Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-03-26 Public Comment - Harvest Creek HOA Board of Directors - Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoning From: Contact Harvest Creek Owners"Association To: Bozeman Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL]Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoning Date: Sunday,May 3,2026 9:39:26 PM Attachments: 2026 05 04 Publi Comment Hanson Lane SiQned.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. Hello, Please find attached the Harvest Creek Owners'Association 11-page public comment for the Hanson Lane App 25775 Annexation and Zoning. This comment is in response to Agenda Item N. of the upcoming May 5th City Commission meeting. Thank you, Harvest Creek HOA Board of Directors HARVEST CREEK OWNERS' ASSOCIATION Bozeman,MT 59718 May 4, 2026 The Honorable Joey Morrisson Deputy Mayor Fischer Commissioners Madjic, Bode and Sweeney City of Bozeman City Hall - Commission Room 121 N Rouse Ave Bozeman, Montana 59715 Re: Commission Meeting of May 5, 2026,Agenda Item Number N N.1 Annexation and Zone Map Amendment Requesting Annexation and the Establishment of an Initial Zoning Designation of R-3 Residential Medium Density District(R-B Residential Mixed Use Low-Medium), for 9.979 Acres, the Hanson Lane Annexation, Located North of Durston Road and East of Hanson Street, Application 25775 Messrs. Mayor and Deputy Mayor, and Commissioners: These comments are provided in response to the Hanson Lane Annexation and Zone Map Amendment, Planning File 25-775. The Hanson Lane property is currently in the County and zoned SRR, Semi-Rural Residential. It is directly adjacent to Harvest Creek subdivision to the east. Harvest Creek(Phases V XI)was established in 1999 as a single family residential community and is comprised of approximately 79 acres. It is home to 300 families and residents. Beyond this to the east are earlier phases of the Harvest Creek residential subdivision, which contribute to the residential character and development pattern of the area. Collectively Harvest Creek includes 523 homes. Sidewalks throughout provide pedestrian access. Street parking is allowed pursuant to City ordinances. Harvest Creek has historically been designated as R1 (for over 25 years), and is now designated R-A—Residential Low under the recently amended City's Unified Development Code.' The Harvest Creek community does not oppose the proposed annexation of the Hanson Lane property. We understand the City is growing to the west. Nor does the community I On December 16,2026,the City Commission adopted an updated Unified Development Code,which repealed and replaced the entirety of Chapter 38,and the associated zoning map,with an effective date February 1,2026.See also Staff Report for Hanson Lane Annexation,No. 25775,Map 3:Current Zoning Map(before Feb. 1',2026)and Map 4:Current Zoning Map(on and after Feb. I',2026)pages 8-9. oppose alternatives to the predominantly single family homes in the surrounding area, such as townhomes and duplexes. However residents have grave concerns and strongly oppose the proposed Zone Map Amendment that will allow a significantly higher density and different uses than the existing surrounding residential uses, including multiple multi- unit buildings with up to 8 units that may tower over the existing residences with the now allowable 4-story height, obstructing air, light, and views. The Hanson Lane Zone Map Amendment is incompatible with the character of the surrounding residential area, fails to promote public health and safety due to the inadequate road network to support the density proposed, and amounts to spot zoning. For these reasons, and those explained below, Harvest Creek respectfully requests the City Commission deny the Hanson Lane Zone Map Amendment. In the alternative, Harvest Creek believes that the information provided herein at the very least warrants the City Commission adopt a zoning designation different than applied for and the same as the zoning designation for the immediately surrounding properties, that is R-A— Residential Low. Given this, we ask that the City Commission continue the hearing scheduled for this Zone Map Amendment on May 5, 2026, so that the Commissioners can give thoughtful consideration to the impacts addressed herein and the mitigation afforded by the alternatively proposed zoning designation of R-A—Residential Low, which is consistent with the surrounding area, both Harvest Creek and Cottage Park. Spot Zoning There is no single, comprehensive definition of spot zoning applicable to all fact situations. Generally, however, three factors enter into determining whether spot zoning exists in any given instance. First, in spot zoning, the requested use is significantly