Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-26 Public Comment - M. Francis-McHugh - Comment for Agenda 4-6-26, item I.1 Com DevFrom:Mary Frances McHugh To:Bozeman Public Comment Cc:Mary Frances McHugh Subject:[EXTERNAL]Comment for Agenda 4-6-26, item I.1 Date:Monday, April 6, 2026 9:05:04 AM Attachments:4-3-26 Comment on 25775 Hanson Lane Annexation.pdf 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. Please provide the Attached Comment regarding Agenda item I.1 for the attention of the Community Development Board for the meeting of April 6, 2026. Thank you. Mary Frances McHugh 530-598-7383 1 Date: April 3, 2026 To: The City of Bozeman Community Development Board Re: Agenda item I.1: 25775 Hanson Lane Annexation From: Mary Frances McHugh, Property Owner, Harvest Creek Subdivision, Bozeman, MT THE SUBJECT PROJECT’S ZONING IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING AREA. The application seeks to do what is disallowed by law: spot zoning. Spot zoning is disfavored and unlawful1. Shoe-horning a higher density use into an area well established with less dense uses is a prime example of spot zoning.2 A zoning designation of R-B is not consistent with the City’s growth policy, future land use map, and the development pattern of the surrounding area. The proper designation is R-A. Applicant claims neighboring properties are currently zoned as R-1, R-2, R-3, and PLI, and that an R-3 designation coincides with the City's new growth policy, future land use map, and the development pattern of the surrounding area. In fact, according to Applicant’s own Exhibit C, Land Use Map, the immediate neighboring properties to the Subject Property are single household residential. (See, Attachment 1). This is further demonstrated by Attachment 1A, a copy of the area from Google Maps captured on April 4, 2026. This must be compared with Applicant’s Exhibit “C” which shows the area is “zoned” multi-household residential. The street called Cottage Park Lane on the east side of the Subject Property clearly has only single family residences. The four buildings at the north side of Annie Street and Hanson Street are single story duplexes, 8 total units, which at most would be R-2. This demonstrates that the predominant actual use in the immediate area is single family residential, not multi-family residential. A zone designation of R-3 or R-B is not consistent with the development pattern of the surrounding area as it will allow development of density greater than 6 units per acre and buildings with heights greater than 40 feet. Applicant cannot demonstrate that the area of the Subject Property has either good access to transit or is close to community services, such as shopping or medical or other uses. Use of an R-3 (R-B) zone is appropriate for areas with good access to parks, community services and/or transit. The closest shopping area is over a mile east. It is a 30 minute walk – both ways. Carrying groceries? There is no readily reliable public transit. The only point it satisfies is: It is very close to a park. This is an island of county land that exists wholly within the City's boundaries. In fact, the total developable size of this parcel, once the right of way is developed, will be 5 acres or less. Currently the surrounding areas have a density of 6 units per acre or less, equivalent to a zoning classification of R-A [Residential –A, Section 38.210.020, Bozeman Municipal Code]. There is no area contiguous to the Subject Property that would fit the description of an R-3 use. In fact, the only beneficiary of this zoning will be the City of Bozeman, not its citizens. It is well known in the neighborhood that the City desires lands in this area to build high density, high rise housing. Within the past 10 months, the City has made several public presentations of just such a plan for the land immediately next to the Subject Property. LAND USE POLICY DOES NOT REQUIRE THIS DENSITY. The City has an unfortunate history of hop-scotch development which left in its wake dozens of unincorporated islands of lands throughout its jurisdiction. The Urban Neighborhood designation for such situated properties is inappropriate. Applicant claims the Urban Neighborhood designation of this Subject Property requires a high density zoning designation. This is not so. An Urban Neighborhood designation in a Community Plan does not compel R-3/R-B 1 The zoning or rezoning of a single tract of land, usually small in size, such that it is zoned differently from surrounding property may be invalidated as illegal spot zoning. 