Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-26 Public Comment - M. McHugh - For Commission Meeting 5-5-26 Agenda Item N. 2From:Mary Frances McHugh To:Bozeman Public Comment Cc:Mary Frances McHugh; Heather Higgs Subject:[EXTERNAL]For Commission Meeting 5-5-26 Agenda Item N. Date:Tuesday, May 5, 2026 11:17:43 AM Attachments:5-5-26 mfm Public Comment to Commission Agenda item N - Hanson Lane.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 to the Commissioners for their consideration at the Commission meeting tonite (5-5-26). Thank you. Mary Frances McHugh (530)598-7383 1 Date: May 5, 2026 To: The Commissioners, City of Bozeman 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 From: Mary Frances McHugh, Owner in Harvest Creek Subdivision, Bozeman, MT I urge this Commission to take the time to fully review the matters set out in the public comment that has been filed both to the Community Development Board for the April 20, 2026, hearing on this matter, and the public comment received for this hearing. As of this writing, the City’s website shows that more than 85 comments have been received on this matter. At the time of the CDB meeting on April 20th, 61 public comments had been received. Despite that, the Staff Report before you does not acknowledge or address the public comment made. The Staff Report was not made publicly available until late Thursday, April 30, 2026. The public has had 2 business days to digest and respond to a 43 page report. And, the City’s website does not show any comments posted since May 1, 2025. I question whether there can be meaningful public participation in this decision making within this time frame. Harvest Creek Owners’ Association submitted an 11 page public comment on this matter which was lodged on Sunday. Have you received it? Have you read it? I incorporate that Comment into this Comment and endorse your review of it. Your community is asking you to take the time to give careful consideration of the impacts of the zoning decision you are being asked to make. Please do not move forward on this matter without meaningful consideration of public comment. I have some points to make regarding the Staff Report, these are unfortunately hastily composed due to the lack of time to more fully develop the comment. Please refer to Attachment A Schedule of Disputed Issues in 25775 Staff Report for Hanson Lane Annexation and ZMA pages 1-43 Referenced in Memorandum of Collin Mieras, Associate Planner, to the City Commission, for the meeting on May 5, 2026. Please address these issues in your decision. Thank you. 2 Attachment A – Schedule of Disputed Issues in 25775 Staff Report for Hanson Lane Annexation and ZMA pages 1-43 Referenced in Memorandum of Collin Mieras, Associate Planner, to the City Commission, for the meeting on May 5, 2026. Page Number Contention MC 76-2-304(1)(a) zoning must be in accordance with growth policy. Page 21, states that in determining whether the criteria for the zone map amendment have been met, staff considers the entire body of plans and regulations for land development. Page 22: “the land use map sets generalized expectations for what goes where in the community” This is disputed. As stated in my own public comment dated May 1, 2026, the failure of the BCP to distinguish where zoning districts used in the Urban Neighborhood area are to be located amounts to no guidance at all. “What goes where” is not stated anywhere in Urban Neighborhood – it only provides by map “what” can go “everywhere” which is not the same. This lack of guidance is equivalent to the lack of a plan. This can be avoided by zoning appropriately to the predominant existing use: low density residential, which is R-A. Page 23 staff states that the “requested R-3 (R-B) is at the lower middle range of development intensity”. This is disputed. A range of development intensity that allows 4 and 5 story buildings is NOT a lower middle range of development intensity. Page 23: All of the Goals set forth as promoted by R-B zoning This is disputed. All of these goals can also be satisfied by R-A, and has not been examined as a possible alternative given the predominant surrounding low density residential use. Page 23: The report brings in the Bozeman Transportation Master Plan as its reason for R- B zoning This is disputed. R-A will not interfere with the implementation of the Transportation Master Plan. R-A will not change the Fowler Connector Project at all and it doesn’t matter what the zoning is for the road to be built. Page 24 states: “Given the context of the predominantly low to medium density residential surrounding the area, RB zoning is appropriate for this property.” This is disputed. There is no medium density residential surrounding the area. Moreover, it will be years before the realization of Goal N-3 (diverse supply of quality housing units) can be met, and in the meantime the community will bear the burden of increased traffic and parking congestion 3 Page 25: RC-3.2 Work with Gallatin County to keep rural areas rural and maintain clear edge development that evolves as the City expands outward This is disputed. The property is “fully enclosed lands”, the City has already expanded outward. Just because Gallatin County has identified this property as “appropriate for annexation and development in the City” does not mean R-B is the best zoning designation. The City still has the discretion to choose wisely: decide for R-A. Transportation p. 27 Extensive planning for municipal transportion has been done and this annexation will facilitate the provision of transportation services. This is disputed. There is no evidence that Fowler and Annie as currently designed are adequate to serve this density and do so safely. Fowler’s size and configuration has been greatly reduced due to community engagement. There may be a 100 foot ROW but it will only be a two lane road. There are questions from the public that have not been answered on the adequacy of the level of service for the proposed density. Page 30 Lot standards Public comment has raised this question – the Lot Standards will be inadequate for transition from R-1 to R-B. Page 30 F. MC 76-2-304(2)(b) effect on transportation systems: or, Don’t worry, it’s not big enough to make a problem This is disputed. The zoning requested will be an increase 300% in allowable density. It is not gradual and predictable and will exacerbate already unsafe road conditions. Page 32. “This annexation is unique in that the City will construct the streets and sidewalk connections for Fowler and Annie Street prior to any future development going through the subdivision and site plan processes.” There is no question of the need to expand the transportation network to increase efficiency and safety. That Fowler Street and Annie Street are being built outside of a subdivision process is irrelevant. This is a justification that is not part of the zoning law. It is being used in this instance to influence a decision, not as valid criteria for a decision. Page 32. MC 76-2-304(2)(c): “G. Promotion of compatible urban growth. “The land use categories and descriptions provide a guide for appropriate development and redevelopment locations for civic, This is disputed and irrelevant. R-A zoning can occur without disruption to the plan and has not been meaningfully considered. There is no guidance for residential uses in the Urban Neighborhood portion of the general plan, the “guide” referred 4 residential, commercial and redevelopment locations.” to is no guidance at all, and therefore, no plan. Pages 34-35 minimize the distinctions between R-A and R-B This mischaracterizes R-B as low density when in fact it is absolutely not. Page 36 cites an R-C zone as justification for this zoning This is misleading. There is a transition between that RC zone and the R-1 zones ACROSS THE STREET – The R-C zone is south of Durston – a 3 lane arterial, which is an undisputable transition. Page 36 says the existing county zoning allows a Fourplex This is misleading and disputed. The minimum lot size for this county zoning is one acre! A fourplex on one acre: This is hardly dense. P 39 States: “while other uses may also be suitable, residential uses are suitable for this property.” This is misleading and disputed. What guidance can staff point to that says what uses are suitable? If the owner wanted an airport? Would that be suitable? P 40 claims the criterion has been met that encourages the most appropriate use of land because RB is adjacent to residential uses The same can be said for R-A P 40 Appendix A public comment The report dismisses public concerns on Anne and Fowler safety as something to be dealt with after development, but uses the ROW as justification for the R-B zoning. This is a false argument. R-A will not change the face or fact of the road development.