HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-26 Public Comment - S. Bieluch - Public Comment Regarding Application 23245 — 811 W. Mendenhall ApartmentsFrom:Scott Bieluch
To:Bozeman Public Comment; cityclerksdepartment@bozemanmt.gov
Cc:Joey Morrison; Douglas Fischer; Emma Bode; Jennifer Madgic; Alison Sweeney; Planning Technician;
agenda@bozemanmt.gov
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public Comment Regarding Application 23245 — 811 W. Mendenhall Apartments
Date:Friday, September 4, 2026 5:02:39 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.
Public Comment Regarding Application 23245 — 811 W. Mendenhall Apartments
Dear Mayor and Commissioners,
I am submitting this comment regarding Application 23245, the proposed 811 W. Mendenhallmixed-use apartment project. I am an adjoining property owner, and I have spent a
considerable amount of time reviewing the application materials, City records, developmentregulations, traffic information, and applicable state law because I believe the scale and
potential impacts of this project warrant much more careful consideration than they havereceived.
I want to make clear at the outset that I am not opposed to housing, reasonable infill, orresponsible development in Midtown. My concern is the scale, location, and cumulativeimpact of this particular project. The City's own development-code history recognizes thatincreased development intensity in older neighborhoods can create conflicts between new and
existing users, and specifically identified the need for standards addressing relationshipsbetween adjacent properties and transitions between zoning districts. The City's UDC
materials describe project design as addressing site planning, building design, parking,landscaping, and related impacts, including the relationship of development to adjacent
properties.
The City's application record describes Application 23245 as a mixed-use multifamily
building containing 93 apartments, approximately 130,315 square feet, with a buildingheight of approximately 62 feet, on a gross lot area of only about 31,377 square feet. Other
public descriptions of the project have referred to it as a 95-unit development. I wouldappreciate clarification from the City as to the exact number of units and the exact plans and
conditions that are currently approved.
Public participation and the zoning decision
One of my greatest concerns is how the surrounding neighborhood was treated during thezoning and development process.
Every adjoining property owner opposed the zoning change that made a project of thisintensity possible at this location. From my perspective, the outcome of that zoning decisionappeared largely predetermined before the public comment was heard. Several commissionerssupporting the change appeared to have already reached their conclusions, and the concernsraised by adjoining property owners appeared to have very little influence on the finaldecision. Commissioner Madgic was the one commissioner who seemed to recognize thecompatibility problem and suggested that some form of transition zoning would be more
appropriate than placing a very large building immediately adjacent to established and historicresidential properties.
I recognize that public comment does not mean that the Commission must agree with thepublic. But there is an important distinction between allowing people to speak and actually
ensuring that the information they provide is meaningfully considered before a decision ismade.
Montana's Constitution recognizes the public's right to participate in governmental operationsand the public's right to examine government documents and observe governmental
deliberations. Article II, Sections 8 and 9 establish those rights, and Montana law separatelyaddresses reasonable opportunities for public participation and open government.
I am not suggesting that public opposition automatically gives adjoining property owners vetopower over development. I am asking that the City's decision-making process give genuine
consideration to the evidence and concerns being presented by the people who will actuallylive next to this project.
That distinction is particularly important here because this is not a minor infill project.
The actual impact of a 62-foot, 93-unit building on surrounding homes
The project may technically comply with individual dimensional requirements, butcompliance with individual standards does not necessarily mean that the overall developmentis compatible with its surroundings.
A roughly 62-foot-tall, five-story building on a relatively small site will fundamentally changethe environment experienced by the surrounding homes. Residents will experiencesubstantially greater building mass, additional windows and balconies overlookingneighboring properties, changes in natural light, exterior lighting, vehicle headlights,mechanical equipment, deliveries, resident activity, and substantially greater pedestrian andvehicle activity.
These are not abstract concerns. They are the direct consequences of putting a very largemultifamily building immediately next to an established residential neighborhood.
The City's own UDC materials identify relationship to adjacent properties, buildingmassing and articulation, vehicular circulation, parking, landscaping, and site design ascomponents of project review. The City's Urban Design Manual also specifically identifiescompatibility with adjacent properties and protection of residential privacy as objectives of therelationship-to-adjacent-properties standards.
I believe the Commission should therefore look at the project as a whole rather than askingonly whether each individual component can technically fit within the applicable zoningenvelope.
