HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-10-26 Public Comment - N. Lopez - Comment on Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and ZoningFrom:Noah Lopez
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Comment on Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoning
Date:Friday, April 10, 2026 2:19:30 PM
Attachments:Comment on Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoning.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.
To Whom It May Concern,
Please see the attached comment on the Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and ZoningHearing scheduled for 5/5/2026.
Thank you,
Noah
Noah J. Lopez(530) 867-3353
To: Bozeman City Commission
From: Noah Lopez
Date: 4/10/26
Re: Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoning
Dear Bozeman City Commission,
I am a homeowner in the Harvest Creek neighborhood. I would like to express my concern and
opposition to the proposed Hanson Lane (Annie Street) annexation and zoning of R-B. As
outlined in the following letter, the proposed zoning is inconsistent with existing conditions,
unsupported by policy, and inappropriate for the site.
I would like to preface my comment by acknowledging that I am not opposed to any
development of the Fowler Housing Project. However, I am opposed to the proposed
high-density housing that is inconsistent with the existing neighborhood and cannot be
supported by the current infrastructure without a sustainable negative impact on existing
residents.
My opposition is not simply a form of NIMBYism (not in my backyard), but rather a thoughtful
consideration of the proposal, its desired outcome, and its impact on the neighborhood.
Bozeman has many high density housing options, many of which seem to have rather soft
demand. However, single-family housing in low and medium-low density neighborhoods seem
to have high demand. This indicates that residents are looking for lower density options as
alternatives to the prolific high density options that already exist. If the City wishes to utilize the
parcel for affordable housing, the City should explore lower density zoning options such as R-A.
Proposed Zoning Inconsistency
The proposed zoning is inconsistent with the surrounding area and amounts to impermissible
spot zoning. The application attempts to introduce a higher-density designation into a
well-established low-density neighborhood, which is both disfavored and unlawful. An R-B
designation conflicts with the City’s growth policy, future land use map, and the existing
development pattern. In accordance with the City’s land use plan the appropriate designation is
R-A.
Although the Applicant cites nearby R-1, R-2, R-3, and PLI zoning, their own materials show
that the properties immediately adjacent to the subject site are predominantly single-family
residential. Observations of the area confirm this pattern: Cottage Park Lane consists entirely of
single-family homes, and nearby duplexes are limited in scale and consistent with lower-density
zoning. The actual use in the area is clearly low-density, making an R-3 or R-B designation
incompatible, as it would allow significantly greater density and building height than currently
exists.
Infrastructure Concerns and Negative Impacts to Both Existing and Future Residents
The site also lacks the infrastructure typically required to support higher-density zoning. It does
not have adequate access to transit or proximity to essential services such as shopping or
medical facilities. The nearest commercial area is over a mile away, and public transit options
are limited. Aside from proximity to a park, the site does not meet the criteria for higher-density
classification.
Additionally, the parcel is a small, unincorporated island within the City, with a developable size
of approximately five acres. Surrounding densities are at or below six units per acre, consistent
with R-A zoning. There are no adjacent areas that reflect or support R-3-level development.
The City’s reliance on the Urban Neighborhood designation is misplaced. This designation is
part of a growth policy, not a zoning requirement, and does not mandate high-density
development. It is broadly applied and intended as guidance, not as a regulatory standard.
Applying it to justify increased density on a small, infill parcel surrounded by low-density housing
is unreasonable and inconsistent with the intent of the plan.
Finally, the primary purpose of the annexation appears to be the development of the Fowler
Avenue right of way. While this infrastructure may be necessary, it raises safety concerns,
particularly due to its connection to Annie Street and proximity to Emily Dickinson School. Any
approval should include clear conditions addressing traffic calming and pedestrian safety.
Conclusion
In summary, the proposed zoning is inconsistent with existing conditions, unsupported by policy,
and inappropriate for the site. For the reasons outlined above, the Commission should deny the
application and limit zoning for the parcel to R-A. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Noah Lopez