The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-13-20 Public Comment - M. Egge - Egge Ordinance 2061 Comments signed 1 Mark Egge 542 N Black Ave Bozeman, MT 59715 Re: Ordinance 2061, Increasing Required Setbacks on Corner Lots City Commission, I am writing to urge amendments or denial of this ordinance for four reasons. First, this ordinance changes the dimensions of required setbacks on all corner lots. Please strike Section 2 in its entirely. The staff report states, "the proposed amendment is primarily changes to definitions. It does not change any dimensional setback for a building from a street." This is not accurate. The effect of these definitional changes would be to increase the size of required side setbacks on corner lots Increasing the required setbacks reduces buildable area and land values. Appendix A and Appendix C both demonstrate how Ordinance 2061 creates a change in dimensional requirements. Increasing required setbacks contradicts our Community Plan, which states “N-3.7 Support compact neighborhoods, small lot sizes, and small floor plans, especially through mechanisms such as density bonuses.” Large setbacks are fundamentally at odds with small lot sizes and compact neighborhoods (which is one of the reasons why the Bridger View subdivision required relaxations from current setback requirements). Second, lot geometry, measurement, and setback definitions all depend on the current definition of front lot line. These dependent definitions become untenable or nonsensical without a functioning definition of “front lot line.” Please strike the last line of Section 3 (changing the definition of “Lot Line, front”). The existing definition is adequately clear. As written in Ordinance 2061, corner lots would cease to have widths, side lot lines, or required rear setbacks. (For all relevant definitions, see Appendix B.) Current Definition: Lot line, front. In the case of an interior lot, a line separating the lot from the street, in the case of a corner lot, a line separating the narrowest street frontage of the lot from the street and in the case of a double frontage or through lot, a line separating the lot from the street from which a drive access may be permitted by the city. Proposed Definition: Lot line, front. In the case of an interior lot or a corner lot, a line separating street frontage of the lot from the street and in the case of a double frontage or through lot, a line separating the lot from the street from which a drive access may be permitted by the city. Under this new definition, a corner lot would have two front lot lines. The definition of rear lot line depends on the location of the (singular) front lot line: 2 Lot line, rear. A lot line which is opposite and most distant from the front lot line and, in the case of an irregular or triangular shaped lot, a line ten feet in length within the lot, parallel to and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. Thus, a under the new definition, a corner lot would also have two rear lot lines. Side lot lines are defined in orientation to front and rear lot lines: Lot line, side. Any lot boundary line that is not a front lot line or a rear lot line. Under the new definition, a corner lot would have two front lot lines, two rear lot lines, and zero side lot lines. The definition of Lot width depends on side lot lines: Lot width. The distance as measured in a straight line, between side lot lines at the points of intersection with the required front building line. Thus, without side lot lines, a lot has no width. A lot without definitional width is undevelopable due to the UDC Lot Width Minimums. Additionally, UDC setback definitions depend on a lot having one front lot line, one rear lot line, and two side lot lines. A rear setback is only required between two side lot lines: Rear setback. A setback extending across the full width of the lot between the two side lot lines, the depth of which is the distance required by this chapter between the rear property line and the rear building line. A lot with no width and no side lot lines would not require a setback on its “rear” sides. The new definition of front lot line changes the dependent definitions of Lot Width, Lot Depth, and Rear Setback. Any of these would constitute a dimensional change (which this Ordinance is not notice as). All of these definitions depend on having a single front lot line at the front of a lot. If the purpose of this ordinance is to clarify code, this change would accomplish the opposite. Third, please be aware that the bulk of this proposed Ordinance appears to be written in specific reference to a single development application (mine). I’ve attached as Appendix C the development application giving rise to staff’s suggested code changes in Sections 2 and 3 of Ordinance No. 2061. It seems that I am being singled out for this code change. Fourth and finally, please note that this proposed ordinance does not resolve the discrepancy between our Euclidian Form and Intensity Standards (UDC Article 3) lot line setback requirements and our Form Based (UDC Article 4) frontage setback requirements, as described by two other items on the Community Platform pertaining to setbacks. This proposed ordinance does not address either of these Community Platform Items: https://www.bozeman.net/government/planning/udc-community- platform/standards-for-setbacks https://www.bozeman.net/government/planning/udc-community-platform/setbacks-lot-area-and-bulk- requirements 3 These overlapping standards are one of the many reasons why the Community Plan recommends “DCD- 4.3: Complete the transition to a form-based code and simplification so that it can be understood by the general public and consistently applied by planning staff.” For these four reasons, I strongly urge City Commission to make the amendments indicated above and to move provisional adoption of the ordinance with modifications to the recommended ordinance; or, perhaps more appropriately, denial of the ordinance based on findings of non-compliance with the applicable criteria contained within the staff report (accordance with a growth policy, promotion of compatible urban growth, conserving the value of buildings). Thank you, Mark Egge 4 Appendix A – Increased Minimum Setbacks on Non-Front Frontage Table 38.320.030.C (Density, building height, and setbacks) requires: • a front setback of 15 feet, • a rear setback of 20 feet, and • side setbacks of 5 feet. Current Required Setbacks • The Code says, “All sides of a lot that abuts a street are considered frontage.” • The code defines “lot line, front” in the case of a corner lot as “a line separating the narrowest street frontage of the lot from the street.” We have two frontages. The narrowest is the “front.” • The Code defines Lot line, side as “Any lot boundary line that is not a front lot line or a rear lot line.” The figure above has two side lot lines. • Now, setbacks. The code says a “front setback” is “A setback extending across … the lot between two side lot lines … between the street … and the front building line.” The 15’ front setback is on the front of the lot. • The code says, a “Side setback” is “a setback extending between the front building line and the rear building line, between the side lot line and … the building.” There are two 5’ side setbacks. • Under the current code there is no ambiguity about where the frontages are. • Under the current code there is no ambiguity about which is the front setback and the side setbacks. Required Setbacks under Ordinance 2061 5 Under the Ordinance 2061 definition, “A setback extending across the full width of all sides of a lot that abuts a street.” Following the same line of logic, the required setback along the not-front frontage would be increased from 5’ (current code) to 15’ (Ordinance 2061). (Note, the effective side setback on the side of my lot that abuts Peach Street is actually 10 feet. See Appendix C for an explanation.) 6 Appendix B – UDC Definitions (Section 38.700) Sec. 38.700.070. - F definitions. Front setback. A setback extending across the full width of the lot between two side lot lines, the depth of which is the least distance between the street right-of-way and the front building line. Sec. 38.700.110. - L definitions. Lot measurements. A. Lot depth. The horizontal distance of a line measured at a right angle to the front lot line and running between the front lot line and rear lot line of a lot. B. Lot width. The distance as measured in a straight line, between side lot lines at the points of intersection with the required front building line. C. Lot frontage. The horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at the point where the side lot lines intersect the street right-of-way. All sides of a lot that abuts a street are considered frontage. On curvilinear streets, the arc between the side lot lines is considered the lot frontage. D. Lot area. The total horizontal area within the boundary lines of a lot. Lot line, front. In the case of an interior lot, a line separating the lot from the street, in the case of a corner lot, a line separating the narrowest street frontage of the lot from the street and in the case of a double frontage or through lot, a line separating the lot from the street from which a drive access may be permitted by the city. Lot