Traffic — the location of the trips matters, not just the number
Traffic is another major concern.
The project is expected to generate an additional 435 vehicle trips per day. My
understanding of the traffic analysis is that approximately 90 percent of exiting traffic wasassigned to W. Mendenhall, while the existing alley connection toward W. Lamme was not
adequately accounted for as an alternative route.
That distinction matters.
A traffic study should not simply establish that the total number of trips is theoreticallymanageable somewhere in the larger transportation network. It should also accurately
determine where those trips will actually travel, particularly when a project is immediatelyadjacent to an established residential neighborhood with a narrow alley and constrained local
streets.
If residents are going to use the alley to reach W. Lamme, or if deliveries, visitors, service
vehicles, pedestrians, or other traffic use that route, then the neighborhood needs to understandwhat the actual traffic distribution will be.
I therefore ask the Commission to determine whether the traffic analysis accurately reflectsrealistic traffic patterns and whether an independent review or revised traffic analysis is
warranted, including a reasonable distribution of trips between W. Mendenhall and thealley/W. Lamme connection.
The alley is not an adequate substitute for proper infrastructure
The alley west of N. 8th Avenue is another significant concern.
It is narrow, unpaved, affected by vegetation and neglect, and at times difficult for vehicles tonavigate. In winter it is not consistently plowed to the standard one would expect for a primaryaccess route, and vehicles can become high-centered or otherwise have difficulty navigating it.
A 93-unit apartment building will introduce a level of activity that is fundamentally differentfrom the existing residential and commercial uses around it.
The question is not simply whether a vehicle can physically travel through the alley. Thequestion is whether the alley is adequate for the cumulative demands created by the project,including residents, visitors, deliveries, garbage collection, snow removal, service vehicles,emergency responders, and ordinary neighborhood traffic.
Emergency access is particularly important. Fire trucks, ambulances, and police vehiclescannot be treated the same as ordinary passenger vehicles. A route that is marginally usableunder normal conditions can become a serious problem when blocked by snow, parkedvehicles, delivery trucks, congestion, or an emergency incident.
If the City intends for this alley to function as part of the project's transportation system, Ibelieve the City should require a professional evaluation of its width, surface, drainage, wintermaintenance, turning requirements, utilities, and emergency-access capability. Ifimprovements are necessary because of the development, those improvements should notsimply be shifted onto the existing neighborhood and taxpayers.
Parking and spillover
The proposed number of parking spaces is another concern. The project has been described as
providing substantially fewer parking spaces than the number of units.
I understand that state law and changes to Montana's development regulations have
significantly restricted what local governments can require with respect to parking. I alsounderstand that this application predates the current Montana Land Use Planning Act
framework, which makes it particularly important to determine exactly which laws and UDCprovisions govern this application.
But whatever the minimum legal parking requirement may be, the physical consequences ofinsufficient parking do not disappear because the City is prohibited from requiringadditional spaces.
If residents, guests, contractors, service providers, or visitors cannot find parking on the
property, they will park somewhere else. That means the surrounding streets and alleys mayeffectively become overflow parking for the development.
I therefore ask the City to distinguish between what the City is legally permitted to require andwhat the neighborhood's actual capacity is to absorb the consequences of that decision.
Construction impacts have also been largely overlooked
I am also concerned about the temporary impacts of actually constructing a project of this size.
Construction will involve excavation, foundation work, heavy equipment, concrete trucks,construction deliveries, cranes or other large equipment, workers' vehicles, dust, noise,vibration, temporary traffic restrictions, and potentially significant use of the surroundingstreets and alley.
Those impacts are particularly important because existing homes immediately surrounding theproperty may be much older than the proposed structure and may be more vulnerable tovibration, excavation-related movement, dust, and other construction impacts.
I would like to know what measures will be required to protect neighboring structures, trees,streets, utilities, and the alley during construction, and whether the City has evaluated whereconstruction vehicles will stage and how emergency and neighborhood access will bemaintained.
Trees and natural features
The existing trees and vegetation around the site are another concern.
A large building occupying much of a relatively small parcel, combined with basementparking, excavation, foundations, utility work, grading, drainage improvements, and
construction access, can have impacts beyond the exact footprint of the building.
Tree roots often extend substantially beyond the visible canopy. Excavation, soil compaction,
grade changes, utility installation, and changes in drainage can damage trees even when thetrunks themselves are not removed.
