Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWesterman Accessory Building public comment from Frederick MaxtedFrom:Frederick Maxted To:Courtney Kramer Cc:Agenda Subject:RE: Westerman Accessory Building comments Date:Tuesday, May 27, 2014 5:41:10 PM Courtney: In our immediate neighborhood, we have had past experience with proposals just like this one. In those cases, the vast majority of the neighborhood expressed a desire to maintain the current density and character of the neighborhood. Obviously I can’t speak for all of our current neighbors, but my wife and I generally like the neighborhood the way it is. We feel any new construction should comply with the code with minimal variance or deviation. A case in point is the Hodgeson proposal (501 S. Tracy) which came up about eight or nine years ago. It was almost identical to the Westerman proposal. The Hodgeson application requested three deviations from the code. It turned out they actually needed at least four. The Hodgeson project was granted a COA only after modifications were made to the original application. Specifically, the side yard set-back requirement was enforced, primarily for reasons of public safety. By placing a garage entrance so close to a sidewalk, there isn’t a sufficient sight-vision triangle for cars backing out of the garage. This is especially important when an elementary school is located just a couple short blocks away. The Hodgeson project was eventually dropped. We feel the precedent set by the Hodgeson project should be applied to the Westerman project. Unified Development Code citations: 38.21.050.J “Not more than two deviations shall be granted for any accessory structure.” This is a foundational stipulation of the code, one that generally is not subject to variance/deviation. The Westerman application asks for four deviations. That is too many. The COA should be denied on this basis alone. 38.08.050.A.4 “All vehicle entrances, oriented to the street, into garages shall be no closer than 20 feet to a property line, unless explicitly authorized otherwise under this chapter.” This is a matter of public safety. Having a garage entrance so close to the sidewalk (2.5 feet) is a hazard. 38.35.050 “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…” 38.21.050.C.1 “…where the vehicular access to a garage is located on the frontage of the corner side yard, the portion accessible to vehicles shall maintain at least a 20-foot setback.” In the Southside Historic District, some may point out, there are many existing examples of garages built right up to the sidewalk. This, of course, is true. But those garages were built decades before the UDO existed and therefore are grandfathered in. Development standards have changed and now include provisions for public safety. Old, noncompliant structures should not be used to justify new, noncompliant structures. In the case of the Westerman project, there appears to be no undue hardship that would necessitate a variance from the code. The Westerman property is one of the largest in the neighborhood. There is plenty of area behind the main house on which the garage could be situated safely away from the sidewalk. My wife and I feel the application for COA should be denied. Thank you for your hard work on this matter, Frederick Maxted Denise Albrecht 505 S. Tracy Ave. 406-994-9321 From: Courtney Kramer [mailto:ckramer@BOZEMAN.NET] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:31 AMTo: Frederick MaxtedSubject: RE: Westerman Accessory Building comments Hello Mr. Maxted, Thank you for contacting me regarding the Westerman application. The site plan for the project is attached to this email, and answers many of your questions regarding the building’s proposed location. The application is for a guesthouse. The property owners are aware that per the definition found in Sec. 38.42.1320 “Guesthouse” in Bozeman Municipal Code, the space cannot have a full kitchen and can only be used to house guests of the occupants of the principal building. Specifically, the space is not a dwelling unit and cannot be rented as an apartment. R-1 zoning prohibits apartments above garages. A kitchen is not indicated on the application materials. Since I “have” you via email, I see that your house is located in the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District. Did you know the district’s nomination to the National Register of Historic Places is available on the Preservation website, www.preservebozeman.org? A direct link to the district’s nomination is here. It looks like your house has it’s 100th birthday this year? Your house is also eligible for a silver interpretive sign from the Montana Historical Society. More information is here. Thanks Mr. Maxted. Please let me know if I can assist you in any way in the future.s Sincerely, Courtney KramerHistoric Preservation OfficerCity of BozemanDirect line: 406-582-2289Front desk: 406-582-2260ckramer@bozeman.netwww.bozeman.netwww.preservebozeman.org From: Frederick Maxted [mailto:fmaxted@groupwinvestment.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:05 AMTo: Courtney KramerSubject: Westerman Accessory Building comments RE: Westerman Accessory Building Hello Courtney: I would like to comment on the COA application for the above project. However, I will be away from Bozeman for the next two weeks and will not be able to review the application in person. I am wondering if you could possibly answer a few brief questions for me via email so I can formulate an opinion. What I would like to know is: 1) How close to the back property line will the structure be? 2) How close to the side (south) property line will the structure be? 3) What are the proposed uses for the guest house? 4) Will the guest house have kitchen facilities? 5) What are the length and width of the proposed structure? Thank you for your help in this matter? Frederick Maxted 505 South Tracy Ave. Bozeman All 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” per Sect. 2-6-202 and Sect. 2-6-401, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender andreceiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuantto the City’s record retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law.