Proclamation this evening, which is in recognition of 16 days of activism against gender violence.

And I believe we probably have some representatives from the Zonta Club with us.

If you'd like to comment, please come forward while I read the proclamation.

The proclamation reads as follows.

Whereas we as citizens of Billings, Montana recognize the worldwide problem of violence against women, it occurs everywhere, even in our community.

And whereas gender violence is traumatic to the body, mind, and spirit, and can prevent people from being fully active participants at home and in the world.

And whereas the health of uh parents and caregivers is critical to the overall health and well-being of their families and the larger community.

And whereas we only have to look to our newspapers or watch a television newscast to see the unfortunate truth, that domestic violence has yet been or uh has not yet been eliminated here or elsewhere around the world.

And whereas we, the citizens of Billings support efforts of individuals and joint organizations such as the Zonta Club of Billings to raise awareness, stimulate discussions, and advocate for statewide solutions that will curb gender violence.

And whereas the citizens of Billings join thousands of others from around the world to affirm that the right of women and men to be free of violence is a fundamental human right.

Now, therefore, I, William Cole, mayor of the city of Billings, do hereby proclaim the 16 days between the International Day to Eliminate Violence Against Women on November 25th and International Human Rights Day on December 10th, as 16 days of activism against gender violence during and during those uh days, encourage all Billings residents to support efforts to end gender violence and to eliminate the detrimental consequences that gender violence has on the well-being of our city.

And um Debbie, Renee, somebody want to uh uh chime in, you're welcome to do so.

Renee.

Renee Kopic, uh, Zonta Club of Billings.

Thank you for allowing us to speak tonight.

I know your agenda is really packed.

Um, the Zonta Club of Billings wants to address what is a very pressing issue in our city, as Mayor Cole said, gender-based violence, particularly intimate partner violence.

While this isn't a new problem, recent data underscores that it remains a serious and urgent concern, one that demands ongoing attention, resources, and leadership.

Unfortunately, gender-based violence in Billings is a stark reality.

According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 37.2% of Montana women experience intimate partner violence and or stalking in their life lifetimes.

33% experience rape.

That's more than one in three women in our state touched by this cycle of violence.

For indigenous women in Montana, the rate rises to 47%, a deeply alarming disparity.

Since tracking began in 2000, at least 248 Montanans have died as a result of intimate partner homicide.

In the reviewed cases, firearms were involved in 58% of gender-based violence related deaths, highlighting how lethal access to guns dramatically raises the stakes the Billings Police Department reports that they respond to more than 600 non-aggravated partner or family member assaults per year.

In 2018 to 2023, the BPS averaged 1,059 domestic violence incidents per year compared to about 712 for all other crime types.

These aren't just statistics.

They represent real people in our community.

Mothers, grandmothers, daughters, and friends.

People who may be in danger right now.

Lives are at stake.

It weakens the fabric of community safety.

We can all take action.

First, we must publicly admit there's a problem, which the proclamation does, and that's uh why we are asking you to sign the proclamation.

As a community, we need to support local shelters and advocacy services.

As Zontians, we will advocate for better policies and laws around firearm access for known abusers, because every life matters in our city.

We all need to encourage bystander intervention and community education to break the silence and the stigma.

We all must also consider budget allocations to support shelters, transitional housing, and legal services, such as those found at the Northern Lights Family Justice Center.

We are really lucky to have that in Billings.

Billings is on the right track.

We are improving and facilitating partnerships between law enforcement, legal aid, social services, shelters, and behavioral health providers.

But we can't stop here.

We can't sweep these dire statistics under the rug because agenda-based violence is not a problem that will solve itself.

Yes, in billings, we have the numbers, and they tell us that while we have made some progress, we still have a long way to go.

These statistics should drive us to compassion, action, and lasting change.

Let us commit today to supporting survivors, holding abusers accountable, and building a safer, much more safe community and just community for everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's it.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

And thank you for bringing the proclamation forward.

Um next item are council reports.

Any council reports uh from council members on behalf of organizations you serve on behalf of the city.

Seeing none, uh, city administrator report.

Anything from you, Chris?

Yeah, mayor, just a few things first.