different from the prevailing use in the area. Second, the area in which the requested use is to apply is rather small. This test, however, is concerned more with the number of separate landowners benefited by the requested change than it is with the actua lsize of the area benefited. Third, the requested change is more in the nature of special legislation. In other words, it is designed to benefit only one or a few landowners at the expense of the surrounding landowners or the general public.2 2Little v Bd.of Co.Cmmrs.,193 Mont.334,346,631 P.2d 1282,1289(1981)(internal citations omitted). As noted above, Harvest Creek, immediately to the east of the Hanson Lane property, is designated R-A—Residential Low.' Immediately to the west of the proposed Hanson Lane Zone Map Amendment, the property was zoned R-2, and now appears also to be R-A— Residential Low as well.' This is the Cottage Park development. The maps included in the Staff Report illustrate the current low density residential development pattern in this area.5As recognized by the Staff Report, there is R-A zoning immediately adjacent to the east and west of the Hanson Lane property.'As a result, the Hanson Lane property is completely surrounded by this R-A—Residential Low zoning, and should have the same zoning. To the contrary, it is being treated differently than the neighboring properties, and will result in an island of higher density, significantly taller buildings and different uses with the R-B designation, which is Residential Mixed Use Low-Medium. Given this, the first test of spot zoning is met. While Harvest Creek recognizes the need for additional infill housing, such housing should not be exponentially different than what exists in the area and should be supported by existing infrastructure and services. It should not be to the detriment of the existing property owners. The City's Unified Development Code now allows buildings zoned R-B zone to be up to 45 feet tall, which allows 4 story buildings.' Coupled with the allowable density of 8 dwelling units per building and a minimum density of 8 dwelling units per acre$, the density is significantly greater than exists in surrounding area. The Staff Report attempts to justify the proposed higher density zoning by pulling into its analysis multiple other zoning designations that are not in the immediate area nor adjacent to the Hanson Lane property. These other higher density zoning designations are also significantly different from the current R-A—Residential Low zoning in the immediate vicinity of Harvest Creek and Cottage Park. This further underscores the first element of spot zoning is met. Spot zoning is "the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners."'The owner of the Hanson Lane property is applying for a zoning designation, R-B —Residential Mixed Use Low-Medium, that is exponentially different from that of the surrounding area, R-A—Residential Low zoning. 3Staff Report for Hanson Lane Annexation,No.25775,Map 4:Current Zoning Map(on and after Feb.0,2026)page 9. 'Staff Report for Hanson Lane Annexation,No.25775,Map 3:Current Zoning Map(before Feb. 1",2026)and Map 4:Current Zoning Map(on and after Feb.I'_2026)pages 8-9. 'Id. Staff Report for Hanson Lane Annexation,No.25775,page 36. 'Unified Development Code Section 38.210.030 x Id. e Hartshorne v City of Whitefish,2021 MT 116,116,404 Mont. 150,486 P3d 693(quoting State ex rel.Gutkoski v.Langbor,160 Mont.351, 353,502 P.2d 1144,1145(1972)). This higher density zoning designation would only benefit that owner, to the detriment of the other owners in the surrounding area as further explained below. While the use generally remains residential, the type of residential uses allowed under RB differ significantly from the uses allowed under the current zoning in this area, which is RA. R-A Residential Low zoning allows single-unit dwellings, accessory dwelling units, duplexes, townhouses, and rowhouses with up to 2 units. This is compatible with the transition zone to the west and remaining rural residential properties in the County. By comparison, the R-B district also allows those, as well astriplexes, fourplexes, and multi- unit dwellings with up to 8 units. This is a 300% increase in allowable density. This allowed density is significantly greater than the surrounding area, and is of significantly contrasting character, in particular as compared with the single family residential use to east. This is not a gradual and predictable increase. It is an exponential increase that is not supported by the existing transportation infrastructure.A development like Cottage Park to the west, also zoned R-A Residential Low, is more compatible with the density and uses in the surrounding area, and that is the zoning that should be