I would therefore like the City to confirm whether a professional tree inventory and tree-protection analysis has been completed, which existing trees will be removed, which will
remain, how their root zones will be protected during construction, and what replacement orcanopy requirements will apply.
Long-term noise and outdoor activity
The project's long-term activity level is another issue that deserves consideration.
Public descriptions of the project have included rooftop and outdoor amenity areas, includingfeatures such as fire pits, barbecue areas, and other resident gathering spaces.
Those amenities may be appropriate for an apartment project in the right location, but theirplacement immediately next to existing homes raises legitimate questions about nighttimenoise, outdoor gatherings, lighting, amplified music, deliveries, trash collection, mechanicalequipment, and other recurring activity.
The impact is not necessarily one loud event. It is the cumulative change in the character ofthe neighborhood when dozens of additional households occupy a large building immediatelyadjacent to existing homes.
The City's development-code materials have historically recognized that site design shouldaddress impacts on adjacent properties and neighborhoods, including building massing, siteplanning, service areas, and measures intended to reduce noise and other impacts on nearbyresidential properties.
Privacy, light, and visual impacts
Privacy and natural light are similarly important.
A five-story building immediately adjacent to existing homes necessarily creates opportunitiesfor views into neighboring yards and windows that did not previously exist. Balconies, rooftop
areas, windows, exterior lighting, security lighting, and vehicle headlights can all change thenighttime environment.
I understand that the project may contain setbacks and step-backs intended to reduce its visualimpact. Those features are helpful, but they do not eliminate the underlying issue.
The question should be whether the combined building height, mass, setbacks, balconies,windows, lighting, landscaping, and activity areas actually provide a reasonabletransition to the surrounding residential properties.
That is precisely why the City's UDC has historically included standards concerning the
relationship of development to adjacent properties, including privacy, light and air, buildingmassing, and site design.
Emergency access and public infrastructure
I also remain concerned about whether the existing neighborhood infrastructure is adequate forthe intensity of development being proposed.
This includes the alley, streets, stormwater system, utilities, garbage collection, snow removal,
emergency access, and other public services.
The City's own historical development-policy materials identified an objective of ensuring that
adequate public facilities, services, and infrastructure are available or financially guaranteedbefore or concurrent with development, and another objective of requiring development to
mitigate its economic, health, environmental, and social impacts where supported by evidenceduring development review.
I believe those principles are particularly relevant to this project.
The cumulative impact is the real issue
Perhaps the most important point I want the Commission to understand is that none of theseconcerns exists in isolation.
It is easy to look at traffic by itself and say the road network can handle the additional trips.
It is easy to look at parking by itself and say the project meets the applicable minimum.
It is easy to look at the building height by itself and say it is permitted.
It is easy to look at the alley by itself and say vehicles can physically use it.
It is easy to look at noise, lighting, privacy, trees, construction, stormwater, and emergencyaccess as separate technical issues.
But the surrounding residents will experience all of these things at the same time and in thesame place.
The cumulative effect of a roughly 62-foot, approximately 93-unit building, limited on-siteparking, hundreds of additional vehicle trips, increased alley use, construction activity,increased nighttime activity, outdoor amenities, additional lighting, loss or disturbance ofexisting vegetation, and the sheer change in building mass immediately adjacent to establishedhomes is substantially greater than any one individual impact considered by itself.
That cumulative impact is what I believe has not been adequately evaluated from theperspective of the people who actually live next to the project.
A broader question about Midtown development
I was encouraged to hear Commissioner Sweeney and Commissioner Madgic are looking
more closely at zoning in Midtown and considering whether some areas are currently over-zoned.
I strongly support that effort.
I believe there is a very important distinction between sympathetic infill and simply
maximizing the development envelope of every parcel regardless of its surroundings.
Turning an existing single-family home into a duplex, adding a reasonably scaled ADU, or
developing a property in a way that responds to the surrounding neighborhood is very different
from constructing a nearly full-lot, five-story apartment building immediately beside historicand established homes.
The City's own earlier UDC work recognized this problem. It specifically discussed theconflicts created by increasing development intensity in older neighborhoods and the need for
standards addressing transitions between zoning districts and relationships to adjacentproperties.
