Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-01-26 Public Comment - M.F. McHugh - Re_ Hanson Lane Annexation Application #25775 set for hearing 5-5-26 From: Mary Frances McHugh To: Bozeman Public Comment Cc: Mary Frances McHugh; Heather Higgs Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: Hanson Lane Annexation Application#25775 set for hearing 5-5-26 Date: Wednesday,April 29,2026 2:14:54 PM Attachments: 4-29-26 MFM Public Comment for 5-5-26 Hanson Lane Hra.odf 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 enclosed Comment to the Commission in connection with the Hanson Lane Annexation Application 425775 which is set for hearing before the Commission on Tuesday, May 5, 2026. 1 do not have the agenda item number. Thank you. Mary Frances McHugh 530-598-7383 Date: April 29, 2026 To: The Commissioners, City of Bozeman Re: Commission Meeting May 5, 2026 Agenda item number TBD - Hanson Lane Annexation and Zoning Application #25775 From: Mary Frances McHugh, Owner in Harvest Creek Subdivision, Bozeman, MT At the outset, to be clear: I do not oppose affordable housing, either rented or owned. When bought my first house in 1981, residential mortgage interest rates were 18%. My concern is the scale and density of this project. The Bridger View and the Cottage Park developments are excellent examples of efforts to size housing appropriately and economically, while keeping single family options in play. Those developments occurred in R-2 zoning apparently with a planned unit development overlay. Good planning practice. Unfortunately, now, the closest zone to R-2 in the new UDC is R-A, per Community Plan 2025 (BCP) Goal N.1.3: "Revise the zoning map to lessen areas exclusively zoned for single-type housing." This Application is proceeding with the zeal of the Community Plan: "Large areas of any single type of housing are discouraged." (BCP 2025 p 52). And the law of unintended consequences seems to be playing out before us. It looks like the effort to close in on the growth issue has foreclosed the use of low density housing to solve the problem. According to UDC 38.770.030, you have the authority to approve, deny or modify this application. This application merits denial, or, return it to staff with directions that favor gradual intensification of development and use the R-A zoning designation, for the reasons set out below. A Zone Change Requires Scrutiny. When a zone change is made, the law requires the requested land use be compared with the "prevailing use in the area." Little v. Board of County Commissioners (1981), 193 Mont. 334, 346. Zoning matters require examination of: (1) compatibility of uses and general plan, (2) size of the parcel to be zoned, and (3) whether there is a specific benefit. The Community Plan is No Plan at All. Scrutiny is required of surrounding areas for compatible uses, otherwise, why have zoning categories at all? Scrutiny of the predominant use in the surrounding area is important because the Urban Neighborhood designation in the BCP overlays the entire City and its sphere of influence. Almost all allowable zoning categories are associated with it (7). A comprehensive plan (master plan) is a guide in making zoning laws, but it is to be followed mindfully. (cf., Little: the plan must be sufficiently definite so that those charged with adhering to it will know when there is an acceptable deviation, and when there is an unacceptable deviation from the master plan.). The zoning categories associated with Urban Neighborhood run from low density to high density residential on to commercial (B-1) and open space. In fact, the Urban Neighborhood designation in the BCP is so broad as to be tantamount to no plan at all. If there is no plan, there can be no lawful zoning. Prevailing Uses and Conformity with Plan. At the CDB hearing, slides were introduced which were not part of the Application or Staff Report, and were relied upon in the decision making. The slides lead the Board to believe that an R-B zoning designation would provide "a 1 seamless transition" to the surrounding residential areas, when, in fact, and in the record, there is substantial evidence otherwise. One of the slides is attached to this Comment as Attachment 1. The members of the Board reacted favorably to the "patchwork built pattern" shown on the slide. In fact, this slide only shows the intended uses under the new UCD, it does not show the actual build out of the areas depicted. This evidence cannot be relied upon to refute the evidence given to the CDB that clearly shows the build out at R-1 and R-2 densities, as shown in Attachment 2, which was before the Board at the time of its hearing on April 201" and was referred to in oral Public Comment. [Public Comment CDB April 20, 2026, Video