HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-15 Waters Re_ 1201 S. Grand Public CommentFrom:Jeff Krauss
To:BOB ANNE WATERS
Cc:Chris Mehl; Agenda
Subject:Re: 1201 S. Grand
Date:Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:17:58 AM
Hi Bob
Without knowing the particulars of your house or where it is located, versus others, the house that isbeing torn down was an "intrusive element" in the "conservation overlay" district. It was not in ahistoric district or a historic structure in a historic district or "conservation" overlay. As such, it does notreceive the same evaluation a different house might.
This is one of the few times I've voted for an ADU and that's because no relaxations or deviations wererequired, and the ADU was within the principal residence of the owner, not the second floor of an"accessory structure". I think the owner having to live with his renter will add a layer of protection fromwhat I consider "duplexing lots" otherwise.
Perhaps you are asking about esthetics? Those are not part of the criteria for review. Frank LloydWright or his modern Bozeman equivalent is allowed to design a house anywhere in Bozeman. The codeis not there to enforce a "neighborhood association"style. Two story houses exist next to one storyhouses all over town.
So, tear down an "out of code" "intrusive element", yes. Allow an ADU, if the owner lives there and theproposal fits all setbacks and code provisions yes.
Facilitate the conserving of the south side of Bozeman as a place where diverse kinds of people canlive, renters and couples and families, that reflects values of density and urban design and walkabilityand even a lessening carbon footprint, yes. In doing so we "conserve" Bozeman as a place whereordinary people can choose to live. We arent trying to enforce a cookie cutter design standard on allhomes on the south side. Or to only allow those to live there with high enough income that they cangentrify even the most ridiculous project regardless of practicality.
I dont know what else to say. I think the project passes unanimously if all the commission is there, justas it did last night. The criteria for review and approval were met. No variances, deviations, relaxationswere required. I did not see, even as the reliable "no" vote on ADUs, a reason to vote no.
Jeff
> On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:04 AM, BOB ANNE WATERS <bobwaters28@msn.com> wrote:>> Dear Commisioners:>> I live in an overlay district, and prior to residing our house I was required to verify that our old woodsiding was not cedar, that the reveal on the new siding would not be wider than the original siding, andthat the old siding could not be refurbished. This was required in an effort to maintain the essential lookof the original house. Likewise, when erecting a small shed, we were expected to build something thatagreed with the with the house design.>> As I understand them, the overlay district rules even seem to go so far as to require us to submit anapplication for approval if we desire to lay paving stones between the driveway and the house. In factany minor changes to the outside of the property seem to require an application for approval. >> Given my experience with the guidelines, with which I'm generally in agreement, I find it remarkablethat the house at 1201 S. Grand has met with your approval. Why is there such concern with thehistorical value and integrity of my property and house and such total disregard for period characterwhen a new structure is approved? In what way does that modern monstrosity maintain thearchitectural and historical integrity of the overlay district?
>> Do your approvals of projects have too much to do with the who vs. the what of a proposed
structure or design? Are you so concerned about being sued that your good judgement is eroded bythat concern? Are the guidelines too nebulous to be of use? Something is wrong with this process.>> Bob Waters> Bozeman>> Sent from my iPad