73 A.L.R.5th 223 2 It is well settled that the test for spot zoning is: (1) whether the requested use is significantly different from the prevailing use in the area; (2) whether the area in which the requested use is to apply is small, although not solely in physical size, and how many separate landowners will benefit from the zone classification; and (3) whether the requested change is more in the nature of special legislation designed to benefit one or a few landowners at the expense of the surrounding landowners or general public, which should involve an inquiry into whether the requested use is in accord with a comprehensive plan. Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Inc. v. Board of County Com'rs of Gallatin County, 2001 MT 99, 25 P.3d 168 (Mont. 2001) 2 use and an Urban Neighborhood designation is not inconsistent with a lower density zoning designation, such as R- A. “Urban Neighborhood” is one of the uses listed in Future Land Uses, The City’s new Community Plan, (adopted 11/1/25, Resolution 25-71) page 50: The Urban Neighborhood designation provides for “urban density homes in a variety of types, shapes, sizes, and intensities”. While the Plan does say that “large areas of any single type of housing are discouraged” that language clearly contemplates bigger developments, especially for lands outside City limits, than this modest parcel surrounded by one and two story family homes. Look at the Community Plan’s Future Land Use Maps (Attachments 2 and 3); Attachment 2 shows the City limits and its sphere of influence; Attachment 3 shows uses of land in the areas inside and outside the City limits. The Plan is intended to communicate to property owners particularly those outside the City, that are within the City’s sphere of influence, what the use of their land would be if they were to annex to the City. Additionally, the Urban Neighborhood designation in the Community Plan overlays the entire city, apparently to apply to unincorporated lands within the City jurisdiction. It is not a zoning designation, it is broader than that. It is a growth policy. “A growth policy is not a regulatory tool and cannot be used to solely to make decisions on proposed land use projects or development. It must be coupled with other factors.”3 The dominant color on the Future Uses Map is Urban Neighborhood beige. Why does the Community Plan make no distinction in the Urban Neighborhood designation between small unincorporated islands surrounded by development within the City limits and larger parcels within the City limits? The Community Plan is flawed. Using such a broad brush in the instance of an unincorporated island of less than 10 acres as opposed to multi-acre development is not a reasonable interpretation of the Urban Neighborhood nor is it a reasonable designation for lands of this type entirely within the City and surrounded by existing development. The Urban Neighborhood designation is insufficient justification to compel a higher density zoning in this instance. Applying these broad strokes on the basis of that justification is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. PURPOSE OF PROJECT: RIGHT OF WAY. As Applicant states, this annexation is principally to install a right of way known as Fowler Avenue. In fact, Exhibit “G” of the Application contains a draft grant of an easement that shows the mapping and the metes and bounds of the right of way (Attachment 4). According to the 60% Fowler Avenue Connector published by the City in February 2026, the Fowler Avenue Connector will join a street known as Annie from the east in Harvest Creek to its current westerly terminus on the western boundary of the Subject Property. The City’s plan describes a roundabout at the intersection of Fowler Avenue and Annie Street, presumably for the purposes of traffic calming, as without it there will be an unobstructed raceway along Annie Street to Emily Dickinson School, 2435 Annie Street, Bozeman MT, an elementary school which serves the neighborhoods to the west of the Subject Property. Before this is finalized, the safety of the young pedestrians who will be using this right of way needs to be made secure with definitive conditions for speed limits and installed traffic calming measures that are incorporated into any annexation approval. Thank you. 4-3-26 Comment on 25775 Hanson Lane Annexation 3 GROWTH POLICIES: A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR LOCAL LEADERS, Montana League of Cities and Towns; http://www.mtleague.org 3 ATTACHMENT 1A. Google Map as of April 4, 2026. Go gle Maps 3144 Rose St Imagery ©2026 4 ATTACHMENT 1. APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT “C” ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF BOZEMAND COMMUNITY PLAN (11-1-25) SPHERE OF INFLUENCE 5 6 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF BOZEMAND COMMUNITY PLAN (11-2-25) FUTURE LAND USES 7 ATTACHMENT 4 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT G (Exhibit A is part of that Exhibit)