of CDB 4-20- 26 Proceedings, 1:51:45, Mary France (sic) McHugh]. At the CDB hearing, there was evidence from more than 60 written Public Comments and 15 oral comments that the prevailing use in the area was R-1 and R-2 zoning; that there was no building within the surrounding area that was as high as the requested R-B use; and, that the requested zone designation was incompatible with the prevailing use in the surrounding area. It is beyond a doubt that R-1 and R-2 are the prevailing uses in the area. To this date, there are now 84 written public comments (81 opposed to this action, 2 other and 1 duplicate). These comments are located on the City of Bozeman's City Documents site, listed in Attachment 3 of this Comment and are incorporated in this Comment by reference. The Size of the Remainder Parcel. At the Hearing on April 20t", the CDB was informed that once the subdivision exemption has been effected, the remainder of developable land will be about 4-5 acres. There is no dispute this will be a small parcel of land. The CDB questioned staff and the Applicant closely on this matter. In fact, Annie Street will bisect the remainder parcel, a point which concerned some Board members. That its development as R-B will have an outsized effect on the community which surrounds it was demonstrated to the CDB by the overwhelming public comment in opposition, almost all of which identified the single family use of the surrounding parcels, the pleasantness of the neighborhood, and the anticipated harmful effects of greater density. Special Benefit. There is only one reason this annexation and zoning is sought: to build Fowler Road. Is the objective of the requested zoning classification to confer a specific benefit? The owner holds the exclusive land needed for the Fowler Connection project. Without it, the project cannot proceed. Is the requested zoning designation a favor for cooperating with this project? It is repeatedly noted in the Application that the owner is not planning to develop the Subject Property. Why then did the planning staff fail to develop the alternative of an R-A zoning when it was clearly evident to them that this would be an issue from the public's perspective? The public comment received on this matter demonstrates the breadth of the concern in the community for the disruption anticipated by this zoning designation. Four Story Buildings Are Possible and with R-B Zoning, They Are Likely. At the CDB on April 20t", Applicant's agent, Mr. Naumann, told the Board that 4 stories would fit in the allowed 33 foot height to the wall plate if dormers were used in the attic area. [Video of CDB 4-20-26 Proceedings, 1:04:59]. The UDC allows buildings in an R-B zone to be 45 feet tall, and allows 4 story buildings. [Cf., 38.210.040]. Under the prior code, when the surrounding residences were built, heights were capped at 35 feet to 40 feet. See Attachment 3 of this 2 Comment (Table 38.320.030.C). The comparison is to what has already been built and what will be built under the new Code. The admission of the Applicant that 4 stories would fit constitutes substantial evidence supporting denial of the application. It completely rebuts the assumed fact that R-B use would be compatible to existing uses because it would not allow development of more than "3 stories". Additionally, and not before the Board, the Code gives an allowance of an another 1 foot above the wall plate height if certain truss systems are used, which would increase any attic height by a foot, see, UDC on Vertical Massing in Chapter 38.260.100.b, making 4 stories not only possible, but likely. And, if the incentives for affordable housing are applied, it is possible building heights could reach an additional story. [Cf. 38.340.020]. So, even five story buildings are certainly possible in an R-B zone, and a good developer will apply all advantages the code allows. Why Zoning R-A Matters. It is well known in the neighborhood that the City desires to build high density, high rise housing and owns an adjacent parcel. Within the past 10 months, the City has made public presentations of just such a plan for the City's land. Harvest Creek property owners are participating in a consensus process about that similarly situated, adjacent parcel. On April 14, 2026, in open session of the Bozeman City Commission, both Deputy Mayor Douglas Fischer and City Manager Chuck Winn pledged that no 4 or 5 story development will occur on the City's parcel. The development challenges are the same for this parcel and the City owned parcel. The outcomes should be the same. The proposed zoning is opposed specifically because it will set a greater density and heights than are in the surrounding neighborhoods. The Core function of Zoning law is Protecting