Uh as cold weather is coming upon us.

Uh obviously we've got uh partnerships and other work that's done in the community relative to uh trying to help those less fortunate who are out in the cold.

Cold weather is coming.

We're also working with the sheriff's office as uh you've seen in the news, their unfortunate situation relative to dogs.

So they've asked us under kind of a mutual aid if we can find a way to assist them relative to the situation that they find themselves in.

So Kevin and I are working on that with them.

Um city offices will be closed later this week, obviously, both uh on Thanksgiving, which one would expect.

But some years ago, uh, through our bargaining units, we've traded Columbus Day for the day after Thanksgiving.

So you'll notice we were opened and have for several years been open on Columbus Day, but are not open on the day after Thanksgiving.

So both Thursday and Friday of this week, city offices will be closed.

There were two ex parte communications that came in uh regarding regular agenda item 4B uh this afternoon after three o'clock.

So those were in the notebook there for you.

And I'm just gonna reiter reiterate also what councilmember niece did.

I'd asked frankly that everybody in this room, uh hopefully we've got enough copies, picks up uh whether they want to use the QR code or billings 2045.com.

And though the survey will take you more than just a couple minutes, it's critically important that the community uh provide us with that feedback on land use planning for decades to come.

So if you go to billings 2045.com, that's an excellent way in addition to all the community events to participate in, also to take that survey.

It's not the only way we're taking community food feedback by far, but it is certainly one way in addition to all the events and activities in the community.

So with that, Mayor, I'll turn it back over to you.

Good.

Thank you, Chris.

Um, our next item up then is public comment on uh non-public hearing agenda items.

So it was a copy of the agenda back by the door as you come in.

Um this is the portion of the meeting where we have uh public comment on things where there will not be a public comment period later.

So um tonight that's only items one, which is our consent agenda and all those subparts, and item four C, which is the uh uh Central Avenue subdivision annexation agreement.

But that annexation agreement is part of the much larger 4A annexation and 4B zone change.

Um, so don't uh if you want to comment on the annexation agreement specifically, feel free to wait until we get to item four.

Um you're probably most of the people out there are probably here for 4B.

So you'll have an opportunity to comment later.

This is again just for uh really just our consent agenda item one and any of the subparts that are on that.

But if anybody does have anything that they would like to comment on, uh uh especially in item one or consent agenda, now's your opportunity to do it.

We just asked that you come to the podium, speak clearly into the microphone, and keep your comments to three minutes.

And for our clerk, tell us your name and if you're comfortable your your address so we can keep track.

Um, so at this time, is there any public comment on item one, our consent agenda or any of the sub-items?

Is there any public comment on item one?

If not, I'll close the public comment period.

No one is coming forward, no one's uh uh uh standing up.

So we will uh close the public comment period on um item one and move on to our consent agenda before we do so.

Though uh council member Aspenlighter.

Yeah, Mr.

Mayor, I'd like to separate agenda items one I and one J for purposes of recusal.

One I and one J for recusal.

Are there other separations?

I I would like to separate item one B short-term service agreement, Yellowstone Valley Animal Shelter.

Um are there other any other separations?

Okay, I don't see any.

So we'll move uh uh to the non-separated items.

Councilmember uh Gullick.

Yes, I move to approve the items on the consent agenda as submitted with the exceptions of items one B, I and J.

Very good.

Uh second my council member Nice.

I is there any discussion.

Mayor.

Uh Councilmember Ripsis.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, just real quick, I hate to do this, but uh uh for the bills for the week, October 20th and 27th.

Um it looks like there was an error in uh filtering or printing that report.

Uh as a result, two uh bills from a very close and significant client of mine alternatives uh are on there, but for the they're for the amounts of $30 and 189.

Normally they wouldn't have even shown up on on this report.

It's supposed to be only things over $2,500.

Um, there was just uh an issue getting the report printed out correctly this time.

Um I would normally recuse myself, but since they're so small and almost trivial, I'm not gonna bother, but I just thought for transparency purposes, I should put it out there.

Okay, thank you for that uh clarification.

Um any other discussion on the motion for approval of the non-separated items.

