All right, now that uh all our available board members are here, we'll go ahead and call today's meeting to order.

This is the January 4th, uh 2025 meeting of the zoning board of adjustment.

Um I'll start with some introductions.

Or our board members here.

We've got Garrett Craig, Heidi Rosenleaf, Justin DeSazo, Lexi Murphy, and Mike McQueen over here, and I'm Stephen Co.

I'll be your MC chair today.

Staff members, we've got uh Joela down there at the computer, Aiden sitting here.

Um calling the meeting to order.

And we'll start with our hearing of cases.

First one on the docket today is variants twenty-five eleven.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

First report is for variants twenty-five-eleven.

And it's for thirty two fifty-five Hecala Street.

Um the applicant or owner is claim a query.

Per section 174840A of the Butte Silverbow Municipal Code to vary from Section 1740 900 number 36 and install 26 parking spaces instead of the required 42.

In 2019, the applicant had applied for variants number 16293 and it was approved for a much larger project.

However, due to some unforeseen unforeseeable events, the project was delayed and new plans have been submitted to the planning department.

The property is in an R1 or one family residence zone and is legally addressed as 3255 HECLA.

Again, it is in the R1 zone right here across directly to the north of the McQueen Club and across the street from property owned by Montana Resources.

Here is a site plan for the new addition.

To the south is the existing building, and up here is the 1440 square foot addition that they're proposing to install.

An aerial photograph of the facinity.

It is the Pitt Fitness Center.

Some background.

A legally established nonconforming use that is continued since that time.

As per section 174840A, any proposed alterations or expansions to this nonconforming use must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustments.

In 2019, the applicant submitted variants number 16293 requesting approval for a 4,310 square foot addition on the north side of the property, along with reduction in required parking and the rear yard setback.

The zoning board of adjustment approved the variance at that time.

However, the addition was never constructed.

The current proposal represents a significantly smaller expansion of 1,440 square feet along with a side yard setback that is consistent with an R1 required setback and reduction to the number of parking spaces.

The first criteria for a variance is that it will not be contrary to public interest.

Given the existing mix of single family residential and commercial uses in this area, the proposed expansion of the existing fitness center is consistent with the character and intent of the suburban mixed place type and will not be contrary to public interest.

Additionally, both recreational facilities and personal service uses such as hair salons considered are considered professional services.

They may be allowed by a special use permit in any zoning district with approval from the zoning board of adjustments.

This further supports the finding that the proposed use is not contrary to public interest.

The proposed expansion of the existing fitness center aligns with the established character of the neighborhood, promotes compet compatible development, and may be permitted through a special use permit in accordance with Butte Silverbow Municipal Code.

The second criteria is unnecessary hardship.

This property was originally granted approval through variants number 1056 to construct a fitness center and beauty salon.

In 2019, an amendment to this variance was approved to allow construction of a 4310 square foot addition, varying from the rear yard and parking requirements.

However, that addition was never completed.

The continued presence of a pre-existing non-conforming commercial building on a residentially zoned lot may be considered a hardship as the circumstances restrict the reasonable use of the property without either demolition of the existing structure or approval of a variance.

The zoning ordinance specifically recognizes such situations as potentially warranting relief through the variance process.

Based on the findings and evidence presented, literal enforcement of the zoning provisions would result in unnecessary hardship due to the unique configuration and existing non-conforming use of the property.

The hardship is not self-imposed and arises from site-specific conditions, including its zoning classification and structural layout that limit compliance with standard setback requirements.

Granting the requested variants will allow a reasonable and compatible expansion of the existing fitness center, consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and the suburban mixed place type identified in the Butte Silverbow Comprehensive Plan.

The third criteria is spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed.

The proposed five-foot side yard setback and reduction in parking spaces are consistent with the scale and character of surrounding development and would not create any unid any identifiable detriment to the neighborhood properties.

The proposed expansion supports community recreation and wellness consists with the suburban mixed place type of the comprehensive plan, which envisions a balanced blend of residential and small-scale commercial uses that serve nearby neighborhoods.

It should be noted that the expansion to the north would primarily affect the property immediately adjacent to the north, which is also owned by the applicant and is separated from the from the project site by an undeveloped alleyway.

Substantial justice.

Would literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other tracts in the same district.

Strict or literal enforcement of the R1 zoning district would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in this district.

The existing fitness center is a legally established non-conforming use that has operated for many years and serves a neighborhood scale commercial function consistent with the comprehensive plan suburban mixed place type.

Would approving the variance request grant the applicants any special privileges that are denied by by this chapter to other land in the same zoning district.

The property's use as a fitness center was legally established through use variants 105 10 566 in 2004 and has since operated as a neighborhood scale commercial use.

The proposed expansion and associated variants simply allow continued and improved use of the site within the spirit and intent of the zoning regulations.

Therefore, granting this variance would not constitute a special privilege, but rather would ensure equal treatment by permitting reasonable use and reinvestment in a strong standing community facility without altering neighborhood character or adversely affecting adjacent properties.

Conclusion and recommendation.

Staff finds that all three of the criteria were met and are recommending approval of the variance application based on written finding of facts as described in the staff report.