applied to the Hanson Lane property. The 9.979-acre Hanson Lane property is small geographically as compared to the immediately adjacent—79-acre Harvest Creek and the surrounding area zoned RA. In addition, only one landowner will benefit from the Zone Map Amendment, the applicant, to the detriment of the Harvest Creek community, and surrounding landowners. This Zone Map Amendment falls squarely within special legislation designed to benefit the applicant at the expense of the surrounding landowners and the general public.10 While a single owner benefitting does not automatically create spot zoning, "the numbers of separate landowners affected by the rezoning directly relates to whether the zoning constitutes special legislation designed to benefit only one person."i1 Here, there is one owner benefied, with many more landowners who will be affected by this rezoning, including the whole of Harvest Creek (525 units). Contrary to benefitting, the surrounding landowners will be subject to additional impacts resulting from the exponentially higher density that will affect Durston Road, a minor arterial, which is already highly trafficked and dangerous. Fowler Lane, expected to be continued through via this proposed Hanson Lane development, is only two-lanes, with no turn lanes. The extension of Fowler Lane and a proposed roundabout at Annie Lane— making it a throughway will further impact public health and safety. These roads cannot t 0Little v.Board of County Commis,193 Mont.334,346,631 P.2d 1282,1289,1981 Mont.LEXIS 784,*19-20, "North 93 Neighbors,North 93 Neighbors,Inc.v Bd.of Co.Commis.,2006 MT 132,¶68(citing Boland,275 Mont.at 134,910 P.2d at 894). support the level of density resulting from the R-B zoning designation- Residential Mixed Use Low-Medium, which again could allow a 300% increase over the immediately adjacent R-A zoning. This will exacerbate already unsafe road conditions, in particular taking into consideration the use by Emily Dickenson Elementary School children and Gallatin High School students who use this transportation infrastructure to get to school by foot, bicycle, and car, not to mention the families that run, walk, and bike in this area to the area parks and recreation. There are certainly areas of the City better suited to this level of density, with the transportation infrastructure to support it. The proposed Zone Map Amendment is clearly spot zoning and we request the City Commission deny the proposed zoning designation in favor of a consistent zoning designation of R-A Residential Low zoning. In addition, these comments are provided in response to the Hanson Lane Annexation and Zone Map Amendment, Planning File 25-775.As stipulated in the Public Notice and City Code, the application will be reviewed against the municipal zoning criteria of state law, 76-2-304, Montana Code Annotated.12 Those criteria are as follows. 76-2-304. Criteria and guidelines for zoning regulations. (1) Zoning regulations must be: (a) made in accordance with a growth policy; and (b) designed to: (i) secure safety from fire and other dangers; (ii) promote public health, public safety, and the general welfare; and (iii) facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements. (2) In the adoption of zoning regulations, the municipal governing body shall consider: (a) reasonable provision of adequate light and air; (b) the effect on motorized and nonmotorized transportation systems; (c) promotion of compatible urban growth; (d) the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses; and 'Z Unified Development Code Sec.38.770.020.The city must evaluate the criteria of MCA 76-25-304(2)when considering amendments affecting zoning. (e) conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. 13 The BozemanMT 2025 Community Plan ("Community Plan" or"Plan") serves as the City's Growth Policy14, and the proposed R-B —Residential Mixed Use Low- Medium Zone Map Amendment must be made in accordance with that Plan. This means that the Amendment must be made in substantial compliance with the Plan.15 For the reasons addressed herein, the proposed zoning designation does not substantially comply with the Plan. The Plan expressly provides that "Zoning Amendment Review must be fair to all, allow for identification and resolution of concerns, and provide meaningful opportunities for participation."16 This is what Harvest Creek requests, a meaningful opportunity to participate and resolution of concerns. The Staff Memo failed to mention the 61 public comments submitted to the Community Development Board for its April 20, 2026 meeting. To date at least 85 comments have been submitted. Ignoring those public comments does not allow for meaningful participation nor resolution. `Be inclusive: prioritize broad