Property Values. Zoning keeps neighborhoods predictable and stable. Zoning decisions are generally considered legislative acts, giving decision makers broad discretion to deny applications that do not serve the community's interest. The designation of R-B will not achieve gradual, predictable increase in density because of the surrounding, fully developed, R-1 and R- 2 uses. Of course R-B is consistent with the Community Plan 2025, BUT, so is R-A. Under the new BCP, "R-A is designed to hold multiple types of housing on a variety of lot sizes." The Challenge You Have Is to Strike a Balance. A zoning designation of R-A by this Commission doesn't foreclose projects that fill in the "missing middle" or create affordable housing or address any of the other aims of the BCP, it just allows an easier transition from the existing built community, follows the law, is consistent with the Urban Neighborhood designation in the Community Development Plan 2025 and will match the future land use map. A zoning decision of R-A will allow growth; it will offer space for a rapidly diminishing housing resource: the single family home. That serves the community's interest. Thank you. 3 Attachment 1 isting Neighborhood Zoning Pattern OAK STREET 1 - 1 DURSTON ROAD r] (I ,. ►� 'm 34 Ix he existing built zoning pattern is an alternating mix of both RA and RB. Slide presented by Applicant at 4-20-26 CDB hearing. 4 Attachment 2 ATTACHMENT 1A of Public Comment made by Mary Frances McHugh dated 4-4-26. Google Map as of April 4, 2026. uo gie Maps -arl I' OEM rF • rah �"�,• ` �' Jr ',� r f Q � i •. - vim' � �is - i�.�-�� \�! 1. f I T"- � '1�, Magery©2026 "Count the driveways." Depicting "as built" condition of properties surrounding Subject Parcel. 5 Attachment 3 OULUVIHIV ! LILY l.ufTIFIM>blurl • l.urrebpurlueFILe , ruUI1L LUI1111MIL�ueg'drl Zu 14 U1 Aeu uy I Name Page count fl 04-06-26 Public Comment-M.Francis-McHugh-Comment for Agenda 4-6-26,item... 8 fl 04-08-26 Public Comment-L.Wallace-Fw_04.07.26 CDB Public Comment 3 fl 04-09-26 Public Comment-C.Whyel-Annie Annexation Concern 1 fl 04-09-26 Public Comment-M. Langill-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zo... 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-A.Gerrish-Annie Street Annexation 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-A.Johnson-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Z... 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-A.Johnson-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Z... 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-A. Porter-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zon... 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-B. Dobler-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zo... 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-B. Higgs-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoni... 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-B. Neff-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoning 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-D.Charles-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zo... 1 fl04-10-26 Public Comment-E. Locke-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoni... 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-H.Toyne-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zon... 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-J. Connolly-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Z... 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-J. Hilbrich-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zo... 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-J. Lewis-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoning 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-J.Schneider-Hanson Lane annexation 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-K.Craig-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoni... 1 r. 6 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-K.Johnson - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Z... 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-K.Schell- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoni... 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-K.Wells Griffith- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation a... 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-K.Whisenhunt- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation an... 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-M. Fox-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoning 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-M. Leary-Serious concerns about the proposed Hanson... 1 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-N. Lopez-Comment on Hanson Lane App 25775 Annex... 