line, rear. A lot line which is opposite and most distant from the front lot line and, in the case of an irregular or triangular shaped lot, a line ten feet in length within the lot, parallel to and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. Lot line, side. Any lot boundary line that is not a front lot line or a rear lot line. Sec. 38.700.160. - R definitions. Rear setback. A setback extending across the full width of the lot between the two side lot lines, the depth of which is the distance required by this chapter between the rear property line and the rear building line. Sec. 38.700.170. - S definitions. Setback. The distance from the property line to the nearest part of the applicable building, structure or sign, measured perpendicularly to the property line. Setback also refers to a space on the same lot with a principal building, which is open and unoccupied from the ground upward or from the ground downward other than by steps, walks, terraces, drive aisles, lamp posts and similar structures, and unobstructed by structures, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. Setback line. That line that is the required minimum distance from the street right-of-way or public access easement line or any other lot line that establishes the area within which structures must be placed, as specified in this chapter. Side setback. A setback extending between the front building line and the rear building line, the width of which is the least distance between the side lot line and the nearest part of the principal building. Street frontage. Any property line separating a lot from a street other than an alley; the front lot line. Beall’s Grove Infill Project – Concept Review 1 Concept Review Beall’s Grove Infill Project Site: BEALLS 2ND ADD, S07, T02 S, R06 E, BLOCK C, ACRES 0.149, TRACT A Address: 542 North Black Avenue, Bozeman, Montana 59715 1. Project Narrative The subject site is located on the traditional native lands of the Shoshone (Newe), Bannock, Sioux (Očhéthi Šakówiŋ), Salish Flathead (Squlix'u), Nez Perce (Nimíipuu), Blackfeet (Niitsitapi), Crow (Apsáalooke), and Cheyenne (Tsêhéstáno). The subject site is five blocks from downtown and one block from Beall Park. The lot was platted by Bozeman founding father William Beall and was a part of Beall’s “Chinese Garden” until developed in the 1930’s. William Beall platted 30’ wide lots; due to the block length this lot is 37’ wide. Design Intent: The design intent of this project is to add a duplex unit, ADU, and guest house to and existing single-family residence located on a 6,475 SF lot zoned R-3. The desired build out is a duplex, ADU, and guest house centered around a shared courtyard. The project includes demolition of the existing garage structure; expansion of the existing house (adding a second unit to create duplex); and construction of a new Accessory Dwelling Unit above a garage. Appendix C This concept review was submitted to the Planning Department on August 10, 2020 (after much correspondence with the Planning Dept. re: setbacks since March 2020) Beall’s Grove Infill Project – Concept Review 2 Project Goals: The project goal is infill development to help meet the community’s need for affordable housing in areas with great multimodal access. These small units are intended to be affordable, sustainable, and to support a car-light lifestyle. The project is located in close proximity to parks, employment, attractions, and transit. This location is ideal for infill development, being located within a half mile of downtown, midtown, the Cannery District, and the Misco Mill commercial district (Wild Crumb, etc.), as well as one block from Beall Park, three blocks from Centennial Park, and three blocks from the County Fairgrounds. Project Timeline: Construction Spring 2021 Proposed Uses: Residential. One owner-occupied unit, two rental units, and a shared guest suite. Site Improvements: Expand existing single-story single-family residence into a two- story duplex; replace existing garage with an ADU with shared storage and a shared guest house; landscaping. Buildings: One duplex unit, one ADU. Parking Demand: One vehicle per unit (three total), plus one possible trailer (raft or snowmobile). Source of off-street parking: Three alley-accessed off-street parking spaces (in addition to one on-street parking space available along the lot’s Black Avenue frontage). 