HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-15 Martin Letter to Commission5/12/15
Mayor Krauss, Deputy Mayor Palmer, Commissioners and Mr. Kukulski,
After all the dust settled last night it appeared to Anne and myself that the reason for not
making a decision regarding our approval of the COA came down to a bathroom on the
first floor of the home. While there was a statement made that alluded to “other” changes
we’ve made in addition to our choice to not have a bathroom, they simply don’t exist.
From the very first plan submitted to the Planning Dept., the intent on the home being a
two bedroom were clear that it was to be a two bedroom home for the sole purpose of
satisfying our desire to have an ADU down the road. I paid over $13,000 in design,
engineering and permitting fee’s to build this property as a two bedroom home with and
ADU over garage. I specifically made certain of the rules, rules you want everyone to
follow, of what officially differentiated a bedroom from any other room in the home.
What I was told by Chris Saunders is exactly verbatim to what he told the commission
last night, that as long as the room did not have a closet, it could not be considered a
bedroom.
We paid our architect to design that room as an office with the possibility of having a
bathroom in it. He then drafted the print that was delivered to the Planning Department
for approval. It was never our intent to install an expensive bathroom in our office, rather
to just “rough in” under the floor for the future bathroom. I assumed that if the print
showed a bathroom we’d not be held to putting one in, and having been assured by Mr.
Saunders that by having the batroom included that it would not prove intent of a
bedroom.
I was never informed that issue of “possibility of use” existed as was discussed last night
by Deputy Mayor Palmer. Homes interior space’s change throughout it’s lifecycle, and
never have I heard of such tight control as to now allow a homeowner the ability to
design in advance for future needs, or to make changes after the fact. I’ve spoken with
several builders who say that interior changes occur on nearly every job without consent
of the city commission or planning department.
Anne & I were hopeful that this would be our last home, we found the perfect town,
made good friends quickly, and were very happy here. With the thought of growing old
in this home, our first home created together, we thought it best to design it for our future
needs as we age. It was our neighbors Hap & Gail Parks who planted the seed for us to
prepare for the day when a home with a bedroom on the first floor would be necessary.
In the last few weeks we have been looking at the shape of the office (without bathroom)
and found the “L” shape less that ideal for the function of an office. Anne, a C.P.A. and
consultant to the banking industry, requires and enjoys quite a large office, her furniture
was purchased for our last home which also had a similar sized room (was supposed to be
our dining room). Once you get accustomed to a nice setting for work it’s hard to go
backwards. So on the 9th of May, with the assistance of Doug Mavor, we designed an
office that would be more suitable for Anne. So when my attorney said that the room
was to be designed without a bathroom, and Mr. Palmer threw his hands in the air as if to
say I pulled that one out of my hat at that moment just to satisfy my needs at the moment,
nothing could be further from the truth.
Last night the commission could have easily and effectively approved this plan, with one
issue being the hurdle, to ask the planning and building departments to insure that the
office not have a bathroom in it. Done. Not having done this demonstrates rather the
desire to punish Anne and I for tearing the last remaining portion of the home down, a
move that seems careless to us.
You sometimes seem to infer that I’ve somehow premeditated every step of some master
plan of what ends I have not an idea.
Why would I have paid for extremely expensive Architectural and Engineering plans
ahead of time if my plan all along were to completely destroy the home? Makes no sense
at all.
Of what benefit did it serve me to forget to walk in, pay $250.00 for an ADU permit, get
my final inspection and be done with the ADU issue forever?
Mr. Palmer also mentioned in his closing statements that he was led to believe that three
walls were to remain standing. If one views the original presentation by Ms. Kraemer,
focused on the only visual aid used, the slides of the home with shaded areas showing
what was to be removed, one could only conclude that the entire north, east, and west
façade to include the north gable wall were to stay. So where did Mr. Palmer get his info
that led to that statement? The slides by Ms. Kraemer, had the submitted print be even
casually examined, would have shown half of the east wall shaded, the entire garage
shaded, the north gable shaded, the entire roof shaded.
Once again, I state that the same amount of public outcry would have occurred should
two and a half of the lower four walls were left standing without windows or siding on
them. And it appears that it is the public outcry that is the causation of the commission’s
decisions to punish us.
Days after the home was demolished I had a meeting in my ADU with Mr. Kukulski and
Mr. Palmer. It was a welcomed fact finding mission where I was once again able to
explain myself and to get an idea of where to go from there. I was presented with an
option that I could either request that the city departments (planning & building) could
remain to be the authorizing power or have the city commission take over the decisions.
They said that the benefit of the commission taking over would be that the pressure
would be taken off of the city departments and put on the commission. I agreed to do so
in an effort to assist in any way that I could. I deeply regret that decision on the basis that
the city department seems to have had no pressure taken away, but rather clearly more
added.
In closing I like to clearly state what we’re looking for here.
To build a facsimile of the original home as previously designed.
To ask for the exterior changes presented and recommended for approval by the city
departments last night.
To build it in the exact location as previously approved and recommended last night by
the city departments and all adjacent neighbors
To build the home without any bathroom whatsoever in the office. Per the attachement.
To be put on next week’s agenda for a rapid approval so that we may begin the
architectural and engineering changes to satisfy the changes of the smaller kitchen
window and shed dormer off the southwest of the upper level in the master bedroom.
And to satisfy the neighbors concerns.
Keep in mind the architectural and engineering cannot be done until I gain approval, the
work will take a couple of weeks to complete. Then the new package can be presented to
planning and building, another two weeks. If the commission won’t approve next week,
it could very well be mid July to August before excavation begins. And by the time
concrete done, the hole will have been there all spring and summer.
Brian Martin
402 W. Koch St.
Bozeman, MT 59715