in the building.
10. These conditions shall be recorded at the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder prior to release of
building permit.
ENGINEERING
11. The Final Site Plan shall be adequately dimensioned. A complete legend of all line types used
shall also be provided.
12. Sewer and water services shall be shown on the FSP and approved by the Water/Sewer
Superintendent. Necessary backflow prevention must be demonstrated for the existing water
service line.
13. The applicant is advised that any establishments responsible for food preparation shall install an
outside two-compartment grease interceptor. If space is not available for an interceptor a grease
trap shall be installed under the three-chambered sink. Interceptor/trap design and installation is
subject to City of Bozeman Building Department approval. In accordance with Municipal Code,
the applicant is further advised that on-site maintenance records and interceptor service shall be
maintained on a regular basis and made available to the City upon request.
Code Provisions:
14. Per Section 38.01.080 & 38.34.110, the proposed project shall be completed as approved and
conditioned in the Certificate of Appropriateness application. Any modifications to the
162
#Z-11288 Brown Building Restaurant Proposal COA/DEV Staff Report
4
submitted and approved application materials shall invalidate the project's legitimacy, unless the
applicant submits the proposed modifications for review and approval by the Department of
Planning prior to undertaking said modifications. The only exception to this law is repair.
15. In Accordance with the Section 13.12.322, “Protective Devices”, the Water/Sewer
Superintendent is requiring an inspection of your water service to determine whether the water
service has backflow protection and if such protection is installed that the device is appropriate
for the level of use for the facility. If the service has been found without backflow protection the
applicant will have a preventer and expansion tank installed. If the existing device does not
provide adequate protection, the applicant will be required to replace the preventer with a
preventer that is designed to provide adequate protection. Please call the Water Department’s
Backflow specialist @ 582‐3200 to arrange an inspection of the water service.
16. Section 38.23.150.D, provides standards for on-site lighting. Owner shall comply with these
standards.
17. Per Section 38.34.100.6, the applicant shall obtain a building permit within one year of
Certificate of Appropriateness approval, or said approval shall become null and void. Please call
the Building Department at 406-582-2375 for more information on the building permit process.
18. Per Sec. 38.21.050.F, “Accessory Buildings and Equipment”, roof top mounted and ground
mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened.
19. Per Sections 38.28.080 and 38.28.090, a Comprehensive Sign Plan is required for multi-
tenant complexes and Signage for “Multitenant Complexes” shall be determined as follows:
The maximum permitted wall sign area allowed for each tenant space shall be the percentage of
the total floor area on the zoned lot that the tenant occupies multiplied by the wall area allowed
by section 38.28.060.A.2 or section 38.28.060.B.2, unless otherwise allocated in an approved
comprehensive sign plan per section 38.28.070. If the lot has more than one building frontage,
the individual tenant space may derive sign area only from the frontage(s) which the space faces.
Lots under this section shall be allowed a low profile sign that identifies the complex, which
otherwise conforms to this article, in addition to the sign area already permitted under section
38.28.060.A.2 or section 38.28.060.B.2.
Conclusion/Recommendation
The DRC and Staff have reviewed the Brown Building Restaurant proposal and recommend City
Commission approval of the application as proposed and with the conditions outlined in this Staff
Report. The applicant must comply with all provisions of the UDC, which are applicable to this project,
prior to receiving Final Site Plan approval. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code
provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver
or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or State law.
Zoning Designation & Land Uses
The property is zoned HMU, Northeast Historic Mixed Use Density District.
Per Section 38.14.010, A & B, “The intent of the northeast historic mixed-use district is to provide
recognition of an area that has developed with a blend of uses not commonly seen under typical zoning
requirements. The unique qualities and nature of the area are not found elsewhere in the city and should
be preserved as a place offering additional opportunities for creative integration of land uses. The intent
of this area is to allow private and case-by-case determination of the most appropriate use of land in a
broad range of both nonresidential and residential uses. Standards for buffering between different land
163
#Z-11288 Brown Building Restaurant Proposal COA/DEV Staff Report
5
uses are deliberately not as high as standards elsewhere in the community as it is assumed that persons
choosing to locate in this area are aware of the variety of possible adjacent land uses and have accepted
such possibilities as both acceptable and desirable. It is expected that the lots within this district will
continue to develop under a variety of uses which may increase or decrease in scope in any given
portion of the district.
The clear intent of this district is to support a mix and variety of nonresidential and residential uses.
Nothing in this article shall be interpreted to be discouraging or prejudicial to any listed use except as set
forth as principal and conditional uses.”
The current land use is light manufacturing and office. The following land uses and zoning are adjacent
to the subject property:
North: Light Manufacturing, zoned HMU
South: Residential Single family, zoned R-2
East: Light Industrial, fuel storage, zoned HMU
West: Light Manufacturing, warehouse and office uses, zoned HMU
Adopted Growth Policy Designation
The Future Land Use Map of the recently updated Bozeman Community Plan designates the subject
property as Industrial. This classification provides areas for the uses which support an urban
environment such as manufacturing, warehousing, and transportation hubs. Development within these
areas is intensive and is connected to significant transportation corridors. In order to protect the
economic base and necessary services represented by industrial uses, uses which would be detrimentally
impacted by industrial activities are discouraged. Although use in these areas is intensive, these areas are
part of the larger community and shall meet basic standards for landscaping and other site design issues
and be integrated with the larger community. In some circumstances, uses other than those typically
considered industrial have been historically present in areas which were given an industrial designation
in this growth policy. Careful consideration must be given to public policies to allow these mixed uses to
coexist in harmony.
Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Section 38.16.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness”
Section 38.16.050 specifies the required standards for granting Certificate of Appropriateness approval.
In the discussion below, Administrative Design Review (ADR) Staff evaluated the applicant's request in
light of these standards.
A. All work performed in completion of an approved Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in
conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and
Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Published 1995), published by U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage
Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. (available for review at the Department of Planning).
The existing building was constructed in 2002. There is no inventory report for this property.
Secretary of Interior Standards and guidelines are not applicable. The applicant proposes adding a
vestibule to the existing building.
164
#Z-11288 Brown Building Restaurant Proposal COA/DEV Staff Report
6
B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and
compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structures or
properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, shall focus upon the following:
1. Height: The height of the building is unchanged with this application.
2. Proportions of doors and windows: The new vestibule incorporates a store front window
system to match the existing black anodized windows throughout. This increases the pedestrian
level interest and creates a well-defined entry for the restaurant which invites pedestrian activity.
3. Relationship of building masses and spaces: Unchanged with this application
4. Roof shape: Unchanged with this application
5. Scale: Unchanged with this application
6. Directional expression: Unchanged with this application
7. Architectural details: The proposed vestibule utilizes existing architectural materials and
details to unify the addition with the existing building.
8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment: The applicant
has been notified that screening of mechanical equipment is required (see code provisions).
9. Materials and color scheme: Except for the wood siding on the east side of the vestibule the
materials match the existing. The wood siding adds warmth to a rather cool materials palette and
helps to define the restaurant entrance.
C. Contemporary, nonperiod and innovative design of new structures and additions to existing
structures shall be encouraged when such new construction or additions do not destroy
significant historical, cultural or architectural structures, or their components, and when such
design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and the surrounding
structures.
The applicant proposes adding an appropriate architectural element (the vestibule) to an existing
contemporary building constructed in 2002.
D. When applying the standards of subsections A-C, the review authority shall be guided by the
Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District which are hereby
incorporated by this reference. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or innovative
design of new structures, or addition to existing structure, the review authority shall be guided
by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to determine
whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures.
Aside from the addition of the vestibule and new window system to replace the existing garage
doors, the structure is unchanged with this application. Staff will ensure that if mechanical
equipment screening is needed, it will be evaluated against the NCOD Guidelines as a modification
to this application.
E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title.
165
#Z-11288 Brown Building Restaurant Proposal COA/DEV Staff Report
7
One deviation is requested with this application. The deviation request is to Section 38.14.020
Authorized Uses. The applicant is requesting that the restaurant be approximately 1,832 square feet
which is 22% larger than is permitted by right for restaurant uses. Within the HMU District,
restaurants are a principal use but are restricted to 1,500 square feet per Section 38.14.020.
Conformance with other applicable development standards are addressed with the Conditions and
Code Provisions listed in this staff report.
Section 38.16.070 “Deviations from Underlying Zoning Requirements”
Section 38.16.070 specifies the required criteria for granting deviations from the underlying zoning
requirements. In the discussion below, ADR Staff evaluated the applicant's request in light of these
criteria.