That history makes the current situation particularly frustrating because the City has alreadyrecognized the planning problem. The question is whether the City will apply that
understanding when confronted with a real project that demonstrates the problem.
What I am asking the Commission to do
I am asking the City Commission not simply to consider whether Application 23245 cantechnically proceed under the applicable regulations, but to make sure that the City hasactually addressed the legitimate impacts identified above before allowing construction tomove forward.
Specifically, I respectfully ask the Commission to:
1. Clarify the exact current status of Application 23245, including the approved unitcount, site plan, conditions of approval, remaining reviews, and any outstanding appealsor administrative actions.2. Clarify which version of the Bozeman UDC and which state laws govern thisapplication, given that the application predates the current MLUPA framework.3. Determine whether the City Commission still has any authority to reclaim reviewauthority or otherwise review the project, and if so, whether that authority should beexercised.4. Require an independent or revised traffic analysis that realistically accounts fortraffic using W. Mendenhall as well as the alley/W. Lamme connection rather thanrelying on an assumed distribution that may not reflect actual neighborhood trafficpatterns.5. Require a professional evaluation of the alley, including emergency access, width,surface condition, winter conditions, snow removal, turning movements, drainage,utilities, and the additional demands created by this development.6. Determine whether the proposed parking supply is realistically adequate for thedevelopment and, if not, identify how the City intends to prevent the surroundingresidential streets and alley from becoming overflow parking.7. Evaluate construction impacts on neighboring homes, streets, utilities, trees, the alley,and emergency access before construction begins.8. Require a comprehensive tree and landscaping review, including tree removal, root-zone protection, construction protection measures, replacement requirements, and long-term screening.9. Evaluate noise, lighting, privacy, outdoor amenity areas, balconies, rooftopactivity, mechanical equipment, trash collection, deliveries, and other recurringimpacts on the adjacent residential properties.10. Evaluate the cumulative impact of the project, rather than considering eachindividual technical requirement in isolation.11. Provide the surrounding property owners with a clear explanation of what
opportunities remain for meaningful public participation or appeal beforeconstruction begins.
I also ask the Commission to consider whether this project represents the kind of developmentpattern the City actually wants to establish for Midtown. If the answer is yes, then the City
should be honest about the consequences for the surrounding neighborhoods. If the answer isno, then this project should be an opportunity to recognize that the current zoning envelope
may be inappropriate for certain locations even if a development can technically fit within it.
Finally, I want to emphasize that I have spent an extraordinary amount of time trying to
understand this project because it directly affects my property and my neighborhood. TheCity's development process is extremely complicated, involving the UDC, site-plan review,
zoning, traffic, building permits, state law, administrative procedures, and numerous separateCity departments and documents. Even after doing extensive research, it has been difficult to
determine exactly what has been approved, what remains under review, and whatopportunities the public still has.
I was particularly surprised to learn that a building permit was reportedly issued on November3, 2025, because I had understood that the City was still working through the development
review process. I understand that a building permit and land-use approval are different things,but that distinction is not at all obvious to an ordinary property owner trying to follow the
process.
I would therefore appreciate a clear explanation of what that permit authorizes, how it relates
to Application 23245, what happens if it expires on October 31, 2026 without constructionbeginning, and whether expiration of the permit would require any portion of the underlying
approvals to be reconsidered.
I am not asking the City to stop all development in Midtown. I am asking the City to make
sure that growth does not come at the expense of basic compatibility, adequateinfrastructure, neighborhood safety, meaningful public participation, and the reasonableexpectations of the people who already live here.
I respectfully ask the Commission to give these concerns serious consideration and to ensure
that the full record, including the concerns of the adjoining property owners, is meaningfullyconsidered before this project is allowed to proceed.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Scott Bieluch
From:Scott Bieluch
To:Bozeman Public Comment; cityclerksdepartment@bozemanmt.gov
Cc:Planning Technician; Douglas Fischer; Joey Morrison; Jennifer Madgic; Alison Sweeney; Emma Bode;
agenda@bozemanmt.gov
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Additional Public Comment Regarding Application 23245 — 811 W. Mendenhall Apartments
Date:Friday, September 4, 2026 5:22:50 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.
Additional Public Comment Regarding Application 23245 — 811 W. MendenhallApartments
Dear City Commissioners,
My name is Scott Bieluch, and I am an adjoining property owner to the proposed 811 W.