3 fl 04-10-26 Public Comment-N. Ritter- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoni... 1 fl 04-11-26 Public Comment-A. Lewis-Application 25775 1 fl 04-11-26 Public Comment- B. Mayer- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zon... 1 fl 04-11-26 Public Comment-C. Messina-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Z... 1 fl 04-11-26 Public Comment- D. Brown-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zo... 1 fl 04-11-26 Public Comment-E.Allison- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zo... 1 fl 04-11-26 Public Comment-M. Banaugh - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and ... 1 fl 04-11-26 Public Comment-M.Johnson - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Z... 1 fl 04-11-26 Public Comment-M. McHugh-Re_4-20-25 Hearing on Hanson Lane A... 1 fl 04-11-26 Public Comment- M. McHugh - Re_Hanson Lane Annexation#25-775 1 7 fl 04-11-26 Public Comment- N. Layman - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Z... 1 fl 04-11-26 Public Comment-S. Bosse- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoni... 1 fl 04-11-26 Public Comment-S. Draper- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zo... 1 fl 04-11-26 Public Comment-S.Jonas- Homeowner supports Fowler high rises ... 1 fl 04-11-26 Public Comment-S.Wright- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zo... 1 fl 04-11-26 Public Comment-V. Berg- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoning 1 fl 04-12-26 Public Comment-A. Grangroth - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and... 1 fl 04-12-26 Public Comment-A. Kjellstrom- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and ... 1 fl 04-12-26 Public Comment- B. Cain - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoning 1 fl 04-12-26 Public Comment- H. Bienvenue- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation an... 1 fl 04-12-26 Public Comment-J. Backes- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zon... 1 fl 04-12-26 Public Comment- K. Read - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoning 1 fl 04-12-26 Public Comment-L. Wallace- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zo... 1 fl04-12-26 Public Comment- M. Gunnarson - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation an... 1 fl 04-12-26 Public Comment- M. Pearson - Hanson Lane Annexation,Application 25775 1 fl 04-12-26 Public Comment- M. Yarnell - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zo... 1 fl 04-12-26 Public Comment- N.Thanepohn - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation an... 1 8 fl04-12-26 Public Comment-S.Jessop - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zon... 1 fl 04-12-26 Public Comment-T. LeCain - Hanson Lane Annexation 3 fl 04-13-26 Public Comment-B. Stoddart- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Z... 1 fl 04-13-26 Public Comment-E. Locke- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoni... 1 fl 04-13-26 Public Comment- F. Neff-- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoni... 1 fl 04-13-26 Public Comment- L. Kamrath -Annie Street Annexation 1 fl 04-13-26z Public Comment- B. Neuburger-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation an... 2 fl 04-13-26z Public Comment- L. Labert- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zo... 1 fl 04-13-26z Public Comment- N. McNabb - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and ... 1 fl 04-13-26z Public Comment-T. Cataldo- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Z... 1 fl 04-14-26 Public Comment- K. Harris- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zon... 2 fl 04-15-26 Public Comment- B. Hays-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoning 1 fl 04-15-26 Public Comment-M. Miller- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zon... 1 fl04-17-26 Public Comment- Harvest Creek Owners'Association Press - Press Releas... 2 fl 04-17-26 Public Comment- M. Center- Hanson Lane Annexation- public comment 1 fl 04-18-26 Public Comment- B. Foreman- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Z... 1 fl 04-18-26 Public Comment-J. Heath - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoni... 1 nA 1Q 7G Di iFhli�r'n nt FA Dncar Wancan Annav 1 9 fl 04-18-26 Public Comment- M. Roser- Hansen Annex 1 fl 04-19-26 Public Comment- B. Hosford - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Z... 1 fl 04-19-26 Public Comment-C. Fifer- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoning 1 fl 04-19-26 Public Comment-J. Luebeck- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zo... 1 fl 04-19-26 Public Comment- K. Hohmann - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and ... 