A. Modifications shall be more historically appropriate for the building and site in question, and
the adjacent properties, as determined by the standards in § 38.16.050 of this chapter, than would
be achieved under a literal enforcement of this title;
There is no historical inventory record for this site. The building was constructed on a vacant lot in
2002. According to the 1928 Sanborn map, two buildings were present on the lot and housed a seed
company and seed & hay warehouse. We have no record of when these buildings were demolished but it
was prior to 1957. Historically, a mixture of uses has been present in this neighborhood, which resulted
in the establishment of the Northeast Historic Mixed Use District. The intent and purpose of the HMU
District is provided in the “Zoning and Land Use Designation” section of this report (page 2) and
supports a broad mixture of uses, including residential, commercial and industrial. The intent of this area
is to allow flexibility and adaptability of the most appropriate uses of land in a broad range of both
nonresidential and residential uses.
Restaurant uses of 1,500 square feet or less are a permitted principal use in the HMU District, so the use
has already been deemed appropriate for the District. Therefore, analysis of compliance with this
criterion is focused on the potential incremental impacts of a restaurant use that exceeds the 1,500
square foot limit. Given the long standing mixed use land use and development pattern of the
neighborhood and the location at a prominent corner location with a higher intensity non-residential
character, Staff finds that the requested deviation is historically appropriate for the site.
The only change proposed to the exterior of the building is the addition of a vestibule at the restaurant
entrance on the northwest corner. The vestibule maintains the same materials as the existing building,
maintaining the industrial appearance of the structure while introducing a wood siding element that
defines the entrance to this tenant space and accentuates the mixture of uses proposed for the building
and allowed in the HMU District. The vestibule creates a further distinction between the first and upper
floor as the NCOD guidelines recommend. Staff finds that with the recommended conditions of
approval this application creates a project which will be more historically appropriate for the site and
surrounding neighborhood in question and thus complies with this criterion..
B. Modifications will have minimal adverse effect on abutting properties or the permitted uses
thereof;
The vestibule mitigates noise associated with patrons entering and exiting the restaurant. The entrance of
the restaurant will be on the northwest corner of the building, away from the R-2, single family dwelling
use south of the property. Single family homes are present within the HMU District and within 200 feet
of the subject property. The intent of the HMU District recognizes that standards for buffering between
166
#Z-11288 Brown Building Restaurant Proposal COA/DEV Staff Report
8
different land uses are deliberately not as high as standards elsewhere in the community as it is assumed
that persons choosing to locate in this area are aware of the variety of possible adjacent land uses and
have accepted such possibilities as both acceptable and desirable. The applicant reported to the
Northeast Urban Renewal Board during their February 7, 2012 meeting (excerpt of draft minutes
attached) that the additional space is needed because the restaurant owner prefers a larger kitchen space
with walk-in cooler and gelato machine. The seating area provided is comparable to what one could find
in a 1,500 square foot restaurant without the added kitchen space.The restaurant hours of operation are
limited to the evening hours as proposed by the applicant which provides for a temporal separation of
uses and demand of the parking lot, as well as mitigating noise and parking issues on residential uses in
the mix use neighborhood. This approach meets all applicable shared parking standards, specifically
since the seating area for the restaurant is limited by Condition #2 to 850 square feet. Staff’s analysis
and conclusion is that potential impacts arising from restaurant use are mitigated by restaurant entrance
location, the temporal separation of the uses and demand of the parking lot and by the proposal’s
specific limitation of the hours of operation and the size of the seating area. Therefore, Staff finds that
the application complies with this criterion.
C. Modifications shall assure the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare.
The proposal will be required to comply with all recommended conditions of approval and code
provisions regarding the protection of health, safety and general welfare Therefore, Staff finds that the
application complies with this criterion.
Section 38.19.100 Plan Review Criteria
In considering applications for plan approval under this title, the review authority and advisory bodies
shall consider the following criteria:
1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy
The mixture of uses proposed with this application is appropriate and in conformance with the City’s
adopted growth policy.
2. Conformance to this title, including the cessation of any current violations
Staff is not aware of any current violations on the subject property. The applicant is advised that
unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval,
does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman
Municipal Code or state law.
3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations
The plans will be further evaluated against the requirements of the International Building Code at the
time application is made for a Building Permit.
4. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property
Aside from the addition of the vestibule and the removal of one ADA parking space, the site
conditions are largely unchanged. The applicant has been informed that two boulevard trees must be
planted along E. Peach Street (see Staff Conditions).
167
#Z-11288 Brown Building Restaurant Proposal COA/DEV Staff Report
9
5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions
Staff finds the temporal separation between uses is adequate for addressing the parking concerns.
Staff has provided a condition that will restrict the restaurant seating area to 850 square feet, so that
the lot will meet the minimum required parking spaces for the restaurant and yoga studio uses
between the hours of 5:00pm and 9:00pm. If additional parking spaces are provided through a joint
use parking agreement, this restriction to the seating may be modified following review of an
application submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development.
6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress
Adequate pedestrian and vehicular ingress are provided.
7. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use, open
space, and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural vegetation
• Building Enhancements: The property owner is renovating the entrance on the northwest corner
of the building to improve pedestrian use and reduce noise impacts to residential neighbors.
• Appearance of vehicular use: No changes to parking area are proposed other than the removal of
one ADA parking space.
• Open space: there is no open space requirement with this application
• Pedestrian areas: Sidewalks are in place along both street frontages
• Preservation or replacement of natural vegetation: No natural vegetation is being removed. As
conditioned by staff, two trees, acceptable to City Forestry Department shall be provided within
the E. Peach Street boulevard area.
8. Open space
There are no open space requirements associated with this application other than required yard
setbacks which were addressed during the review of the site plan review for the building in 2002. A
deviation was granted for a reduced rear yard setback. No issues have arisen from this built
condition.
9. Building location and height
These are unchanged with this application
10. Setbacks
These standards are unchanged with the applicant’s proposal.
11. Lighting
No exterior lighting modifications are proposed with this application. See code provisions.
12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities
Not applicable.
13. Site surface drainage
168
#Z-11288 Brown Building Restaurant Proposal COA/DEV Staff Report
10
Unchanged with this application.
14. Loading and unloading areas
No loading areas are proposed with this application.
15. Grading
The grading is unchanged with this application
16. Signage
No signage is proposed or permitted for this use, and the applicant has been advised that a
comprehensive signage plan is required for multi-tenant buildings. See Code Provisions.
17. Screening
This is required for roof top mechanical equipment if not screened by the existing parapet. See Code
Provisions. Staff will review screening options if needed and as proposed by the applicant.
18. Overlay district provisions
See “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness” beginning on page 5 of this report.
19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties
Three public comments have been received as of the writing of this staff report. Both were
unsupportive of the proposal.
1) Public comment was received from Frankie C’deBaca, the neighbor to the south of the
subject property. Mr. C’deBaca circulated a petition stating that “We the undersigned do
not support a restaurant at the Brown Building”. The petition is attached along with Mr.
C’deBaca’s public comment.
2) A letter received by the Northeast Urban Renewal Board from Julie Kleine and Aaron
Mugass on January 3, 2012 references the restaurant proposal and questions whether or not
there is adequate parking.
3) The Northeast Urban Renewal Board made the following motion at their January 3, 2012
meeting: “Move that we recommend to not support the deviation”. Motion passed 4-1. The
NURB minutes are attached.
4) A letter of support was received from Bobbi Clem, commercial property owner at 800 N.
Wallace Ave. See attached.
5) A letter of support was received from Misco Mill Gallery property owners at 700 N.
Wallace Ave. See attached.
6) The NURB discussed the project again at their February 7, 2012 meeting. No additional
motions were made regarding this project. The meeting minutes are attached.
7) Four e-mails in support of the project were received. Attached.
169
#Z-11288 Brown Building Restaurant Proposal COA/DEV Staff Report
11
Any additional public comment received prior to the public hearing will be forwarded to the City
Commission members.
20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other
means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either:
Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuration or use of
the property or cause the development to become nonconforming
or
The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the City is a
party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of the development
to become nonconforming.
Not applicable
21. Compliance with Title 17 Chapter 2, BMC (Workforce Housing)
Not applicable
22. Phasing of Development
Not applicable
Summary: Based on a finding that the deviation request meets all applicable criteria, Staff
recommends approval of the deviation and COA application.
THE DECISION OF THE CITY COMMISSION MAY BE APPEALED BY AN AGGRIEVED
PERSON AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 38.35.080 OF THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE.