consultation to create a sense of shared ownership in decision making" is among the Plan's Goals, Objectives, and Actions.17 We ask that you, City Commissioners, do just that, be inclusive and take these comments and those that you receive and hear in the public hearing on May 51 into consideration and meaningfully address them by continuing the public hearing, and by determining that R-A would be the more compatible zoning designation for the Hanson Lane property. The Plan expressly acknowledges that "zoning also addresses the balance of interests between adjacent properties by defining districts where similar uses can be compatible and providing for transitions and buffers between zoning districts where the City determines it is necessary to control impacts and prevent the use of one person's property right from inappropriately impacting another." This compatibility is precisely what the Harvest Creek neighbors are requesting. There is no transition or buffer and the proposed R-B zoning is plopped squarely in the center of long standing R-1 (now R-A) zoning. The designation also will create an island of higher density and up to 45'tall buildings among "Sec.38.770.020.-Amendments;investigation requirements. A. ...The city must evaluate the criteria of MCA 76-25-304(2)when considering amendments affecting zoning. 14 Contrary to the provisions of City of Bozeman Resolution 2025-71,section 6,this plan is not"available on the City's website". The City's website links to the 2020 Community Plan. Any references in this comment to the 2020 Plan are intended include the 2025 Plan also. "Hartshorne v City of Whitefish,2021 MT 116,¶19,404 Mont. 150,486 P.3d 693(quoting Heffernan v Missoula City Council,2011 MT 91,¶ 79,360 Mont.207,255 P.3d 80)("A governing body must substantially comply with its growth policy in making zoning decisions.")) 16BozemanMT 2025 Community Plan,Zoning Amendment Review,page 66. 17 Id.at page 25,Theme 1,Goal/Action R-1.3. a sea of residential one and two story single family and duplexes, which rely on the City's already strained transportation network in this area. The Plan also provides a Goal, Objective, and Action to "Ensure that strategies directly address the reduction of risk to human well-being,physical infrastructure, and natural systems."18 Fowler and Durston are simply not capable of handling the increased density allowed by the R-B zoning and this lack of physical infrastructure will increase the risk to human well-being, in particular taking into consideration the Emily Dickenson Elementary School children and Gallatin High School students who use these roads and the area sidewalks and trails to get to school, and the parents and others who use these transportation systems to take their kids to school, travel to work, and recreational opportunities in the area. We acknowledge the Plan's Goals to "promote housing diversity, including missing middle housing, increase required minimum densities in residential districts, and revise the zoning map to lessen areas exclusively zoned for single-type housing"19 Those Goals can be accomplished with the a R-A zoning designation, which allows some diversity in housing types and an increase in density over what currently exists in the surrounding area, and is not "exclusively zoned for single-type housing."The Plan's Goals to support urban development within the City"20 and to "promote the development of"Missing Middle" housing (side by side or stacked duplex, triplex, live-work, cottage housing, group living, rowhouses/townhouses, etc.) as one of the most critical components of affordable housing"21 can be accomplished with the R-A zoning designation which allows for duplexes, townhouses, and rowhouses with up to 2 units, in addition to single-unit dwellings, and accessory dwelling units.22 With the surrounding area zoned R-A, the proposed R-B zoning designation does not "enable a gradual and predictable increase in density in developed areas over time"which is another Goal of the Plan.23 Nor does it"continue to recognize and honor the unique history, neighborhoods, neighborhood character, and buildings that contribute to Bozeman's sense of place through programs and policy led by both City and community efforts." While Harvest Creek is not a historic neighborhood, its 500 plus homes contribute to the west side neighbor character. 11 Id.at page 25,Theme 1,Goal/Action R-2.2. 19BozemanMT 2025 Community Plan,Theme 2,Goals/Actions N-1.1,N-1.2,N-1.3. 20 Id.at Theme 3,Goal DCD-1. 21Id.at Theme 2,Goal/Action N-3.8. 