HomeMy WebLinkAboutWesterman Accessory Building public comment from Frederick Maxted 2ndFrom:Frederick Maxted
To:Agenda
Subject:Public Comment on Westerman Accessory Building
Date:Wednesday, May 28, 2014 5:16:42 PM
Dear Commissioners:
We will not be able to attend the public hearing on June 2 to comment on the Westerman
Accessory Building project, so we are presenting our views directly to you via email. We
have reviewed the staff report on the matter, and we respectfully disagree with the
Planning Department’s analysis. Our divergence of opinion involves two main points:
1) Public Safety – Lack of Sight Vision Triangle
From the code: “In acting on an application for a variance, the review authority [in this
case, the city commission] shall designate such lawful conditions as will secure substantial
protection for the public health, safety and general welfare…” and
“Deviations shall not be granted for relief from procedural requirements, or to waive or vary
the application of an ordinance provision imposing specific safety requirements…”
(38.35.050)
We feel granting four variances to allow the proposed garage to be situated only 2.5 feet
from the sidewalk violates the commission’s duty to protect the safety of the public.
Longfellow School is just a couple of short block away from the subject property. Having
cars blindly backing out of a garage so close to the sidewalk is hazardous. In this case, there
is virtually no sight vision triangle for cars backing out of the garage. There is plenty of
space on this large property to situate the garage a safe distance from the sidewalk. We fail
to see how any undue hardship would be incurred by the applicant in doing so. For these
reasons we feel that Variances #2 and #3 should be denied.
2) Too Many Variances for One Small Accessory Structure
From the code: “Not more than two deviations shall be granted for any accessory
structure.” (38.21.050.J)
It is our opinion that the application is requesting too many variances. After all, what
is the point of even having a development code if an applicant can merely apply for
multiple variances and build whatever they want? It seems to us that when an
accessory building project, such as this one, requires a total of four variances, that is
the code’s way of indicating that the proposal is inappropriate. It’s too much. We
feel a maximum of two variances should be granted in this case.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter.
Frederick Maxted
Denise Albrecht
505 S. Tracy Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715
406-585-7675