Attachments: Application and public comment
Report Sent to: Putter Brown, 600 N. Wallace Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
Ben Lloyd and Laura Landon, Comma Q Architecture, 109 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
170
DATE:PROJECT #:ORIGINAL DRAWING SIZE: 24" x 36"DATE 1This drawing is not intended, nor shall it be used for construction,unless the signed professional stamp of a registered architect employed by Comma-Q Architecture, Inc. is affixed 2345CONSULTANTSNO.REVISIONS DESCRIPTION Q:\_Jobs11\16 Brown Building Core & Shell Alternations\3 SD\Drawings\Revit\1116 Brown Building Core and Shell Alterations.rvt 600 North Wallace Ave 11/4/2011 COA 111-16 Cover SheetCOA SubmittalBrown Building Core & Shell Alterations Putter Brown, Chris Bunting, Owners
Co
r
e
a
n
d
S
h
e
l
l
A
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
Br
o
w
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Bo
z
e
m
a
n
,
M
T
5
9
7
1
5
Pu
t
t
e
r
B
r
o
w
n
,
C
h
r
i
s
B
u
n
t
i
n
g
,
O
w
n
e
r
s
CO
A
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
-
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
OW
N
E
R
:
Pu
t
t
e
r
B
r
o
w
n
,
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
Ch
r
i
s
B
u
n
t
i
n
g
,
P
a
r
t
e
r
60
0
N
.
W
a
l
l
a
c
e
A
v
e
Bo
z
e
m
a
n
,
M
T
5
9
7
1
5
Ph
o
n
e
5
8
6
5
5
5
5
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
:
Co
m
m
a
-
Q
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
,
I
n
c
.
10
9
N
.
R
o
u
s
e
A
v
e
#
1
Bo
z
e
m
a
n
,
M
T
5
9
7
1
5
Ph
o
n
e
:
4
0
6
.
5
8
5
.
1
1
1
2
CO
N
T
A
C
T
:
B
e
n
L
l
o
y
d
,
L
a
u
r
a
L
a
n
d
o
n
TA
B
L
E
O
F
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
S
CO
A
1
CO
V
E
R
S
H
E
E
T
CO
A
2
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
,
U
S
E
S
T
U
D
Y
,
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
CO
A
3
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
CO
A
4
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
R
R
A
T
I
V
E
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
ZO
N
I
N
G
M
A
P
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
P
L
A
N
L
A
N
D
U
S
E
M
A
P
LA
N
D
U
S
E
I
N
V
E
N
T
O
R
Y
M
A
P
PE
A
C
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
WALLACE AVE
Zo
n
i
n
g
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
-
H
M
U
,
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
-
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
R2
HM
U
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
La
n
d
U
s
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
-
m
i
x
e
d
u
s
e
Th
e
B
r
o
w
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
r
e
a
n
d
S
h
e
l
l
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
s
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
te
d
a
t
th
e
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
P
e
a
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
W
a
l
l
a
c
e
A
v
e
.
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
c
l
ud
e
r
e
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
i
n
g
w
h
a
t
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
a
L
i
g
h
t
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
a
nd
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
i
n
g
a
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
S
p
a
c
e
.
T
h
e
L
i
g
h
t
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
e
s
m
a
l
l
e
r
a
n
d
o
f
f
i
c
e
s
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
L
i
g
h
t
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
wi
l
l
b
e
re
m
o
v
e
d
.
A
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
t
o
i
l
e
t
r
o
o
m
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
a
n
d
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
w
o
t
o
i
l
e
t
r
o
o
m
s
t
h
a
t
s
e
r
v
e
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
L
i
g
ht
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
Sp
a
c
e
s
.
A
n
e
w
E
n
t
r
y
/
V
e
s
t
i
b
u
l
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
d
d
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
e
N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
a
l
e
g
i
b
l
e
e
n
t
r
y
a
r
e
a
f
or
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
g
a
r
a
g
e
d
o
o
r
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
w
i
t
h
n
e
w
a
l
u
m
i
n
u
m
s
t
o
r
e
f
r
o
n
t
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
.
B
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
S
e
c
o
n
d
Le
v
e
l
s
p
a
c
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
(
e
x
c
e
p
t
w
h
e
r
e
n
o
t
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
)
w
i
l
l
r
e
m
a
i
n
u
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
.
Ba
s
e
d
o
n
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
a
f
f
'
s
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,
P
u
t
t
e
r
B
r
o
w
n
,
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
w
n
e
r
,
a
t
t
e
n
d
e
d
b
o
t
h
N
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
N
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
B
o
a
r
d
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
t
o
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
h
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
t
h
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
A
s
pe
c
t
s
o
f
th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
e
d
b
y
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
.
F
o
r
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,
t
h
e
n
e
w
v
e
s
t
i
b
u
l
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
s
t
h
e
f
r
o
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
R
e
s
t
au
r
a
n
t
,
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
tr
a
f
f
i
c
a
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
P
e
a
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
w
h
e
r
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
c
o
u
l
d
d
i
sr
u
p
t
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
.
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
,
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
a
t
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
to
w
a
r
d
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
ar
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
.
PA
R
K
I
N
G
C
O
N
S
I
D
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
:
In
t
h
i
s
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
u
s
e
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
a
s
h
a
r
e
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
u
d
y
(
s
e
e
s
h
e
et
C
O
A
2
)
sh
o
w
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
u
s
e
a
n
d
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
r
e
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
.
T
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
u
d
y
w
a
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
R
e
s
t
a
ur
a
n
t
t
h
a
t
i
s
op
e
n
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
d
i
n
n
e
r
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
4
:
0
0
p
m
t
o
c
l
o
s
i
n
g
)
.
T
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
i
s
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
f
o
r
m
a
l
l
y
r
e
c
o
r
d
t
h
i
s
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
.
DE
V
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
:
18
.
2
4
.
0
2
0
A
U
T
H
O
R
I
Z
E
D
U
S
E
S
,
N
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
H
M
U
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
,
A
.
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
u
s
e
s
,
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
1
5
0
0
s
q
f
t
o
r
l
e
s
s
Th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
i
s
l
a
r
g
e
r
t
h
a
n
t
h
a
t
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
U
D
O
.
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
a
f
f
w
e
r
e
s
u
p
po
r
t
i
v
e
o
f
u
p
t
o
a
2
5
%
d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
1
,
5
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
o
o
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
u
p
t
o
1
,
8
7
5
s
f
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
a
r
e
a
i
s
1
,
7
8
5
s
f
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
se
a
t
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
T
h
i
s
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
a
l
l
o
w
a
v
i
b
r
a
n
t
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
t
h
a
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
s
u
bs
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
o
d
pr
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
t
o
o
c
c
u
p
y
t
h
i
s
s
p
a
c
e
.
PE
A
C
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
WALLACE AVE
PR
O
J
E
C
T
S
I
T
E
PE
A
C
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
WALLACE AVE
PE
A
C
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
WALLACE AVE
17
1
DATE:PROJECT #:ORIGINAL DRAWING SIZE: 24" x 36"DATE 1This drawing is not intended, nor shall it be used for construction,unless the signed professional stamp of a registered architect employed by Comma-Q Architecture, Inc. is affixed 2345CONSULTANTSNO.REVISIONS DESCRIPTION Q:\_Jobs11\16 Brown Building Core & Shell Alternations\3 SD\Drawings\Revit\1116 Brown Building Core and Shell Alterations.rvt 600 North Wallace Ave 11/4/2011 COA 211-16 Use Study, Parking CalculationsCOA SubmittalBrown Building Core & Shell Alterations Putter Brown, Chris Bunting, Owners
N.
W
a
l
l
a
c
e
A
v
e
Pe
a
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
le
v
e
l
2
le
v
e
l
1
ba
s
e
m
e
n
t
OF
F
I
C
E
S
&
YO
G
A
S
T
U
D
I
O
LI
G
H
T
M
F
G
LI
G
H
T
M
F
G
N.