22Unified Development Code Section 38.210.030 2313ozemanMT 2025 Community Plan,Zoning Amendment Review,page 29. The Plan acknowledges growth should be "oriented on centers of employment and activity"24 and support for"higher density development along main corridors and at high visibility street corners to accommodate population growth and support businesses."25 The Plan also has as Goal to "prioritize mixed-use land use patterns. Encourage and enable the development of housing,jobs, and services in close proximity to one another. ,2' This Hanson property is not located in or near a center of employment or a main business corridor. It is not close to jobs or services. The surrounding area is low density residential, and increased density that affords a"gradual and predictable increase in density" in accordance with the Plan is what we are seeking with the R-A designation instead of the incompatible R-B zoning designation. The Plan provides for evaluation and pursuit of"joint mitigation of development impacts across multiple developments" as well as evaluation of'increasing the number of stories allowed in centers of employment and activity while also directing height transitions down to adjacent neighborhoods." These Plan Goals/Actions are also consistent with a R- A designation instead of the incompatible R-B zoning designation. We understand the Plan Goals to "prioritize annexations that enable the incremental expansion of the City and its utilities" and to "keep rural areas rural and maintain a clear edge to urban development that evolves as the City expands outwards" and to "encourage annexation of land adjacent to the City prior to development and encourage annexation of wholly surrounded areas."27 We agree completely with "incremental expansion" and offer that the transitional density allowed by the R-A zoning designation (duplexes, townhouses, and rowhouses with up to 2 units) is consistent with that, and with providing a transition between the existing surrounding R-A zoning and the Hanson Lane property. In terms of the Future Land Use Map and the Urban Neighborhood designation for the Hanson Lane property, we offer that it is not in "proximity to commercial mixed use areas to facilitate the provision of services and employment opportunities without requiring the use of a car"28 which again is not supportive the higher density afforded by R-B zoning, and the R-A zoning is more compatible with and appropriate for this residential area of the City. The Staff Memo in addressing the Future Land Use Map in the Bozeman Community Plan (BCP) 2025 designation of the property as "Urban Neighborhood", fails to note that R-A is also an implementing zoning district.Again, we are merely seeking the incremental expansion encouraged by the Community Plan. 24 Id.atTheme 3,Goal DCD-2. 'Id.at Theme 3,Goals/Actions DCD-2.2. 26 Id.at Theme 5,M-1.1. 27BozemanMT 2025 Community Plan,Theme 7,Goals/Actions RC-3.2,RC-3.3,RC-3.4 2"Id.at Future Land Use Map—Land Descriptions,Urban Neighborhood. In terms of securing safety from fire and other dangers, promoting public health, public safety, and the general welfare, and facilitating the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements for the reasons addressed above, the exponential increase in density (300% over the surrounding R-A zoning) allowed R-B zoning would not be consistent with securing safety, nor promoting the public health, public safety, and general welfare, and this higher density zoning will not facilitate the adequate provision of transportation given the limitations of the existing streets in the vicinity, Durston and Fowler in particular. Harvest Creek is aware that when the traffic backs'up, congestion will be displaced to Harvest Creek interior subdivision roads, which is contrary to promoting public health, public safety, and the general welfare. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air would be afforded by the R-A zoning designation, consistent with the surrounding area. The additional height and density allowed under the R-B zoning will be contrary to this, in particular considering multiple multi-unit buildings with up to 8 units that may tower over the existing residences with the now allowable 4-story height, obstructing air, light, and views. The effect on motorized and nonmotorized transportation systems, Durston and Fowler, as well as Harvest Creek interior roads has been addressed above and the effect will be adverse as these roads do not have the capacity to serve the exponential increase in density afforded by the R-B zoning. As acknowledged by the Plan,people who participated in Plan preparation "consistently stated a desire for safe and accessible streets that support and encourage a variety of transportation preferences including walking, bicycling, transit, and driving."29 This is precisely what the Harvest Creek neighbors are seeking, and this is not supported by the proposed zoning designation of R-B.As noted above, Fowler and Durston