HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-21 Public Comment - J. Mazer - Bozeman CoHousingFrom:Jamie Mazer
To:Susana Montana; Agenda
Cc:draegerc@hotmail.com
Subject:Comments on Site Plan Application #21096
Date:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 11:13:59 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. Montana,
We are Bozeman residents living at 118 Heritage Drive, directly across the street from theproposed co-housing development to be built at 3120 Wagon Wheel (application #21096).
Recently it has come to our attention that as the design and planning for this project hasprogressed, it's scale and scope have expanded to the point where we are now concerned about
the impact this development will have on our existing community. These concerns are outlinedbelow and we ask that the planning committee take these into consideration as the project
moves forward and the committee considers granting requested variances:
1. The proposed "Common House" has an elevation of 34' according to the drawings and
appears to include a large, well lit glass cupula over the atrium. A well lit glass structureof this nature will almost certainly lead to excessive light pollution and create an
unnecessary, high visibility eye sore visible throughout the neighborhood.2. In addition, the plans for the Common house indicate a length >150', exceeding the
building code limit of 120' by over 25%. I would request that the committee considerrequiring a design more consistent with the exclusively residential nature of this
neighborhood and one compliant with current building codes in this area.3. The proposal also describes a structure containing 6 connected garage units, which will
also exceed the 120' structure size limit. The current plan includes 79 parking spaces,which is four times greater than the current parking density in the area. One option
would be to remove 1-2 of the proposed garage units and to move the structure furtherfrom the shared fence line, to reduce the visibility and impact of this large unit for the
neighbor's. The developers originally indicated that this development would be a largelycar-free housing option with residents walking and using shared transportation options.
This plan has apparently changed and the proposal includes sufficient parking for almost2 cars/unit. This parking density is also inconsistent with the current residential nature
of this neighborhood.4. A requirement to plant mature hedges and trees along the property borders, particularly
at the points where the property closely abuts neighboring single-family dwellingswould also lessen the visual impact of these large, high-density structures on existing
homes without significant additional cost and enhance the overall appearance of thedevelopment.
5. The property being developed is composed of two land parcels, only one of which iscurrently in the GV Rural Improvement District. As a result, the high-density of
residents living on the property will impose significant additional burdens and expenseson the district, but they will not be contributing corresponding property taxes. I belive
this needs to be addressed by bringing the second parcel into the RID before the plan isallowed to proceed
6. Also related to the matter of increased burden and insufficient property taxes: questionswere previously raised (Nov 2020) about whether the developers have come to an
arrangement with the nearby HOA to address increased costs of maintenance and snow
removal on Wagonwheel Road driven by the additional 70+ cars being introduced to theneighborhood. Is there a formal agreement in place for this?
7. Finally, there are a number of traffic and safety related issues that should be considered:Has a traffic study been performed to assess the effect of increased traffic and road wear
at the intersection of Wagonwheel and Graf? Will stop signs be installed at all the exitsfrom the new development? And will sidewalks and additional crosswalks be installed
on the West side of Wagonwheel in front of the development where there will likely beconsiderable additional foot traffic?
While we support the original developer's originally stated goals, the project appears to haveincreased substantially in scale and potential impact, and, in the case of the parking and traffic,
is no longer fully consistent with the developer's original goals. We would appreciate it if thecommittee would consider these factors in their future decision processes, as well as the
general impact of having such a high-density facility in the midst of what is currently a largelysingle-family residence neighborhood.
Thank you for your attention.
James Mazer and Christiane Draeger
118 Heritage DrBozeman, MT 59715
--
James Mazermazerja@gmail.com