W
a
l
l
a
c
e
A
v
e
Pe
a
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
le
v
e
l
2
le
v
e
l
1
ba
s
e
m
e
n
t
OF
F
I
C
E
S
&
YO
G
A
S
T
U
D
I
O
LI
G
H
T
M
F
G
LI
G
H
T
M
F
G
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
RE
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
N
E
W
E
N
T
R
Y
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
CU
R
R
E
N
T
B
R
O
W
N
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
U
S
E
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
R
O
W
N
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
U
S
E
35
5
0
s
f
40
2
0
s
f
27
0
0
s
f
35
5
0
s
f
19
5
8
s
f
27
0
0
s
f
17
8
5
s
f
PA
R
K
I
N
G
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
LI
G
H
T
M
A
N
U
F
A
C
T
U
R
I
N
G
-
B
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
1
s
p
a
c
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
0
s
f
o
f
f
l
o
o
r
a
r
e
a
p
l
u
s
1
s
p
a
c
e
p
e
r
2
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
o
n
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
wo
r
k
i
n
g
s
h
i
f
t
(
U
D
0
T
a
b
l
e
4
6
-
4
)
:
2+
1
=
3
s
p
a
c
e
s
LI
G
H
T
M
A
N
U
F
A
C
T
U
R
I
N
G
-
L
E
V
E
L
O
N
E
1
s
p
a
c
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
0
s
f
o
f
f
l
o
o
r
a
r
e
a
p
l
u
s
1
s
p
a
c
e
p
e
r
2
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
o
n
ma
x
i
m
u
m
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
s
h
i
f
t
(
U
D
0
T
a
b
l
e
4
6
-
4
):
2+
1
=
3
s
p
a
c
e
s
RE
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
-
L
E
V
E
L
O
N
E
1
p
e
r
5
0
s
f
o
f
i
n
d
o
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
p
l
u
s
1
s
p
a
c
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
s
f
o
f
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
pa
t
i
o
a
r
e
a
(
U
D
0
T
a
b
l
e
4
6
-
4
)
:
in
d
o
o
r
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
:
7
5
0
/
5
0
=
15
s
p
a
c
e
s
OF
F
I
C
E
S
-
L
E
V
E
L
T
W
O
Of
f
i
c
e
s
1
s
p
a
c
e
p
e
r
2
5
0
s
f
o
f
f
l
o
o
r
a
r
e
a
12
s
p
a
c
e
s
YO
G
A
S
T
U
D
I
O
-
L
E
V
E
L
T
W
O
He
a
t
h
a
n
d
e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
1
s
p
a
c
e
p
e
r
2
0
0
s
f
o
f
f
l
o
o
r
a
r
e
a
2
s
p
a
c
e
s
TO
T
A
L
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
=
35
s
p
a
c
e
s
TO
T
A
L
S
P
A
C
E
S
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
=
19
s
p
a
c
e
s
Th
e
a
b
o
v
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
f
o
r
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
l
y
.
B
e
c
a
u
s
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
u
s
e
s
v
a
r
y
o
v
e
r
t
i
m
e
,
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
wi
l
l
b
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
at
a
n
y
g
i
v
e
n
t
i
m
e
.
S
e
e
G
r
a
p
h
B
e
l
o
w
.
JO
I
N
T
U
S
E
O
F
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
"S
h
a
r
e
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
m
a
y
b
e
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
i
f
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
c
a
n
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
o
s
e
r
v
e
t
w
o
o
r
mo
r
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
s
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
o
r
e
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
.
"
U
D
O
S
e
c
.
38
.
2
5
.
0
5
0
.
-
J
o
i
n
t
u
s
e
o
f
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
17
2
UPDN
57
5
8
5
8
5 8
5 9
5 9
5 9
5
9
59
6 0
6 0
60
60
61
61
6 1
MH
MH
Pe
a
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N. Wallace Ave.
Al
l
e
y
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
-
1
9
s
p
a
c
e
s
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
N
E
W
EN
T
R
Y
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
i
g
h
t
M
a
n
u
f
.
Sh
o
p
(
s
i
z
e
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
)
W
S
W
SD
TELTEL
W
SD
W
W
S
S
S
S
WW
(E
)
G
A
R
B
A
G
E
E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
10
'
0
"
x
8
'
-
6
"
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
LO
T
3
1
LO
T
3
0
LO
T
2
9
LO
T
2
8
LO
T
2
7
LO
T
2
6
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE DATE:PROJECT #:ORIGINAL DRAWING SIZE: 24" x 36"DATE 1This drawing is not intended, nor shall it be used for construction,unless the signed professional stamp of a registered architect employed by Comma-Q Architecture, Inc. is affixed 2345CONSULTANTSNO.REVISIONS DESCRIPTION Q:\_Jobs11\16 Brown Building Core & Shell Alternations\3 SD\Drawings\Revit\1116 Brown Building Core and Shell Alterations.rvt 600 North Wallace Ave 11/4/2011 COA 311-16 Site PlanCOA SubmittalBrown Building Core & Shell Alterations Putter Brown, Chris Bunting, Owners
1
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
Si
t
e
n
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
N
O
T
E
S
1)
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
R
E
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
,
V
E
R
I
F
Y
A
L
L
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
I
N
F
I
E
L
D
2)
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
W
A
T
E
R
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
W
A
S
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
W
I
T
H
A
C
.
O
.
B
.
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
ME
T
E
R
A
N
D
B
A
C
K
F
L
O
W
P
R
E
V
E
N
T
E
R
17
3
60UPDN
UP
DN
UPDN 2'-0"
1
2
3 4
50
S
F
Me
n
'
s
T
o
i
l
e
t
50
S
F
Wo
m
e
n
'
s
T
o
i
l
e
t
11
1
S
F
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
17
8
5
S
F
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
A
r
e
a
19
5
8
S
F
Li
g
h
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
A
r
e
a
NE
W
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
A
L
K
NE
W
V
E
S
T
I
B
U
L
E
/
E
N
T
R
Y
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
NE
W
A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M
F
R
A
M
E
D
ST
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
IN
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
G
A
R
A
G
E
D
O
O
R
OP
E
N
I
N
G
NE
W
A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M
F
R
A
M
E
D
ST
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
IN
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
G
A
R
A
G
E
D
O
O
R
OP
E
N
I
N
G
NE
W
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
P
A
R
T
I
T
I
O
N
,
2
H
R
R
A
T
E
D
NE
W
T
O
I
L
E
T
S
A
T
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
OF
(
E
)
T
O
I
L
E
T
.
6' - 4"
8'
-
4
"
NO
T
E
:
2
H
R
F
I
R
E
S
E
P
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
AT
F
L
O
O
R
&
C
E
I
L
I
N
G
O
F
RE
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
A
R
E
A
DATE:PROJECT #:ORIGINAL DRAWING SIZE: 24" x 36"DATE 1This drawing is not intended, nor shall it be used for construction,unless the signed professional stamp of a registered architect employed by Comma-Q Architecture, Inc. is affixed 2345CONSULTANTSNO.REVISIONS DESCRIPTION Q:\_Jobs11\16 Brown Building Core & Shell Alternations\3 SD\Drawings\Revit\1116 Brown Building Core and Shell Alterations.rvt 600 North Wallace Ave 11/4/2011 COA 411-16 Floor Plan &Existing Building ImagesCOA SubmittalBrown Building Core & Shell Alterations Putter Brown, Chris Bunting, Owners
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
Gr
o
u
n
d
L
e
v
e
l
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
I
m
a
g
e
s
n
PL
A
N
N
O
T
E
S
1)
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
A
R
E
T
O
F
.
O
.
F
R
A
M
I
N
G
U
.
N
.
O
.
17
4
T.O. Slab Ground Level 0' - 0"T.O. Slab Upper Level 14' - 0"T.O. Decking Roof 26' - 9 1/2"T.O. Slab Basement -10' - 0"
3
4
SIGN
LOCATION
(N
)
S
I
G
N
L
I
G
H
T
PA
I
N
T
E
D
S
T
L
.
R
O
O
F
E
D
G
E
,
MA
T
C
H
(
E
)
C
A
N
O
P
I
E
S
AL
U
M
.
S
T
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
,
BL
A
C
K
A
N
O
D
I
Z
E
D
NE
W
E
N
T
R
Y
V
E
S
T
I
B
U
L
E
:
ST
E
E
L
T
R
I
M
WO
O
D
S
I
D
I
N
G
&
S
O
F
F
I
T
NE
W
A
L
U
M
.
S
T
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
SY
S
T
E
M
,
B
L
A
C
K
A
N
O
D
I
Z
E
D
I
N
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
G
A
R
A
G
E
D
O
O
R
OP
E
N
I
N
G
ST
E
E
L
T
R
I
M
,
T
Y
P
.