are simply not capable of handling the increased density allowed by the R-B zoning. The R-B zoning designation is simply not compatible growth, nor is compatible with the existing character of the area. A zoning designation of R-A—Residential Low, consistent with the surrounding area, would be compatible.30 The character of the area and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and conserving the value of existing residential building and encouraging the most appropriate use of land also support the adoption of R-A—Residential Low rather than the proposed R-B —Residential Mixed Use Low-Medium. ='BozemanMT 2025 Community Plan,Zoning Amendment Review,page 20. "See Staff Report for Hanson Lane Annexation,No.25775,Map 3:Current Zoning Map(before Feb. 11,2026)and Map 4:Current Zoning Map ((on and after Feb. 1 n,2026)pages 8-9. Based on the foregoing, we respectfully submit that the City Commission cannot adopt the zone map amendment as the amendment is not in substantial compliance with the Plan as described at length above.31 We also submit that unless and until the City Commission acknowledges and addresses the impacts resulting from the zone map amendment herein and in the significant public comment in this matter(at least 85 comments to date), it will not have complied with the Plan nor will it have fully considered those impacts and comments.32 As addressed at length above, the proposed R-B zoning for the Hanson Lane property will result in new and increased impacts to local facilities and services than those addressed in the Plan as this zoning designation allows an exponential increase in density on former County lands.'' Conclusion On behalf of the Harvest Creek neighbors, we ask you to be mindful of the purposes of the City Code "to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; to recognize and balance the various rights and responsibilities relating to land ownership, use, and development and other rights identified in the United States and State of Montana constitutions, and statutory and common law, comply with the Montana Land Use Planning Act as may be amended from time to time; to implement the city's adopted land use plan; and to meet all requirements of law' in making your decision.34 We also note that the City Code provides the minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the health, safety and general welfare of the community." The Harvest Creek community does not oppose the proposed annexation of the Hanson Lane property. We understand the City is growing to the west. Nor do the neighbors. "Sec.38.770.020.-Amendments;investigation requirements. D.The governing body may not adopt or amend a zoning regulation,zoning map amendment,or subdivision regulation unless the governing body finds that: 1.The regulation or map amendment is in substantial compliance with the land use plan;and "Sec.38.770.020.-Amendments;investigation requirements. D.The governing body may not adopt or amend a zoning regulation,zoning map amendment,or subdivision regulation unless the governing body finds that: 2.The impacts resulting from development in substantial compliance with the proposed zoning or subdivision regulation or amendment to the zoning map have been made available for public review and comment and have been fully considered by the governing body. "Sec.38.770.020.-Amendments;investigation requirements. D.The governing body may not adopt or amend a zoning regulation,zoning map amendment,or subdivision regulation unless the governing body finds that: 3.Determine whether the proposed zoning or subdivision regulation or amendment to the zoning map results in new or increased impacts to or from local facilities,services,natural resources,natural environment,or natural hazards from those previously described and analyzed in the assessment conducted for the land use plan 34Sec.38.100.040.A "Sec.38.100.050.-Interpretation as minimum requirements. oppose alternatives to the predominantly single family homes in the surrounding area, such as town homes and duplexes. However the requested zoning designation of R-B cannot be adopted in a vacuum, disregarding the lack of substantial compliance with the Plan, and to the detriment of public health, safety and welfare as addressed at length above. The Hanson Lane Zone Map Amendment proposed zoning designation of R-B is incompatible with the character of the surrounding residential area (zoned R-A) and we respectfully request that the City Commission use its discretion to adopt the same zoning as in the surrounding area, that is R-A, to "enable a gradual and predictable increase in density" as contemplated by the Community Plan in this transitioning area of the City. Thank you. Harvest Creek wners'Association Bv: Huds n J Hart, President