1 fl04-19-26 Public Comment-V. Hanson - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zo... 1 fl 04-20-26 Public Comment- E. Barnhardt- Hanson lane annexation and zoning_fow... 1 fl 04-20-26 Public Comment-S. Francis- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation &Zoning 1 fl 04-20-26 Public Comment-T.Willmert- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Z... 1 fl 04-20-26 Public Comment-W. Ward - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoni... 1 fl04-20-26 Public Comment-Z. Center- Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zo... 1 fl 04-28-26 Public Comment- H. Higgs- Harvest Creek HOA Press Release_April 27, 2... 2 fl 04-28-26 Public Comment- K. Picard -Annie Street-Hanson Lane App 25775 Annex... 1 fl 04-28-26 Public Comment- K. Smith - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoni... 1 End Attachment 3 10 Attachment 4 Table 38.320.030.0 Density,building height,and setbacks Table clarification: 1. Where a code reference or link appears after the form and intensity topic,the use is subject to standards set forth in that section or chapter. 2. If a number appears in the box, refer to the development condition with the corresponding number immediately following the table. If there are multiple numbers,then all development conditions apply. Use Type/ Zoning District Standard R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O RMH Density,floor area and lot coverage Density, 2 5 5 5 8 81 6 5 minimum (dwellings per net acre) (38.320.020.13) Lot coverage, 25% 40%3 40%3 40%3 50%3 - — 40%3 maximum Z (38.320.020.C.1) Floor area ratio, 0.45:1 0.5:1 0.75:1 1:1 1.5:1 — 1.5:1 — maximum 4 (38.320.020.C.3) Maximum building height(feet)(38.320.020.E) Roof pitch in feet R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O RMH 11 Less than 3:12 28 28 30 36 40 505 50 28 3:12 or greater 42 40 40 46 50 605 60 40 Minimum setbacks(feet)(38.320.020.F) Front setback 156 15 15 15 15 15 7 15 15 Setback to an 201 201 208 208 208 208 208 208 individual garage oriented to the street Rearsetback 206 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Side setback 56 59 59 5 9 59 59 59 59 Notes: 1. The minimum density in the R-5 zone is eight dwelling units per"gross"acre. 2. In all residential zoning districts for those lots used to satisfy the requirements of division 38.380, not more than 60 percent of the lot area can be covered by principal and accessory buildings.When a larger lot has a portion of its total dwellings subject to the requirements of division 38,380 either directly or inherited from a previous subdivision,the portion used for those dwellings may have up to 60 percent of the lot area covered by principal and accessory buildings. 3. The maximum lot coverage for townhouses and rowhouses: a. R-1, R-2, R-3,and RMH districts:50 percent. b. R-4 and townhouses complying with affordable housing provisions of division 38.380 of this chapter:85 percent. 4. Floor area ratio adjustments: a. For townhouse developments,the floor area ratio standard applies to all townhouse lots. Designated common area specifically associated with the townhouses may be used as applicable site area in determining compliance with the floor area ratio requirement. b. Dwellings used to satisfy requirements of division 38.380 of this chapter are allowed a 25 percent increase in allowable floor area ratio. 5. An area,not to exceed a total often percent of the building footprint,may extend above the 12 maximum building height by up to 12 feet.Such elements may include stair or elevator penthouses, service elements,or habitable area and must be set back from the edge of the building by at least five feet(see Figure 38.320.030.1 below for an example)to reduce the visibility of such feature. P-Maximum of X/10 5' minimum building setback `X-Total Building Footprint Figure 38.320.030.2. Limited exceptions to height limits for elevator or stair penthouses or similar features are permitted provided they occupy no more than ten percent of building's footprint and are setback from the edge of the building by at least five feet to reduce their visibility from the ground level. 6. All barns,stables or permanent corrals must be set back not less than 100 feet from any residence or public road and not less than 50 feet from any property line. 7. Porches and covered entries in the R-5 district may project as allowed 38.350.050. 8. All vehicle entrances,oriented to the street,into garages shall be no closer than 20 feet to a property line,unless explicitly authorized otherwise under this chapter. 9. No side setback is required for the interior walls of townhouses. (Ord. No.20-U §2,6-3-2019;Ord. No.2M,§2,6-3-2019;Ord, No.20S9.§2, 1-26-2021;Ord. No.2070.§1, 6-8-2021;Ord,No.2105.§5,9-27-2022) Sec.38.320.040.-Form and intensity standards—Residential emphasis mixed-use zoning district. 13