T.O. Slab Ground Level 0' - 0"T.O. Slab Upper Level 14' - 0"T.O. Decking Roof 26' - 9 1/2"T.O. Slab Basement -10' - 0"1
2
PAINTED STL. ROOF EDGE,MATCH(E) CANOPIES ALUM. STOREFRONT SYSTEM,BLACK ANODIZEDNEW ENTRY VESTIBULE:STEEL TRIMWOOD SIDING & SOFFIT DATE:PROJECT #:ORIGINAL DRAWING SIZE: 24" x 36"DATE 1This drawing is not intended, nor shall it be used for construction,unless the signed professional stamp of a registered architect employed by Comma-Q Architecture, Inc. is affixed 2345CONSULTANTSNO.REVISIONS DESCRIPTION Q:\_Jobs11\16 Brown Building Core & Shell Alternations\3 SD\Drawings\Revit\1116 Brown Building Core and Shell Alterations.rvt 600 North Wallace Ave 11/4/2011 COA 511-16 Elevations &Perspective ViewsCOA SubmittalBrown Building Core & Shell Alterations Putter Brown, Chris Bunting, Owners
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
We
s
t
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
No
r
t
h
3
Vi
e
w
o
f
N
e
w
E
n
t
r
y
/
V
e
s
t
i
b
u
l
e
'
B
'
4
Vi
e
w
o
f
N
e
w
E
n
t
r
y
/
V
e
s
t
i
b
u
l
e
'
A
'
5
Vi
e
w
o
f
N
e
w
E
n
t
r
y
/
V
e
s
t
i
b
u
l
e
'
C
'
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
N
O
T
E
S
1)
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
C
O
A
4
F
O
R
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
I
M
A
G
E
S
2)
A
L
L
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
E
X
C
E
P
T
F
O
R
WO
O
D
S
I
D
I
N
G
A
N
D
S
O
F
F
I
T
.
S
E
E
I
M
A
G
E
T
H
I
S
P
A
G
E
WOOD SIDING AND SOFFIT
17
5
Page 1 Appropriate Review Fee Submitted
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
1. Name of Project/Development:
2. Property Owner Information:
Name: E-mail Address:
Mailing Address:
Phone: FAX:
3. Applicant Information:
Name: E-mail Address:
Mailing Address:
Phone: FAX:
4. Representative Information:
Name: E-mail Address:
Mailing Address:
Phone: FAX:
5. Legal Description:
6. Street Address:
7. Project Description:
8. Zoning Designation(s): 9. Current Land Use(s):
10. Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Designation:
11. Gross Area: Acres: Square Feet: 12. Net Area:Acres: Square Feet:
176
Page 2
(Development Review Application – Prepared 11/25/03; Amended 9/17/04, 5/1/06; 9/18/07)
13. Is the subject site within an urban renewal district? Yes, answer question 13a No, go to question 14
13a. Which urban renewal district? Downtown Northeast (NURD) North 7th Avenue
14. Is the subject site within an overlay district? Yes, answer question 14a No, go to question 15
14a. Which Overlay District? Casino Neighborhood Conservation Entryway Corridor
15. Will this application require a deviation(s)? Yes, list UDO section(s): No
16. Application Type (please check all that apply): O. Planned Unit Development – Concept Plan
A. Sketch Plan for Regulated Activities in Regulated Wetlands P. Planned Unit Development – Preliminary Plan
B. Reuse, Change in Use, Further Development Pre-9/3/91 Site Q. Planned Unit Development – Final Plan
C. Amendment/Modification of Plan Approved On/After 9/3/91 R. Planned Unit Development – Master Plan
D. Reuse, Change in Use, Further Development, Amendment /COA S. Subdivision Pre-application
E. Special Temporary Use Permit T. Subdivision Preliminary Plat
F. Sketch Plan/COA U. Subdivision Final Plat
G. Sketch Plan/COA with an Intensification of Use V. Subdivision Exemption
H. Preliminary Site Plan/COA W. Annexation
I. Preliminary Site Plan X. Zoning Map Amendment
J. Preliminary Master Site Plan Y. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment
K. Conditional Use Permit Z. Zoning Variance
L. Conditional Use Permit/COA AA. Growth Policy Map Amendment
M. Administrative Project Decision Appeal BB. Growth Policy Text Amendment
N. Administrative Interpretation Appeal Other:
This application must be accompanied by the appropriate checklist(s), number of plans or plats, adjoiner information and materials, and fee
(see Development Review Application Requirements and Fees). The plans or plats must be drawn to scale on paper not smaller than 8½-
by 11-inches or larger than 24- by 36-inches folded into individual sets no larger than 8½- by 14-inches. The name of the project must
be shown on the cover sheet of the plans. If 3-ring binders will be used, they must include a table of contents and tabbed dividers between
sections. Application deadlines are Wednesdays at 5:00 pm. This application must be signed by both the applicant(s) and the property
owner(s) (if different) before the submittal will be accepted.
As indicated by the signature(s) below, the applicant(s) and property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and
provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code. It is further indicated that any work undertaken to complete a development approved by the
City of Bozeman shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and any special conditions established by
the approval authority. I acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project. Further, I
agree to grant City personnel and other review agency representatives access to the subject site during the course of the review process
(Section 18.64.050, BMC). I (We) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant’s Signature: Date:
Applicant’s Signature: Date:
Property Owner’s Signature: Date:
Property Owner’s Signature: Date:
177
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/COA/Deviation%20...%20Use%20COA-DEV/Public%20comment/Fwd%20Damascos%20Letter3.txt
From: Putter Brown [putterbrown@mac.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:27 AM
To: Keri Thorpe
Subject: Fwd: Damascos Letter
one more :)
Begin forwarded message:
From: Pete Oliver <pete@archerconstruction.info>
Date: February 7, 2012 4:55:22 PM MST
To: "putterbrown@mac.com" <putterbrown@mac.com>
Subject: Damascos Letter
Putter,
My family and I would welcome the addition of a small restaurant on the corner of Wallace and
Peach as long as the hours of operation don’t run past 10 pm and the parking situation is
thoughtfully dealt with.
Good Luck
Pete Oliver
413 N. Wallace
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/COA/Dev...COA-DEV/Public%20comment/Fwd%20Damascos%20Letter3.txt [2/16/2012 4:12:44 PM]
178
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/COA/Deviation%20...ange%20of%20Use%20COA-DEV/Public%20comment/Fwd%20Damascos1.txt
From: Putter Brown [putterbrown@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:55 AM
To: Keri Thorpe
Subject: Fwd: Damascos
hi keri. forwarding you this letter of support. is it right for me to forward these to you, or,
would you prefer another way?
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Stephen C. Sutton" <sutts@bresnan.net>
Date: February 15, 2012 11:41:21 AM MST
To: putterbrown@mac.com
Subject: Damascos
Hi Putter,
My name is Steve Sutton, I live at 408 N. Wallace. I like the idea of the Restarant at that location. I have
been in the neighborhood for 11 years and think that more of that type oc commercial use is fitting for
the neighborhood.
However, I am aware that the folks closer to the location have concerns about parking and late night
activity. Let's make every effort to conseider their concerns. thanks Steve
M]file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/COA/De...20Use%20COA-DEV/Public%20comment/Fwd%20Damascos1.txt [2/16/2012 4:12:44 P
179
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/COA/Deviation%20...ange%20of%20Use%20COA-DEV/Public%20comment/Fwd%20Damascos2.txt
From: Putter Brown [putterbrown@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:56 AM
To: Keri Thorpe
Subject: Fwd: Damascos
one more :)
Begin forwarded message:
From: Matt Madden <matt@riverbendbuild.com>
Date: February 11, 2012 6:12:23 PM MST
To: putterbrown@mac.com
Subject: Damascos
Putter,
I live at 419 N.Brady Ave., in Bozeman. This email is in support of Damasco's opening a
restaurant on the northwest corner of Peach and Wallace. I have been to its current location in
Belgrade and welcome the opportunity to walk to dinner there.
Matt
--
Matt Madden
Riverbend Builders, Inc.
www.riverbendbuild.com
C: 406 580 0315
O: 406 522 0260
F: 406 585 4504
M]file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/COA/De...20Use%20COA-DEV/Public%20comment/Fwd%20Damascos2.txt [2/16/2012 4:12:44 P
180
file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/COA/Deviation%20...ange%20of%20Use%20COA-DEV/Public%20comment/Fwd%20Damascos4.txt
From: Putter Brown [putterbrown@mac.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:30 AM
To: Keri Thorpe
Subject: Fwd: Damascos
you may have this one ? if so, sorry :)
Begin forwarded message:
From: Brant Wiehardt <brant.wiehardt@gmail.com>
Date: February 6, 2012 9:44:19 PM MST
To: putterbrown@mac.com
Subject: Damascos
Putter, Katie and I are happy to hear that Damascos Restaurant may be moving into your
building on Peach and Wallace. We feel it would be an economic, cultural, and culinary benefit
to the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Brant and Katie Wiehardt
423 N. Brady Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715
M]file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/COA/De...20Use%20COA-DEV/Public%20comment/Fwd%20Damascos4.txt [2/16/2012 4:12:45 P
181
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"#$%&'%(!)*+!,-),!
!
./!01/2!34!5'(!6/78#%79!
!
:;!'!<=(#'%!1/2#/>7#%!?@A@7B!'4!C)D!E!0'??'8#!3FG!?@H#!4/!A/@8#!2(!;&II/%4!J/%!'!