2. Questions Regarding Specific Project Input This concept review seeks to clarify this project’s eligibility for a lot-width zoning variance for the previously lawful lot and to clarify side setback requirements for this corner-lot site. Figure 1 Site Location Beall’s Grove Infill Project – Concept Review 3 Lot Width This alley-accessed lot was platted by William Beall as 37’ wide and 175’ deep, which is 3 feet narrower than the 40’ wide lot currently required by 38.320.030.B. The applicant seeks to clarify if this lot a viable candidate for a zoning variance, reducing required lot width from 40’ to 37’. The applicant intends to seek a zoning variance due to an "after the fact imposition of additional regulations on a previously lawful lot" with respect to conditions unique to the property (platted 37' wide in the 19th century). For more details, refer to Appendix A. Frontage vs. Front Setback The applicant seeks to clarify the lot’s required setbacks imposed by frontage requirements and lot line requirements. The site sits at the corner of Black Avenue and Peach Avenue. The lot’s front lot line is along Black Avenue. The applicant seeks to clarify that Peach Street is a frontage and subject to “landscaped block frontage standards,” but is a side lot line. There are two applicable code provisions resulting in setbacks: 1) Block Frontage standards; and 2) Form and Intensity standards. The Block Frontage standards apply a setback to lot frontages. A lot may have more than one frontage; my corner lot has two (along Black Avenue and along Peach Street). The Form and Intensity Standards apply setbacks based on front, side, and rear lot lines. By definition, a lot has one front lot line, one rear lot line, and two side lot lines. Block Frontage Standards Per Table 38.510.030.C (Landscaped block frontage standards), the "landscaped block frontage" minimum setback is 10 feet, and this applies to all block frontages. Per Sec. 38.700.110, "lot frontage" includes "all sides of a lot that abuts a street are considered frontage." Based on this definition, both Peach Street and Black Avenue are considered frontage. Per 38.510.030.C, then, both the lot frontage on Black Avenue and the lot frontage on Peach Street have a 10-foot minimum setback. Form and Intensity Standards Table 38.320.030.C (Density, building height, and setbacks) requires: • a front setback of 15 feet, • a rear setback of 20 feet, and • side setbacks of 5 feet. Beall’s Grove Infill Project – Concept Review 4 Based on the definitions included below, the front lot line for my corner lot is on Black Avenue and the lot line along Peach Street is a side lot line. The front lot line along Black Avenue requires a front setback of 15 feet. The side lot line along Peach Street requires a side setback of five feet. • Sec. 38.700.110 Lot line, front. In the case of an interior lot, a line separating the lot from the street, in the case of a corner lot, a line separating the narrowest street frontage of the lot from the street and in the case of a double frontage or through lot, a line separating the lot from the street from which a drive access may be permitted by the city. • Sec. 38.700.110 Lot line, rear. A lot line which is opposite and most distant from the front lot line and, in the case of an irregular or triangular shaped lot, a line ten feet in length within the lot, parallel to and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. • Sec. 38.700.110 Lot line, side. Any lot boundary line that is not a front lot line or a rear lot line. • Sec. 38.700.070 Front setback. A setback extending across the full width of the lot between two side lot lines, the depth of which is the least distance between the street right-of-way and the front building line. • Sec. 38.700.070 Side setback. A setback extending between the front building line and the rear building line, the width of which is the least distance between the side lot line and the nearest part of the principal building. Please affirm: The front lot line on Black Avenue requires a 15-foot front lot line setback per the Form and Intensity Standards and a 10-foot landscaped block frontage setback per the Block Frontage Standards. The more restrictive of the two applies, therefore the side of the lot on Black Avenue requires a 15-foot setback. The side lot line on Peach Street requires a 5-foot side lot line setback per the Form and Intensity Standards and a 10-foot landscaped block frontage setback per the Block Frontage Standards. The more restrictive of the two applies, therefore the side of the lot on Peach Street requires a 10-foot setback. Note: an item on the Bozeman Community Platform called “Definitions of Front Setbacks” (https://www.bozeman.net/government/planning/udc-community- platform/clarify-setback-standards-adjacent-to-streets) states that “The definition of front setback is not fully consistent with the definition of Lot Frontage. This leaves