Mendenhall Apartments project, Application 23245.
I have submitted comments and formal requests for Commission call-up throughout the review
of this project. I am submitting this comment because I believe the City Commission shouldunderstand that my concerns are not simply about whether Bozeman should build more
housing. They are about whether a project of this particular size, height, intensity, andconfiguration is appropriate for this particular site and whether its impacts on the surrounding
neighborhood have been adequately addressed.
According to the City's application record, Application 23245 proposes a 93-unit multifamilyapartment building, approximately 130,315 square feet, with a proposed height ofapproximately 62 feet. The property is currently zoned R-5 Residential Mixed-Use High
Density and B-2M Community Business District-Mixed. The application also includesrequests for departures from development standards.
The City's own records demonstrate that this is an unusually intensive project on a relativelyconstrained urban site. I respectfully ask the Commission to look at the project not merely as a
question of whether the zoning technically permits multifamily housing, but whether thedevelopment, as designed, adequately satisfies the City's responsibilities regarding
compatibility, circulation, infrastructure, public safety, and impacts on adjoining properties.
1. This is an extraordinary increase in scale next to an established
neighborhood
The most fundamental concern is scale.
A building approximately 62 feet tall and more than 130,000 square feet, containing
approximately 93 residences, is dramatically different in scale from the existing homesimmediately surrounding the site.
I understand that Bozeman is growing and that increased residential density is part of theCity's policy direction. I am not arguing that nothing should ever be built on this property. I
am asking the City to distinguish between density that is appropriate for a site and densitythat creates unacceptable impacts because of the way it is physically implemented.
That distinction is particularly important here because the project is immediately adjacent toexisting residential properties.
The City's own 2017 UDC update documentation recognized this exact problem. The Cityacknowledged that increasing development intensity in older neighborhoods had created
conflicts between new and existing users and identified the creation of standards fortransitions between zoning districts as an objective of the UDC. The same document describes
Article 5 design standards as being intended to mitigate potential impacts on adjacentproperties and neighborhoods.
That policy history is important. The City has long recognized that simply allowing additionaldensity does not eliminate the obligation to consider how that density relates to theproperties around it.
2. The departures make compatibility even more important
The City has previously explained that Application 23245 includes three requested departuresinvolving:
the street vision triangle at N. 8th Avenue and W. Mendenhall Street;the light-and-air setback adjacent to the City right-of-way along the existing alley; andthe minimum rear setback adjacent to the existing alley.
The City also explained that the project was proposing to use the affordable-housing "shallowincentives" to obtain additional building stories beyond the underlying height limits applicableto portions of the property.
I recognize that departures are an established tool within the UDC. My concern is not that adeparture exists. My concern is that multiple departures, increased height, and extremelyhigh site intensity should be evaluated together rather than as isolated technicalexceptions.
The City's own UDC documentation identifies 38.520.030, Relationship of SiteDevelopment to Adjacent Properties, as one of the standards for which departures may berequested. That section exists precisely because the relationship between a development andneighboring properties matters.
A project can potentially satisfy individual dimensional standards while still creating asubstantially incompatible overall result.
I therefore ask the Commission to consider the cumulative effect of the requested departures,building height, building mass, setbacks, parking arrangement, alley configuration, lighting,balconies or other exterior activity areas, and proximity to existing homes.
3. Traffic and the alley remain significant concerns
Traffic has been one of my principal concerns from the beginning.
This is not simply speculation about "more cars." The City's own April 2024 response to mycomments specifically stated that City Engineering had requested additional information
concerning trip distribution from the alley onto W. Lamme Street and traffic controls onLamme. The applicant subsequently submitted an updated traffic-impact-study memorandum
that Engineering accepted.
That history is significant because it establishes that the alley/W. Lamme connection was itself
an issue requiring additional analysis.
I continue to have concerns about whether the traffic analysis accurately represents how
residents will actually use the surrounding street network.
I am not asking the City to simply accept my preferred traffic-distribution assumption. I am
asking that the assumptions be transparent, realistic, and site-specific, particularly given theproject's proximity to an established neighborhood, the existing alley, nearby schools and
pedestrian activity, and the relatively constrained surrounding street network.