7#@B1$/%1//G!%#;4'&%'74!'4!41#!E/%41!#7G!/J!0'??'8#!K@74#%;#84@/7!/J!LM!N#'81!'7G!EM!
0'??'8#OM!!.%&?(+!4%'JJ@8!@;!'!2//4!I/@74!'7G!@4!>/&?G!$#!?'&B1'$?#!@J!41#!8@4(!/J!
P/Q#2'7!&;#G!41@;!';!'7!'%B&2#74!4/!;4/I!R'2';8/;!J%/2!/88&I(@7B!41#!$&@?G@7BM!
!
3!81/;#!4/!I&%81';#!2(!1/2#!/7!EM!0'??'8#!$#8'&;#!/J!41#!7#@B1$/%1//GS!@4F;!
I%/T@2@4(!4/!G/>74/>7!'7G!U'>41/%7#!;81//?M!!.1#!7#@B1$/%1//G!>@??!/7?(!$#!
#71'78#G!>@41!41#!'GG@4@/7!/J!'7!#T8#??#74!%#;4'&%'74!/7!/&%!E/%41!#7GM!!34!@;!2(!1/I#!
41'4!41#!8@4(!>@??!;##!41#!$#7#J@4!/J!$%@7B@7B!V/$;!'7G!A@4'?@4(!4/!/&%!W7#8H!/J!41#!
>//G;FM!!N#%1'I;+!;I&%%@7B!'GG@4@/7'?!B%/>41+!V/$;+!'7G!%#A#7&#!J%/2!41#!E/%41!L';4!
7#@B1$/%1//GM!
!
N%/B%#;;!'7G!B%/>41!'%#!@7#A@4'$?#M!!:GG@4@/7'?!4%'JJ@8!J?/>!>@??!$#!'!%#;&?4M!!3!G/7F4!
2@7G!'!$@4M!!:;!>#!'??!H7/>+!41#!'2/&74!/J!4%'JJ@8!/7!E!0'??'8#!@;!'77/(@7B!$&4!41#!
'GG@4@/7!/J!'!B%#'4!%#;4'&%'74+!V/$;+!%#A#7&#+!'7G!8/22&7@4(!A@4'?@4(!J'%!/&4>#@B1!
'GG@4@/7'?!8'%;!&I!'7G!G/>7!41#!;4%##4M!!!
!
.1'7H!(/&+!
!
!
!
N#4#!5'8"'G(#7+!5X+!Y6N6!
LT#8&4@A#!R@%#84/%Z"/&7G#%!
P@B!XH(![/&41!L2I/>#%2#74+!378!
!
!
Big Sky Youth Empowerment
PO Box 6757
Bozeman MT 59771
406.539.0399
byep.org
!
182
14 January 2012
Northeast Urban Renewal Board
Bozeman, Montana
Subject: Letter of Support for the Brown Building Restaurant
Dear Sir/Ma’am,
The purpose of this letter is to express our support for the proposed neighborhood Damascos
restaurant located in the Brown building at the corner of Wallace Ave and Peach Street,
Bozeman, Montana. It is our belief that the restaurant will have minimal negative impact on the
neighborhood while providing a pleasant place to gather. We think the limited operating hours
will minimize the flow of traffic in the neighborhood. In fact, we believe the restaurant will have
an extremely positive impact on the neighborhood by bringing a quality and cultured
establishment for our use. We understand there may not be enough parking spaces at the Brown
Building and would offer overflow parking at our Misco Mill Gallery parking lot located one
block away at 700 N. Wallace Ave.
It is our hope that a permit will be issued to allow the Damascos Restaurant to open and serve the
Northeast neighborhood. The neighborhood is in need of this positive change.
Very sincerely,
Owners of Misco Mill Gallery: Shaw Thompson, Sam Thompson and Nate Thompson
Samuel S. Thompson III Nathaniel L. Thompson Samuel S. Thompson IV
Misco Mill Misco Mill Misco Mill
Owner Owner Owner
183
184
185
186
187
188
Date: 12.9.12
From: Wallace North
810 N. Wallace Ave.
Suite C
Bozeman, MT 59715
To: Board of Adjustment
City Hall
121 N. Rouse Ave
Bozeman, MT. 59715
RE: Support for 600 N. Wallace COA
I would like to add my support for the application that would allow an 1832 square foot restaurant in
Brown Building. For the past six years I have owned three commercial buildings that are located two
blocks from this location, so I am very familiar with the neighborhood. I think the building architecture is
perfect for a small restaurant, and a restaurant would be a great addition to the neighborhood, as I think
it would serve both the residential and commercial areas on each side of the property.
I understand that the size of the restaurant would require a deviation, as it is 25% larger than the
existing 1500 square foot limit, but I have seen this building, and it would be difficult to divide up to
create a smaller space. As the final size is still under 2000 square feet it is obviously not going to be a
large restaurant, but a small neighborhood place, which I believe is in keeping within the intent of the
original zoning change.
I also understand that the parking in the on‐site parking lot is not sufficient for the change in use, but
the property is located on a corner, there is also a great deal of existing and unused parking on two sides
of the building. I think it is highly unlikely that the restaurant even during peak hours will create the
need for more parking than can be accommodated with street parking. I think it highly unlikely that the
parking would end up using any of the adjoining residential neighborhoods on the other side of Peach
Avenue. This statement is based on the fact that that many of my tenants and their employees live close
enough to the neighborhood that they can ride bikes, use the Streamline or walk. I am assuming that
this probably would be the same for many of the customers of this restaurant.
I understand that there may be reluctance on the part of the NE neighborhood, but I would remind
them that the zoning in this neighborhood would allow for some other uses which might create just as
much or more traffic, but which might negatively impact the neighborhood property values.
This project has my wholehearted support, and I would encourage the Board of Adjustment to vote in
favor of this COA.
Bobbi Clem
President, Wallace North LLC
189
Excerpts from Northeast Urban Renewal Board Meeting Minutes
SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 NURB MINUTES
Public Comment. Putter Brown, part owner of the Brown Building at the intersection of East
Peach Street and North Wallace Avenue, stated he is exploring the idea of a restaurant in one-
half of the main floor, which would be approximately 1800 square feet. He noted that one of the
outcomes of the informal review was a sense that he should reach out to the neighborhood as the
first step in the formal review process.
Putter Brown stated that he needs supplemental parking for the restaurant. As a result, he
approached Chad Groth about the possibility of using the parking spaces on his site and, since
the restaurant would only operate from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., obtained approval from Mr. Groth and
all of his tenants to use those existing parking spaces. He noted that the restaurant would be
Damasco’s, an existing Italian restaurant in Belgrade that would relocate to this site. He stated
the owner currently serves beer and wine, and that license would transfer to this site as well. The
existing restaurant is 1500 square feet; and the owner would like to increase the size to 1800
square feet with his relocation to Bozeman. He stated the restaurant would be closed on Sundays
and Mondays.
Putter Brown noted that many different ideas for use of this building have arisen over the years,
but he has not been comfortable with any of them. In this instance, the business has been
successful in Belgrade for four years; the owner lives in Bozeman; his wife grew up just a couple
blocks from the site and attended Hawthorne School; and his children currently attend
Hawthorne School.
Responding to Bob Pavlic, Planner Thorpe stated the subject property is zoned HMU, and under
this zoning a 1500-square-foot restaurant would be allowed. Since the owner would propose to
serve beer and wine, the conditional use permit process would be triggered; and the applicant
could seek up a deviation to increase the size up to 25 percent. If any external modifications are
proposed, a certificate of appropriateness would also be required.
Erik Nelson expressed his support for the proposal, stating he feels it would be compatible and
would bring vitality to the area after 5:00 p.m.
Jeanne Wesley-Wiese acknowledged that this restaurant would be good for business but stated
that, as a resident, she is a little anxious about it and potential impacts on the street and the area.
She noted that one of her major concerns is parking, particularly in light of the congestion
around Audrey’s Pizza Oven and the current proposal to eliminate parking along the north side
of East Peach Street.
Putter Brown responded that those issues are the reasons that he chose to obtain existing parking
spaces close to the site.
190
Bob Pavlic expressed some reservations about this proposal, stating he feels that restaurants are
more appropriately located downtown or close to a highway, rather than in this mainly
residential area.
Dan Doehring stated he is generally supportive of the idea, noting that one of the ideas of a
mixed use district is to bring services, such as food, closer to the residents.
Chris Nixon voiced his interest in the idea, noting it would result in a restaurant only a block
from his business. He finds anything that adds to the vitality of the area a positive. He noted,
however, he is concerned with how the proposal to remove parking along the north side of East
Peach Street might impact this business as well as other businesses along that street.