inadequate clarity as to how to apply setbacks on corner lots.” In this case, the current code is adequately clear, though the standards differ between the “Form Based” portion of our code (Sec. 38 Article 4) and the “Euclidian Zoning” portion of our code (Sec. 38 Article 3). /Users/andreamichael/Desktop/PSI_SD.pln CR1Wednesday, June 17, 2020BEALL'S GROVE INFILL | 542 N BLACK AVE BOZEMAN MT 59715SCHEMATIC DESIGN // NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLindsay Schack & Lindsey Loveinfo@loveschack.com1.406.282.4277619 N. Church Ave, Unit 3Bozeman, MT 59715www.loveschack.com15'-0" SETBACK 10'-0" SETBACK5'-0"SB 20'-0" SETBACK17'-6"37'-0" 37'-0"175'-0"UNIT 1ENTRANCE*UNIT 2ENTRANCE*GUEST SUITEENTRANCE *ADUENTRANCEPEACH STREETPARK STRIPSIDEWALKN BLACK AVE ALLEY EXISTING DWELLING UNIT1 BEDROOM573 SQ FTPARK STRIP SIDEWALK NEW DWELLING UN IT1 BEDROOM720 SQ FT(W/ 2ND FLOOR)NEW GUEST SUITE270 SQ FT STORAGE PARKING SPOT 2PARKING SPOT 3PARKING SPOT 1 PARKING SPOT 4MIN REQ OPEN SPACE647.5 SQ FTSTORAGE STORAGENEW ADU600 SQ FTSECOND FLOOR OFNEW DWELLING UN IT1 BEDROOM720 SQ FT(W/ 1ST FLOOR)15'-0" SETBACK 10'-0" SETBACK5'-0"SB 20'-0" SETBACK 37'-0"175'-0"PEACH STREETPARK STRIPSIDEWALKN BLACK AVE ALLEY EXISTING DWELLING UN IT1 BEDROOM573 SQ FTEXISTING GARAGE371 SQ FTPARK STRIP SIDEWALK PARKING SPOT 1 PARKING SPOT 2PARKING SPOT 3UNDERGROUND FROM GARAGE TO HOUSESCALE: 1" = 20'PROPOSED SITE PLAN/ FIRST FLOORSCALE: 1" = 20'PROPOSED SECOND FLOORSCALE: 1" = 20'EXISTING SITE PLANProperty InformationOwner: MARK EGGESite Address: 542 N BLACK AVE BOZEMAN MT 59715Project Type: INFILL DEVELOPMENTZoning: R3# of Stories: 1Construction Type: VAllowable Building Height: 40' @ 6:12 Roof PitchLot CoverageLot Area: 6,475 Sq Ft (37'x175')Allowable Coverage for Structures:40% of Lot Area or2,590 Sq Ft of Lot AreaExisting Lot Coverage: 944 Sq Ft (371 is garage to be demolished)Allowable Additional Lot Coverage: 2017 Sq Ft (after garage is demolished)Proposed Additional Lot Coverage: ~838 Sq Ft (Total Coverage: ~1411 Sq Ft)10% of lot area required to be open space within side or rear yard withminimum dimension of 15' on all sides = 647.5 Sq Ft for this lot(is permitted within setbacks)Development ProposalConvert existing structure to a duplex + ADU + Guest HouseRequired ParkingDuplex - Unit 1 (1 bedroom) + Guesthouse = 2 spacesDuplex - Unit 2 (1 bedroom) = 1ADU = 1 (off street)Total Required = 4* Approximate/Proposed Entrance LocationsNN 12/1/20, 9:18 PMMark Egge Mail - Concept Review Beall's Grove Infill Page 1 of 1https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=fef3c5c023&view=pt&search=…=msg-f%3A1676754508994361008&simpl=msg-f%3A1676754508994361008 Mark Egge <mark@eateggs.com> Concept Review Beall's Grove Infill Phillipe Gonzalez <PGonzalez@bozeman.net>Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 2:15 PM To: Mark Egge <mark@eateggs.com> Hello Mark Egge, The submitted Concept Review Application 20-246, received August 13, 2020 was brought to the Development Review Committee to answer the applicants questions regarding the proposed development. Please review those comments attached to this email. After reading through though comments please inform me of what questions you may have. Thanks, Phil Phillipe Gonzalez | Historic Preservation Specialist City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771 P: 406.582.2940 | E: pgonzalez@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retention policies. Emails that contain conﬁdential information such as information related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law. 20246 DRC memo.pdf 187K Page 1 of 3 September 2, 2020 Mark Egge 542 N. Black Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: Beall’s Grove Infill, Concept Review, Application 20246 Project Description: This is a Conceptual Review application for advice and comments on a proposed 6,475square foot lot located within the NCOD, to construct a duplex and ADU. Project Location: 542 N. Black Ave. We hope that these notes and suggestions assist you with the design and review of this potential future project. Please note that comments are preliminary and based on information provided. While we attempt to identify all issues during a conceptual review, please keep in mind that there may be other issues that arise during the formal review. We appreciate your patience in the review process. All references below to Sections of the Bozeman Municipal Code. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to set up a meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me at 406-582-2940. Sincerely, Phillipe Gonzalez, Historic Preservation Specialist Department of Community Development Page 2 of 3 Applicant Questions: 1. Lot Width The required lot width of 40’ as per 38.320.030.B for redevelopment is applied to the 542 N. Black. In order to redevelop the property as proposed the applicant will need to apply for a Variance or Deviation. Based on a reading of Sec.38.250.070.C-2-A a Variance would be challenging as the criteria references a self-imposed hardship is not a criteria for Variances as seen in CriteriaC-2-A: “a hardship does not include difficulties arising from actions, or difficulties, that are self-imposed”. An additional option is applying for a Deviation as the project location is located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Deviation applications allow for the deviation of underlining zoning requirements in an area where much of the development occurred prior to modern zoning and subdivision requirements. Both the Deviation and Variance process would have to be publicly noticed and brought to the city commission for final approval. Staff would give a recommendation through a staff report and presentation. 2. Front Setback 542 N. Black is located on a corner lot. Corner lots are subject to having two front setbacks. The submitted site plan will need two 15’ setbacks as per Sec.38.320.030. 3. Water & Sewer Staff believes the increased usage of utilities will require a larger water line than the 3/4” currently present. For further information please contact Water and Sewer Division; John Alston, jalston@bozeman.net, 406-582-3200 4. Northwestern Energy noted that the potential for relocating power lines based on power line setbacks. Please contact NW Energy for more information on development requirements. 5. Additional Requirements Please be advised additional development requirements need to be met that may have not been mentioned. Please ensure project complies with Accessory Structure requirements as per Sec.38.360.030 These Divisions did not provide comment. Contact reviewers directly with individual questions. 1. Fire Department; Scott Mueller, smueller@bozeman.net, 406-582-2353 2. Solid Waste Division; Russ Ward, rward@bozeman.net, 406-582-3235 3. Building Division; Bob Risk brisk@bozeman.net, 406-582-2377 4. NorthWestern Energy; Cammy Dooley, cammy.dooley@northwestern.com 5. Parks and Recreation; Addi Jadin, ajadin@bozeman.net, 406-582-2908 6. Sustainability Division; Natalie Meyer, nmeyer@bozeman.net, 406-582-2317 7. Water Conservation; Jessica Ahlstrom, jahlstrom@bozeman.net, 406-582-2265 12/1/20, 9:19 PMMark Egge Mail - Concept Review Beall's Grove Infill Page 1 of 1https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=fef3c5c023&view=pt&search=a…-a%3Ar-3703127009198296438&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-3703127009198296438 Mark Egge <mark@eateggs.com> Concept Review Beall's Grove Infill Mark Egge <mark@eateggs.com>Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:04 PM To: Phillipe Gonzalez <PGonzalez@bozeman.net> Phil, Many thanks. Review contents are very helpful. I did have one question: The review states that "2. Front Setback 542 N. Black is located on a corner lot. Corner lots are subject to having two front setbacks. The submitted site plan will need two 15’ setbacks as per Sec.38.320.030." Could you provide the specific code citation that requires corner lots to have two front setbacks? Thanks! Mark [Quoted text hidden] -- Mark Egge (406) 548-4488 he / him / his 12/1/20, 9:19 PMMark Egge Mail - Concept Review Beall's Grove Infill Page 1 of 1https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=fef3c5c023&view=pt&search=…=msg-f%3A1678750807058078027&simpl=msg-f%3A1678750807058078027 Mark Egge <mark@eateggs.com> Concept Review Beall's Grove Infill Phillipe Gonzalez <PGonzalez@bozeman.net>Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:05 PM To: Mark Egge <mark@eateggs.com> Hey Mark, That’s a fair question, though nowhere in the code does it explicitly state a corner lot requires two front setback. My understanding it is implied through code deﬁnition of Lot Types (A) Corner Lot and Street Frontage throughout CH. 38. I am sure Chris Saunders or another senior planner could give a better explanation than I. Thanks Phil Phillipe Gonzalez | Historic Preservation Specialist City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771 P: 406.582.2940 | E: pgonzalez@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Epilogue A few days after I received the Concept Review response from Community Development, the item in Ordinance 2061 appeared on the Community Platform. It appears as if this item was added to the Community Platform in specific response to my Concept Review Application.