If the project proceeds, I would ask the City to make clear:
1. how vehicle trips are expected to distribute among the alley, W. Lamme, W.Mendenhall, N. 8th Avenue, and surrounding streets;
2. what assumptions were used regarding alley use;3. whether those assumptions adequately account for actual neighborhood routing;
4. whether emergency-service access has been evaluated under realistic conditions;and
5. whether any traffic-control or access improvements are necessary beforeoccupancy.
The issue is not merely whether the traffic study satisfies a checklist. It is whether theresulting development will function safely and predictably in the real neighborhood.
4. Parking should not be treated as an isolated number
Parking is another major concern.
I understand that state legislation has changed the extent to which local governments canregulate minimum parking, and I understand that Bozeman's current policy direction favorsreducing parking requirements in some circumstances.
But the elimination or reduction of a minimum parking requirement does not eliminate thephysical consequences of having many residents, visitors, service providers, and employeesassociated with a large apartment building.
The City should still evaluate where those vehicles will go.
If the project cannot accommodate all of its parking demand on site, the practical consequenceis that some demand will move into the surrounding streets and neighborhood.
That is especially concerning here because this is not an isolated apartment complexsurrounded by large commercial parking lots. It is immediately adjacent to establishedresidential properties and streets.
I ask the Commission to require a clear accounting of:
the number of dwelling units;the number of on-site parking spaces;the anticipated resident/visitor parking demand;bicycle parking;loading and service activity;delivery vehicles;contractor and maintenance vehicles; andthe expected effect on surrounding public parking.
The City should also clarify how the project is expected to function if the surrounding streetsbecome the de facto overflow parking area.
5. Construction impacts need to be addressed before construction begins
There is also a substantial difference between the permanent operation of the project and the
temporary impacts created by constructing a building of this size.
A project of this magnitude can involve extensive excavation, concrete deliveries, heavy
equipment, cranes or other large equipment, construction-worker vehicles, material storage,staging, dust, noise, vibration, and repeated heavy-vehicle movement through a neighborhood.
The City's own Site Plan Checklist specifically requires construction-related information,including a construction route map showing the construction entrance and how materials and
heavy equipment will travel, as well as a construction management plan addressing staging,spoils, construction trash, and related issues.
Those requirements demonstrate that construction impacts are not an irrelevant neighborhoodcomplaint; they are recognized components of the City's site-plan review process.
I ask that the final construction management and routing plans be made available to affectedneighbors before substantial construction begins.
In particular, the City should establish:
designated construction entrances;approved truck routes;staging areas;hours of construction activity;dust and debris controls;procedures for maintaining alley access;procedures for maintaining emergency access;restrictions on construction-worker parking in the neighborhood;measures to minimize vibration and damage risks to nearby properties; anda clear point of contact for neighbors when construction problems occur.
6. Trees, landscaping, drainage, lighting, and privacy are not minor details
The City's Site Plan Checklist requires consideration of many of the issues adjoining propertyowners have raised, including stormwater, drainage, streets and alleys, fire access,landscaping, existing trees, exterior lighting, and photometric impacts.
That is important because these issues become much more consequential when a very largebuilding is placed immediately beside smaller existing homes.
I ask the City to specifically verify:
Trees and landscaping:What existing trees on the site are being retained? What trees will be removed? Has the Cityevaluated the potential impact of excavation and construction on root systems of trees that areintended to remain? What replacement and screening will be provided?
Stormwater and drainage:Where will runoff go during and after construction? Have downstream conditions andrestrictions been adequately evaluated? Will the significant increase in impervious surfacecreate impacts for adjoining properties?
Lighting:Will exterior lighting, parking lighting, building lighting, rooftop lighting, or security lightingspill onto neighboring residential properties? The City's checklist specifically requires alighting and photometric plan extending to property boundaries and rights-of-way.
Privacy:How will windows, balconies, rooftop areas, and other elevated or exterior spaces affect theprivacy of adjoining homes and yards?
These are exactly the kinds of impacts that should be considered when evaluating therelationship between a large new development and existing residential properties.
7. The City should consider the cumulative impact, not individual issues in
isolation
One of my greatest concerns throughout this process has been the tendency to examineindividual issues separately.
A few additional vehicles might be manageable.
A few additional feet of height might be manageable.
A modest reduction in setback might be manageable.
A departure from one standard might be manageable.
Additional exterior lighting might be manageable.
Construction traffic might be manageable.