Chair Nelson noted that, as the formal application moves through the process, the Board may act
on it, or the members can comment individually. He concluded by stressing the importance of
the applicant talking to this Board as well as the neighbors.
JANUARY 3, 2012 NURB MINUTES
Public Comment – Frank C’de Baca, 524 North Wallace Avenue, provided his input on the
proposed restaurant in the Brown Building, located immediately across the street from his home.
He noted that the concerns he voiced at this Board’s October meeting remain, and presented
again the letter that he had submitted at that meeting. He also presented a petition signed by
residents along both North Wallace Avenue and East Peach Street within a block of the proposed
restaurant. In addition, he submitted a letter from Julie Kleine and Aaron Mugaas expressing
their concerns about the proposed restaurant.
Frank C’de Baca stated that parking remains his main concern. He noted that the restaurant is
proposed to open at 5 p.m. but the parking lot generally remains half full until 6 p.m. because
some of the businesses in the building remain open into the evening hours. He expressed
concern that the result will be people being unable to park in the parking lot but spilling into the
street, probably adjacent to his home and destroying his boulevard area since there are no curbs
on that side of the street. He noted the most troubling is that Putter Brown is seeking deviations
to allow a larger restaurant when the neighborhood concerns have not been met.
Responding to Chair Nelson, Frank C’de Baca stated his first concern is that the restaurant is not
right for the area, but will change its character. He cited the parking problems around Audrey’s
Pizza, which is located just a few blocks from the subject site.
Tom Noble noted that residents in the district are not supportive of restaurants in the area. He
stated they trade their noisy days for quiet nights; and they don’t want that standard to be
compromised.
Frank C’de Baca stated he has lived in his home for 22 years. He noted that at the present time,
the neighborhood becomes quiet and pleasant after 6 p.m. on weeknights and on the weekends;
and that peace and tranquility will be lost forever if a restaurant is allowed.
Planner Keri Thorpe stated this application goes before the Board of Adjustment next Tuesday.
191
Responding to Frank C’de Baca, Chair Nelson confirmed that he should attend the meeting and
voice his concerns. He noted that, while this Board may choose to submit its comments, the
Board of Adjustment has the final decision.
Frank C’de Baca observed that, if one person gets hurt, the whole neighborhood gets hurt.
Jeanne Wesley-Wiese encouraged Frank to get others to attend the meeting as well, noting that
testimony is better that signatures on a petition.
Chair Nelson stated it is important to consider the owner’s property rights and to balance
expectations. He noted that in this instance, the applicant is seeking a deviation to increase the
size of the restaurant by 22 percent.
Responding to Frank C’de Baca, Commissioner Liaison Taylor suggested he can put a sign on
his lawn asking that no one park on the street adjacent to his property.
.
Frank C’de Baca stated all he wants is peace and quiet. He noted that things are changing in the
area, and he does not want to see any more change. He concluded by asking if Board members
would want a restaurant across the street from their homes.
Chair Nelson emphasized the importance of providing input to the governing board since that
input can result in providing mitigation for those concerns.
Planner Thorpe stated that staff is recommending the hours of operation be recorded at the Clerk
and Recorder’s Office so that the proposed business or any new business in this location is
limited to those hours of operation.
Brown Building Restaurant Proposal. Responding to Chair Nelson, Planner Keri Thorpe
stated she notified Putter Brown that this item was listed on the agenda and invited him to attend
the meeting, but he is not present.
Planner Thorpe stated the only deviation the applicant seeking is to the size of the restaurant.
Since parking must be provided for other tenants in the building open past 5 p.m., she has
proposed a condition of approval that would limit the square footage of the seating area in the
restaurant. She noted that the conditions of approval are to be recorded with the Clerk and
Recorder and, if a new restaurant were to move into this location, it would be required to comply
with those conditions. She stated the conditions recommended by staff include the limitation on
the seating area as well as a closing time of 9 p.m. She concluded by noting that, while
Damasco’s has been the restaurant previously discussed for this location, the application does not
specify it in the application.
Planner Thorpe noted that Putter Brown has indicated employees will arrive at 4 p.m. and the
restaurant will open at 5 p.m. The doors of the restaurant will close at 9 p.m. but employees will
probably not be done with their work until around 11 p.m.
192
Responding to Tom Noble, Planner Thorpe confirmed that the requested deviation is for just
over 300 square feet. She noted that several of the neighbors to this site have indicated patrons
could use their parking spaces at night. She observed that Audrey’s Pizza met their minimum
number of parking spaces, but recognized that the success of a business can trigger the need for
more spaces.
Responding to questions from Randy Wall, Planner Thorpe confirmed that a deviation was
granted when the building was originally constructed, to reduce the number of parking spaces
from 26 to 19. She has driven by the site and found at least seven spaces open and, as a result, is
recommending that the initial deviation be honored.
Responding to Dan Doehring, Planner Keri Thorpe stated that an agreement for additional
parking spaces is not needed under the recommended conditions of approval since an adequate
number of spaces are available on site.
Responding to Chair Nelson, the Planner confirmed that the conditions for the cabaret license for
Audrey’s Pizza were filed with the Clerk and Recorder. She then noted that if a use creates a
nuisance, they must mitigate it; and that could cover the issue of smell that was previously
raised.
Chair Nelson stated that, with the recommended limitation on the seating area, he doesn’t see
any problem with the requested deviation. He then voiced concern that the applicant is not
present to provide input on why the additional 300 square feet is needed, but he suspects that
space may be needed in the kitchen.
Responding to comments from Randy Wall, Planner Thorpe stated the applicant is proposing to
divide the space in half by putting a wall down the middle of the building, with two separate
entrances and a hallway between the spaces.
Randy Wall voiced his concern that the main entrance for the restaurant is on the north, which is
closest to his house and bedroom. He suspects that the noisiest people will be the employees as
they leave work for the night, particularly since that noise will travel directly to his bedroom. He
then questioned why the restaurant cannot be limited to 1500 square feet since the dividing wall
is not yet constructed.
Chair Nelson noted that the applicant is adding a vestibule to provide an inside area for patrons
waiting to be seated.
Randy Wall noted that the intent of the historic mixed use district is to provide various services
for the area, which he feels would include a small restaurant serving breakfast and lunch since
businesses are closed in the evenings. He noted this is very different from an evening restaurant
that attracts people from both inside and outside the district. He then voiced concern that
providing a vestibule for people to wait will result in the need for additional parking, which
could negatively impact the neighborhood.
193
Randy Wall stated he has read Frank C’de Baca’s letter, and he agrees with many of those
concerns. He noted that at 5 p.m., the neighborhood goes quiet and is very quiet on weekends.
He questioned whether the proposed restaurant is consistent with the intent of the historic mixed
use district. He then stated that, while he does not object to a restaurant, he does object to loud
talking in a parking lot behind his house.
Responding to Chair Nelson, Bob Pavlic stated he does not want the restaurant in this
neighborhood, noting that once one is allowed, others could follow.
Randy Wall questioned how the City will enforce conditions which limit the number of seats
allowed or the square footage dedicated to seating.
Chair Nelson noted that the Building Division will review the plans to ensure they comply with
the conditions of approval. He then stated he feels this Board should weigh in on this
application, noting he has not been convinced that the deviation would be adverse.
Tom Noble recognized the applicant has the right to open a restaurant in the subject location. He
does not, however, support the requested deviation, particularly since the applicant is not present
to tell the Board why it is needed.
Randy Wall noted he would like to see a discussion on whether property owners in the
neighborhood feel an evening use is appropriate in a historic mixed use district. He expressed
concern that this business could change incrementally, with the sale of alcohol in the restaurant
being the next step.
Tom Noble voiced his support for discussing whether an evening use is appropriate, noting that it
has been discussed in other situations, such as Bronken’s.
Responding to Jeanne Wesley-Wiese, Planner Thorpe cautioned that we don’t normally use
zoning to restrict hours of uses but rather rely on other ordinances, such as a noise ordinance, to
mitigate such concerns.
Jeanne Wesley-Wiese expressed concern that, under the previous code, if a residential use were
located adjacent to an M-1 use, the more restrictive standards applied; however, the least
restrictive standards now apply.
Planner Thorpe reminded the Board that the underlying land use designation in the growth policy
for this area is industrial.
Chair Nelson reminded the Board that under the zone code, a restaurant is allowed on the subject
property, noting that he does not have a problem with the requested deviation.
It was moved by Tom Noble, seconded by Dan Doehring, that the Board recommend the
deviation not be supported. The motion carried on a 4-1 vote with Bob Pavlic voting No.
