Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners briefed on Board of Adjustments' variances for proposed multifamily project; appeals possible
Summary
City staff told the Lewistown City Commission that the Board of Adjustments approved three variances (parking, setbacks and a reduced height allowance) for a proposed multifamily development, and explained appeals, state parking law changes and next steps. Commissioners were advised the appeals window remains open.
City Manager Holly Phelps told the Lewistown City Commission that the Board of Adjustments recently approved three variances for a proposed multifamily apartment project, including variances for parking and setbacks and an amended height approval capped at 45 feet rather than the 54 feet sought by the applicant.
City staff said the Board made findings under the four criteria used for variances — special conditions of the land, literal interpretation causing deprivation of rights, whether the variance confers a special privilege, and harmony with the 2024 Lewistown comprehensive plan. Doug, the city planner, told commissioners the Board concluded those criteria were met after a public hearing and deliberation.
Tyler noted an expected change from the Montana Legislature: "House Bill 492" will adjust how local authorities may regulate off-street parking and becomes effective Oct. 1, which staff said factored into discussions about parking requirements. Staff described the practical effect in this case: under the city's current code (1.5 off-street spaces per unit) the project would require about 40 parking spaces, but the site as proposed could provide roughly 24 spaces, creating the need for a variance.
Commissioners were advised of the appeals process. Doug cited city code 1113-4 (subtitle D), saying appeals may be filed by an "aggrieved person" and the code fixes a reasonable hearing time not to exceed 30 days; staff said appeals must be routed through the city planner's office for processing.
Several commissioners questioned details of how the Board applied the criteria to each variance. Commissioner Shaver said she believed the Board had reached the wrong conclusion on parts of the decision. No final action by the commission was required that evening; staff described the report as informational and outlined next steps: the appeal period, coordination with the incoming planning commission once county confirmations are complete, and the requirement that the developer meet building, fire and other technical codes before construction proceeds.
The commission was also told the project is designed as market-rate rental housing with one- and two-bedroom units; the developer has worked with engineers on sewer and access, and some site work (including burying overhead power lines) is planned to meet emergency access requirements.