But this project combines all of these things:
approximately 93 residences;a building of approximately 130,315 square feet;approximately 62 feet of height;substantial building mass;
requested departures;an existing alley immediately adjacent to the site;
significant traffic generation;limited surrounding street capacity;
potential parking spillover;substantial construction activity; and
immediate adjacency to existing homes.
That cumulative impact is what I believe deserves the Commission's attention.
8. Public participation should have meaningful value
I also want to address the public process.
I have participated in this project for a long time and have submitted detailed comments andformal requests for Commission involvement. Other adjoining property owners have alsoexpressed serious concerns.
I understand that public opposition does not automatically mean that a project should bedenied. Nor do I believe that existing residents should have a veto over new housing.
But public participation should mean more than giving residents an opportunity to submitcomments that are subsequently treated as obstacles to be worked around.
The Montana Constitution recognizes a right to a reasonable opportunity for citizenparticipation in governmental decision-making as provided by law. Montana law likewiseestablishes requirements for public participation in governmental matters.
I am therefore asking for something narrower and more reasonable than a promise that theCommission will agree with me: I am asking that the concerns raised by affected propertyowners be substantively considered and that the final decision explain how thesignificant site-specific impacts have been addressed.
9. The City's own planning history supports careful transitions
There is also an important irony in this situation.
The City's own UDC history states that increasing development intensity in older
neighborhoods has created conflicts between new and existing users. It identifies transitionsbetween zoning districts as a means of preventing those conflicts and describes site and
building design standards as tools for mitigating impacts on adjacent properties andneighborhoods.
That is exactly the issue presented here.
I am not opposed to infill.
I am not opposed to apartments.
I am not opposed to affordable housing.
I am not opposed to growth.
I am opposed to the idea that those objectives automatically justify placing the maximum
practical intensity of development on every available parcel regardless of its immediatecontext.
There is a difference between "Can this zoning district accommodate multifamilyhousing?" and "Is this particular building, at this particular scale and configuration,compatible with the properties around it?"
The second question is the one I believe deserves much greater attention.
10. What I am asking the Commission to do
I respectfully ask the City Commission to take whatever procedural action is available toensure that Application 23245 receives meaningful Commission-level scrutiny, particularlyregarding the cumulative impacts described above.
At a minimum, I ask the City to provide clear findings and documentation
regarding:
1. Building scale and compatibility with the immediately adjoining residential
properties;
2. Each requested departure, including why it is appropriate in this specific
context;
3. The cumulative effect of the height, massing, setbacks, and departures;
4. Traffic distribution, especially use of the alley and W. Lamme Street;
5. Emergency access and public safety;
6. Parking supply and anticipated neighborhood parking impacts;
7. Construction routing and construction management;
8. Stormwater and drainage impacts;
9. Existing trees, tree preservation, and landscaping;
10. Exterior lighting and nighttime impacts;
11. Privacy and visual impacts on adjoining homes; and
12. The project's relationship to the City's stated objectives concerningcompatibility and transitions between development intensities.
I also respectfully ask the City to clarify the current status of the project's building permit and
its relationship to Application 23245, including what work the permit authorizes, whether itremains valid, and what happens if it expires before construction proceeds.
Conclusion
I recognize that Bozeman needs housing. I recognize that the City has adopted policiesintended to accommodate substantially more residential development. I also recognize thatexisting property owners cannot reasonably expect their neighborhoods to remain unchangedforever.
But growth does not have to mean abandoning thoughtful transitions between dramaticallydifferent development scales.
The question before the City should not be whether existing residents can stop growth. Thequestion should be whether the City can accommodate growth while still protecting the basiclivability, safety, privacy, circulation, and character of the neighborhoods in which thatgrowth occurs.
I believe Application 23245 presents a particularly important test of that principle.
A 93-unit, approximately 130,000-square-foot, approximately 62-foot-tall apartment buildingimmediately adjacent to existing homes is a major change in intensity. The requesteddepartures and the site's alley, traffic, parking, drainage, construction, lighting, tree, privacy,and emergency-access issues make this more than a routine infill project.
I respectfully ask the Commission not to view these concerns as opposition to housing. Theyare a request for responsible, context-sensitive development and for a public process inwhich the impacts on existing residents receive the same seriousness as the benefits claimedfor the new development.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my comments.
Scott BieluchAdjoining Property OwnerBozeman, Montana