194
It was moved by Bob Pavlic, seconded by Jeanne Wesley-Wiese, that the Board not support the
application for an evening use restaurant in the district. The motion failed on a 2-2 vote with
Tom Noble abstaining.
FEBRUARY 7, 2012 NURB DRAFT MINUTES
Brown Building Restaurant Proposal. Planner Thorpe stated the City Commission has
reclaimed decision-making authority on this application; and it is now scheduled before that
body on February 27.
Chair Nelson gave a brief summary of this Board’s discussion and decision at last month’s
meeting, noting that after extensive discussion and a concern that the applicant was not present to
provide background information on why the deviation was being requested, the Board voted to
support the application for the restaurant without the deviation.
Putter Brown stated that Tommaso, owner of Damasco’s, has requested a deviation to the 1500-
square-foot limit to provide space for a walk-in freezer and a gelato machine. He showed a
diagram of the proposed restaurant space based on both the 1500-square-foot size allowed and
the 1800-square-foot size requested, stressing that there are no changes in the seating area and
the circulation patterns; rather, all of the additional square footage is located in the preparation
area. He stressed that, while the application is simply for a restaurant, he has not had discussions
with any other restaurant owner or with any realtor. Rather, he and Tommaso determined that
going through the process jointly was overwhelming to both of them, so they have divided the
process with him being responsible for the application and creating the shell space and Tommaso
being responsible for creating the restaurant once the application the shell space is available.
Responding to Tom Noble, Putter Brown stated that take out is not part of the current Damasco’s
operation; and he has not had any discussions with the applicant on whether it would be part of
this restaurant.
Tom Noble voiced his concern that a take-out service can have an impact on traffic volume and
patterns. He noted that a lobby area can also generate a need for more parking for those waiting
to be seated.
Putter Brown noted that one of the main reasons for the vestibule is to identify the restaurant
access. He indicated that any take-out orders would be serviced through that vestibule.
Responding to Frank C’de Baca, Putter Brown stated the current restaurant hours are 5 to 9 p.m.
and the proposal is to retain those hours, with the restaurant being closed on Sundays and
Mondays. He then indicated that the yoga studio will be moving on February 15, which will
open up several of the parking spaces currently occupied after 5 p.m. He noted that employees
are to park off site and, to accommodate those vehicles, he has a handshake agreement with the
tenant across the street to use eight of his parking spaces. He noted that he has also been offered
parking spaces at the Misco Mill Art Gallery to accommodate parking needs.
195
Frank C’de Baca stated that he has discussed this proposed restaurant with Mr. Perkins, owner of
Karst Stage, and he has expressed his concerns about parking and safety at the corner of East
Peach Street and North Wallace Avenue.
Tom Noble noted that much of the discussion at last month’s meeting revolved around the
impacts a night time use will have on the area. He then stated that a review of his files produced
a petition signed by 37 residents in 2005 voicing opposition to night time uses in the district.
Bob Pavlic expressed his concern that the zone code has changed so that restaurants are now a
permitted use and not attached to a food manufacturing business.
Chair Nelson stressed the importance of remembering that a 1500-square-foot restaurant is
allowed, and that the issue is whether the Board wishes to recommend approval of the requested
deviation.
Responding to Jeanne Wesley-Wiese, Planner Thorpe stated there are no restrictions on hours of
operation in the zone code, so the only restriction comes with self-imposed hours unless a more
intense review process is triggered in the future.
Randy Wall suggested that the noise ordinance could possibly be used to address noise issues
resulting from this use. He then reviewed the language contained in previous zoning documents,
noting it seems the type of restaurant conceived for this area was a coffee shop or deli that is
open during the day but is closed in the evenings.
Putter Brown stated that when he built the subject building, he met with Frank C’de Baca and
found he was concerned about people parking adjacent to his house. In light of that concern, he
has informed all of his tenants not to park there and, if he has found any customers parking by
Mr. C’de Baca’s home, has asked that they move. He suggested that, to address those concerns,
residential parking signs be posted.
Assistant Planner Keri Thorpe cautioned that the posting of such signs requires the creation of a
residential parking district, which typically involves a larger area and is triggered by significant
impacts on parking patterns.
Todd Hoitsma noted that, while he would be happy to see the restaurant in this location, he is
concerned about traffic. He cited the issues around Audrey’s Pizza, which is just down the
block, and noted that this use will impact and change this subject area. He stated those who live
along East Peach Street are used to noise; but it is amazing how quiet the area becomes on
weekends.
Frank C’de Baca stated that, while he is not anti-business, he is concerned this restaurant will
change the whole neighborhood as well as the parking. He also voiced concern about the safety
issues that can arise from parking along the street resulting from this night time activity.
196
As a result of this discussion, the Board chose to take no further action on this agenda item, but
to let the motion adopted at the January 3 meeting stand.
Night time uses in the District. At Chair Nelson’s request, Tom Noble provided some
background information on why this item was placed on the agenda. He drew attention to
various points in the district plan, noting the mission statement references protecting the unique
ambiance and historic character of the district. He also referenced some of the guiding
principles, which include balancing commerce and livability within the district; honoring the
unique character and vitality of the district; and considering the impacts that projects within the
district may have on adjacent neighborhoods. He then noted he is not aware of a restaurant ever
having been located within this district, and he speculated that people did not anticipate night
time uses.
Jeanne Wesley-Wiese stated she was taken aback when she realized the zone code had been
changed to allow restaurants to operate at night; and she believes that allowing them will make
the area less habitable for residents. She noted that at the present time, residents have evening
and weekend peace; and she is concerned that night time uses will have a big impact on the
district.
Chair Nelson noted there are currently night time uses in the district, and it appears that the
concern revolves around social night time uses.
Responding to Randy Wall, Planning Director Tim McHarg stated restaurants are allowed in the
HMU zoning district regardless of what is allowed in the M-1 or M-2 zoning district.
Responding to Chair Nelson, Planning Director McHarg cautioned against an amendment that
would limit hours of operation for a particular use, noting that enforcing that type of provision is
difficult. He recommended that the zoning provisions be kept as clean and simple as possible.
He suggested that, if the Board does not want restaurants, the best way to amend the code would
be to simply strike that use from the list of permitted uses in the HMU district. He noted that the
amendment would go through the Zoning Commission and to the City Commission for action.
Planning Director McHarg noted the current size cap is to allow a business that is compatible in
a mixed use neighborhood. He stated if the Board does not believe that is effective, then
eliminating the category would be the cleanest alternative. He suggested that, if the Board feels
there may be some types of restaurants that would be desirable in the district, another alternative
would be to subject them to the higher level of review provided by the conditional use process.
He noted that this would allow review on a case-by-case basis, with decisions being made by the
Board of Adjustment unless the City Commission reclaims decision-making authority.
Responding to Chair Nelson, Planning Director McHarg confirmed that hours of operation can
be included in the conditions of approval for a conditional use permit.
Responding to comments from Randy Wall, the Planning Director noted that one of the
underlying premises for the table of uses in the zone code is to keep it simple and compressed
197
into as few categories as possible. As a result, all restaurants are contained in one category and
should not be divided into various categories such as coffee shops or delis.
Commissioner Liaison Carson Taylor encouraged the Board to summarize what is happening
that they don’t want and then determine the tools to maintain the character of the neighborhood.
He cautioned that the zone code is a blunt instrument and, in this instance, may be too blunt. He
recognized that outlawing restaurants entirely may be more than the neighborhood wants. It
appears issues of concern include traffic, parking and noise, and he suggested that addressing
those issues may lead to the best solution.
Randy Wall noted that between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays, there is noise and traffic in the
neighborhood, but after 5 p.m. and on weekends, it is quiet. Because many of the buildings in
the district are tall and hard surfaced, noise can travel well. When he has his bedroom window
open at night and people are outside the Putter building talking in normal voices, he can clearly
hear the conversation. If the restaurant closes its doors at 9 p.m. and serves those who may have
just arrived, the last customers will probably leave around 10 p.m. and the employees around 11
p.m.; and he anticipates the noise will increase at both of those times as people talk on the way to
their vehicles.
Todd Hoitsma noted there is a studio across the street from him with sessions every Tuesday
night, and the noise does affect his living quality on those nights that the building is not
completely closed.
In light of this discussion, Planning Director McHarg asked the Board to allow staff to review
this information and bring back some ideas for consideration at the next meeting.
Chair Nelson stressed the importance of remembering that the district plan calls for acceptance
of the uniqueness of this neighborhood. He recognized the concerns of the residents in the area,
but noted that 50 to 60 percent of the land within the district may be occupied by industrial or
commercial uses; and those property owners need assurance that their property rights are also
being protected.
The Board agreed that this item should be placed on next month’s agenda for further discussion.
198