Belgrade Board of Adjustment motion to approve variances for proposed gym and kennel fails after 3–2 roll call

The Belgrade Board of Adjustment on April 22 failed to approve a package of variances requested for a proposed gym and kennel on a 0.97-acre lot at the southeast corner of Rizzo Lane and North Jackrabbit Road.

City senior planner Brad Stein presented the application and recommended denial, saying the owner had not shown the hardship required by the city code. "Staff does not recommend approval of these variances requested to setbacks and parking as this property has no actual hardship," Stein said, citing section 10.6.16(2). The applicant had asked to reduce several setbacks and to allow parking in landscape and buffer areas.

The petition asked for multiple changes to the Belgrade Flex Employment district rules: off-street parking in the front-yard setback (from 20 feet to 6 feet), in the secondary front-yard setback (20 to 5 feet), side-yard setback (10 to 0 feet), parking in the required Class C buffer yard, a rear-yard setback reduction (20 to 10 feet), and to not provide a loading space. Staff also noted that a kennel use would require a separate conditional‑use permit and further public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.

Nathan Harmon, the project designer with Scenic Design Studio, said the site design responds to surrounding warehouse-front patterns and argued the plan would exceed the city's 20% landscaping requirement. "We're about 35% landscaping," Harmon said, and described the gym as a class‑only boutique operation with shorter parking turnover. Project builder Gary Jensen and property owner Brad Hall also spoke in support of the plan, with Hall saying classes would be limited to about "10 to 12" attendees and the kennel would rely on a drop‑off/pick‑up loop rather than long‑term parking.

Board members questioned several technical points during the public hearing. Staff told the board the square‑footage parking calculation would require about 34 parking spaces under the city's per‑square‑foot method but that applicants may provide an occupancy report using a persons‑based method in the full site review. Staff also explained that on‑street parking is allowed but does not count toward off‑street parking requirements. The applicant told the board the submitted site plan included the required number of spaces, handicap spaces, and additional landscape area, but staff said the calculations and pervious‑area landscaping had not yet been fully verified.

After discussion, a board member moved to approve all requested variances in a single motion; Committee member Karen Rickert seconded. The board conducted a roll-call: Hal Karl (no), Doug Crumpler (yes), Karen Rickert (no), Matt Collingwood (yes) and Tegan Guffey (yes). The tally on the record was 3–2. City staff and the presiding chair then recorded that the motion had "failed" in the meeting record.

Because the hearing included potential conditional‑use elements (the kennel), approval of the variances would not by itself authorize a kennel; that use would still require separate conditional‑use review and City Council approval. With no further business, the chair adjourned the meeting.

Next steps: the applicant may revise the site plan and return for separate reviews (full site-plan review and a conditional‑use permit hearing) if they wish to pursue the project further.