HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-26 Public Comment - M. McHugh - For Commission Meeting 5-5-26 Agenda Item N. 2 From: Mary Frances McHugh
To: Bozeman Public Comment
Cc: Mary Frances McHugh; Heather Hiaas
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 Aaenda item N-Hanson Lane.Ddf
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
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 20t", 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. 1 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.
1
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 This is disputed. As stated in my own public
accordance with growth policy. comment dated May 1, 2026, the failure of the
BCP to distinguish where zoning districts used
Page 21, states that in determining whether in the Urban Neighborhood area are to be
the criteria for the zone map amendment have located amounts to no guidance at all. "What
been met, staff considers the entire body of goes where" is not stated anywhere in Urban
plans and regulations for land development. Neighborhood — it only provides by map "what"
Page 22: "the land use map sets generalized can go "everywhere" which is not the same.
expectations for what goes where in the This lack of guidance is equivalent to the lack
community" 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 This is disputed. A range of development
(R-B) is at the lower middle range of intensity that allows 4 and 5 story buildings is
development intensity". NOT a lower middle range of development
intensity.
Page 23: All of the Goals set forth as This is disputed. All of these goals can also be
promoted by R-B zoning 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 This is disputed. R-A will not interfere with the
Transportation Master Plan as its reason for R- implementation of the Transportation Master
B zoning 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 This is disputed. There is no medium density
predominantly low to medium density residential surrounding the area.
residential surrounding the area, RB zoning is
appropriate for this property." 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
2
Page 25: RC-3.2 Work with Gallatin County to This is disputed. The property is "fully
keep rural areas rural and maintain clear edge enclosed lands", the City has already
development that evolves as the City expands expanded outward. Just because Gallatin
outward 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 This is disputed. There is no evidence that
municipal transportion has been done and this Fowler and Annie as currently designed are
annexation will facilitate the provision of adequate to serve this density and do so
transportation services. 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 This is disputed. The zoning requested will be
transportation systems: or, Don't worry, it's not an increase 300% in allowable density. It is
big enough to make a problem not gradual and predictable and will
exacerbate already unsafe road conditions.
Page 32. "This annexation is unique in that There is no question of the need to expand the
the City will construct the streets and sidewalk transportation network to increase efficiency
connections for Fowler and Annie Street prior and safety. That Fowler Street and Annie
to any future development going through the Street are being built outside of a subdivision
subdivision and site plan processes." 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): This is disputed and irrelevant.
"G. Promotion of compatible urban growth. R-A zoning can occur without disruption to the
plan and has not been meaningfully
"The land use categories and descriptions considered. There is no guidance for
provide a guide for appropriate development residential uses in the Urban Neighborhood
and redevelopment locations for civic, portion of the general plan, the "guide" referred
3
residential, commercial and redevelopment to is no guidance at all, and therefore, no plan.
locations."
Pages 34-35 minimize the distinctions This mischaracterizes R-B as low density
between R-A and R-B when in fact it is absolutely not.
Page 36 cites an R-C zone as justification for This is misleading. There is a transition
this zoning 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 This is misleading and disputed. The minimum
allows a Fourplex 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 This is misleading and disputed. What
suitable, residential uses are suitable for this guidance can staff point to that says what uses
property." are suitable? If the owner wanted an airport?
Would that be suitable?
P 40 claims the criterion has been met that The same can be said for R-A
encourages the most appropriate use of land
because RB is adjacent to residential uses
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.
4