HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-26 Public Comment - S. Bieluch - 811 W Mendenhall DevelopmentFrom:Scott Bieluch
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]811 W Mendenhall Development
Date:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 11:03:20 PM
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.
My name is Scott Bieluch and I’m a resident of Bozeman residing at 805 W Lamme St. Iam submitting this comment regarding the proposed luxury apartment development at811 W. Mendenhall (approx. 95 units). I appreciate the opportunity to participate andurge the Planning Department and Commission to carefully consider the followingconcerns before any approval in its current form.
1. Inadequate Transportation and Traffic Mitigation
Evidence
The scale of this project — nearly 100 units — will meaningfully increase vehicular trips inthe Midtown area, particularly on W. Mendenhall and N. 8th Avenue, where existing
congestion already challenges safe active transportation. The project narrative should include adetailed multimodal traffic impact analysis that accounts for peak hours, school traffic near
Whittier Elementary, transit connectivity, and potential cut-through traffic on neighborhoodstreets. Without a transparent mitigation plan, this development risks worsening congestion
and reducing safety for pedestrians and cyclists, contrary to the UDC’s multimodaltransportation objectives. Sec. 38.220 (Transportation and Connectivity) of the Unified
Development Code emphasizes balanced network planning and safe pedestrian environments— criteria that must be met for approval.
2. Height Incentives Must Be Justified and Compatible
with Context
811 W. Mendenhall is zoned R-5 (Residential Mixed-Use High Density) and B-2M(Community Business Mixed Commercial), where multi-household dwellings are permitted,
including taller buildings. However, incentives under Division 38.380 (Affordable HousingOrdinance) are being used to exceed base code height allowances. Under the current
ordinance:
For multi-household or mixed-use buildings in R-5 and B-2M districts, developments
may be allowed up to two additional stories of height with incentives for affordableunits, subject to transition setback provisions when adjacent to lower intensity
residential districts.
This height premium is not automatic, and the code explicitly requires the development to
satisfy all code criteria, including compatibility standards and transitions between zones. Sec.38.320.060.B (Transition Height and Setbacks) mandates that taller structures adjacent to
lower intensity areas must incorporate step-backs and design features that preserveneighborhood character. Simply stating step-backs in plans without measurable findings that
protect adjacent properties may not satisfy this criterion.
Public feedback on similar projects — such as The Guthrie — has repeatedly underscored
concerns that height incentives are being used to justify large five-story buildings withoutadequate contextual sensitivity. That project was ultimately denied by the City Commission
after substantial public comment highlighting neighborhood fit, which is instructive here.
3. Parking Provisions Must Reflect Real Demand and
UDC Standards
Under Bozeman’s code, minimum motor vehicle parking requirements for multi-household
and mixed-use buildings are generally one space per dwelling unit, plus loading spaces andADA spaces located on-site. The Affordable Housing Ordinance may reduce parking
requirements slightly for developments offering affordable units, but a significant reductionwithout compelling evidence of reduced vehicle use will likely lead to spillover ontoneighborhood streets. With limited transit options in this area and active lifestyles that stillinvolve cars, Bozeman cannot assume residents will forego personal vehicles simply because
the project promotes car-share programs or bike facilities.
Past affordable housing discussions highlighted concerns about inadequate parking leading to
neighborhood congestion and safety problems. Public comments during Affordable HousingOrdinance revisions emphasized that accessibility and adequate parking close to building
entrances are critical — something that enforcement of standards, not relaxed incentives, mustaddress.
4. Infrastructure Capacity Must Be Demonstrated,
Particularly Utilities and Stormwater
Large developments have impacts on Bozeman’s utility networks — including water, sewer,stormwater, and electrical infrastructure. The UDC requires that developments demonstrate
that all applicable city infrastructure can support the project without compromising existingservice levels. Sec. 38.230 (Public Facilities and Utilities) instructs staff and reviewing bodies
to verify that enhancements or upgrades are planned and funded before approval.
Given ongoing rapid development city-wide and public concern over infrastructure strain, the
applicant should provide capacity studies and financial assurances for upgrades, not vaguestatements. This is especially crucial in areas of Midtown experiencing multiple simultaneous
developments. Without this, existing residents could bear unexpected costs through rateincreases or deferred maintenance.
5. Affordable Housing Incentives Are Too Shallow Given
Bozeman’s Needs
The project uses incentives under Bozeman’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (Division38.380), which allows height and parking relaxations in exchange for setting aside a
percentage of units at designated AMI levels. Currently the threshold for basic incentives is>5% of units at 80% AMI, which critics — including local neighborhood groups — argue is
too shallow to justify major code deviations and does not meaningfully address affordablehousing needs in Bozeman.
Most experts and community feedback point out that 80% AMI units often remain out of reachfor the households most in need, especially considering Bozeman’s housing costs and local
community housing goals set by the recently adopted Community Housing Action Plan. Inaddition, incentive programs do not currently require 50-year deed restrictions — something
recent board discussions have proposed to ensure long-term affordability rather than short-term market effects.
6. Relevant Prior Public Comment Themes from Other
Developments
When residents addressed the Commission on developments like The Guthrie — another five-story apartment project in Midtown — common themes included:
Traffic and safety concerns, especially near schools
Questionable parking adequacy
Misleading affordable claims
Desire for stronger neighborhood review rather than administrative approvals
These concerns reflect broader public unease about rapid up-zoning and density that outpacescommunity needs and infrastructure.
Conclusion — Request for Action
For these reasons — lack of sufficient traffic mitigation, questionable height compatibility andincentive justification, inadequate parking certainty, infrastructure capacity questions, and
shallow affordability measures — I urge the City to require the applicant to:
1. Complete and publish comprehensive traffic and multimodal impact studies.
2. Provide measurable findings of compatibility with adjacent residential contexts underSec. 38.320.060.B.
3. Demonstrate on-site parking that aligns with actual demand and UDC standards.
4. Provide infrastructure capacity analyses and financial assurance for upgrades.
5. Increase the depth and durability of affordable housing commitments (e.g., deeper AMI
targets and longer deed-restriction terms).
Thank you for considering these comments in your review of the 811 W. Mendenhall
development.
- Scott Bieluch