HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-17 Public Comment - G. Heys (1st comment) - 4149 Clydesdale Court CUP for Cooperative HousingFrom:Chris Saunders
To:Brenda Sweeney
Subject:FW: Public Notice for 4149 Clydesdale Court File 17-469
Date:Wednesday, November 15, 2017 4:37:43 PM
From: greg heys [mailto:gwheys@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:32 AM
To: Chris Saunders <csaunders@BOZEMAN.NET>
Subject: Public Notice for 4149 Clydesdale Court File 17-469
Good morning,
I am emailing you with regards to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that has been applied for
at the 4149 Clydesdale Court location File 17-469.
Our belief resides in the purpose of the commissions to preserve and protect the interests and
investment of the individual owners. Having two families, or any combination thereof, giventhe option to reside in a single household by our commission is very concerning and
disheartening. The residential use policy makes multiple mentions of a "single family" as wellas the RS Designated Zoning III.C.RS, which specifically states "One single family". It is my
understanding that the intent and purpose of the R-S residential suburban district zoningdesignation is to allow for open space, resource protection, and be comprised of primarily
single-households for circumstances where environmental constraints limit the desirabledensity.
This fall and road construction season has brought a lot of traffic flow through the the BaxterMeadows area. We have seen quick results and our roads, curbing, and community lifestyle
have taken a hit, and also obtained damage due to the Baxter- Equestrian Road detourmainlined directly though our subdivision. The reason I point this out is because this same
thing happens to the residential infrastructure when two distinct families, totaling 10 people,reside in a single family residence and an area specifically zoned as single family dwelling. I
have witnessed and documented since the purchased of the property that over a period of 30days that a majority of the time (more than 50%) there are at least 1-4 additional cars parked in
the cul de sac or driveway, not counting the 2 cars owned by the current occupants. This isjust something visual and easy to notice, but over a prolonged period of time and an addition
of another family of 5 people (a family of 5 currently resides at location) set to move into thehouse, my heightened added concern also lies with in the affects of increases in water, sewage,
garbage, and other services and impacts on the communities and cities infrastructure.
Bozeman City code defines a household (Sec. 38.42.1420) not more than four unrelated
people. By my understanding, any one individual living at the location will not be related to atleast five other occupants. Thus, I believe the reason for the needed Conditional Use Permit.
Section 38.19.110 defining criteria for a Conditional Use Permit, subsection E1 requiresadequate parking and E2 states that there be no material adverse effect on abutting properties.
Attachment A shows a random day with four vehicles parked in the cul de sac (2 illegally) andone vehicle pulling out of the driveway. Potential future residents will have four vehicles at
the location designed for two and the material adverse effect is carried by all abuttingneighbors. These two quick instances are proof of non-compliance for the Conditional Use
Permit.
Bozeman has seen growth at a rapid rate and higher prices in the housing market. Setting the
precedent of the possibility that two families can share the purchase, taxes, and costs whileliving together in a single family dwelling sends the wrong message. Do we need portray to
potential Bozeman residents that they can afford more (more incomes) driving up prices onhomes, but individually paying less in taxes (2 families/one property), and the community will
share the burden of impacted infrastructure (more vehicles/more water/more garbage/moresewage, more electricity/ more wear and tear)?
Respectfully,
Gregory W. Heys
4140 Clydesdale CourtBozeman, MT 59718