Uh I'll just we always make recognition of uh donations.

In this case, we want to recognize trail net for the installation of the bicycle repair station in Colson Park.

And they've done that in other parks as well.

So thank you, Trailnet.

Um several thousand dollars uh for each one of those.

Um okay, seeing nothing else, we'll move to a vote on the motion for approval of the non-separated items.

If in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, nay.

Um motion passes unanimously.

First separated item was item one B.

I separated that.

Uh this is the uh uh short-term agreement with uh Yelston Valley Animal Shelter.

Uh certainly not to oppose it, but just to clarify something, uh Council.

Um in and I'd like to uh in my motion, I'll make a motion to approve here in just a second, but I wanted to uh uh point out uh two small uh things I think should be changed in this agreement.

And this comes after conversation with our city attorney and and then uh Gina's also had conversations with the attorney for the Elson Valley Animal Shelter.

But on uh the first page of the agreement under other fees, section three B.

Um it establishes a fee uh when if if uh uh the animal shelter is asked to take care of a large number of animals that come in all at once, and they're entitled to an extra three hundred dollars uh for each group of ten.

And it was just unclear what a group of ten means.

And so by past custom um the they the lawyers would like to clarify that that uh uh the first one through nine do not trigger that fee.

But once you get to 10 through 19 um or anything in between, that does trigger the fee.

And then next 20 to 29, that sort of uh thing.

So deals with that, doesn't have to be just whole multiples of an even number of 10.

Um and then second, uh in um uh paragraph five F.

Uh there's the provision says that the uh animal control will cremate animals.

Obviously, we do not have current access to the incinerator.

So they would like to change that to be more general and just uh uh probably reference uh it'll be our responsibility or animal shoals shelters.

I'm sorry, the animal control's responsibility to dispose of the animals.

So my motion um is uh I would move to approve the short-term services agreement with the Yellowstone Valley Animal Shelter, included as item one B, with the condition that the city attorney upon approval by uh Yellowstone Valley Animal Shelter and the City Administrator may make minor changes prior to execution, including to Section 3B and Section 5 F.

Uh so that is my motion.

Is there a second?

Councilmember Boyette makes the motion or the uh uh the second.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, if in favor of the motion, uh please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Uh motion passes unanimously.

Um item one I second final reading zone change 1071 clear water state subdivision.

Uh that's uh uh the council member as lider is recusing himself.

Castle Member Rupsis.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'd actually like to make a motion to approve uh items one I and one J on the consent agenda.

Very good.

Is there a second?

Uh second by council member Tiswell.

Is there any discussion?

Okay, if in favor of the motion to approve items one I and one J.

Uh please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Motion passes unanimously.

Uh that concludes the separated items and brings us to our regular agenda.

Uh item number two.

Denise, uh we will have a uh joint public hearing on two Anexation and 2B zone change.

So would you read uh 2A and 2B together?

Yes, I would, Mayor.

Um, so it is a joint public hearing for the annexation um resolution approving annexation 2505, generally located south of Rimrock Road, east of 62nd Street West, and legally described as lot seven of Sunny Cove Fruit Farms.

Staff recommends conditional approval on that item.

And the other um is a resolution approving zone change 1073.

It's an 8.95 acre parcel of land, more or less, generally located on the southwest corner of Rim Rock Road and 60th Street West, legally described as lot seven of Sunny Cove Fruit Farms.

Zoning Commission recommends approval and adoption of the 10 review criteria.

This will require two separate votes.

Very good.

Thank you.

Karen is making a joint presentation, I believe, on both the annexation and the zone change tonight.

So we'll turn it over to Karen.

Yes, thank you.

Can you hear me?

So in relation to the joint public hearing, um, there are actually three parts all together.

The joint public hearing is for the annexation and the zone change.

So the annexation policy um requires a joint public hearing, um, but they require individual action.

The zone changes requested from rural residential three to corridor mixed use one and two, and then the last item, the separate item is award boundary ordinance, um, which requires another hearing.

Um this is the annexation exhibit.

The property is located south of Rim Rock Road and east of um 62nd.

And this is the limits of annexation map.

The green area is um area one.

Um in the vicinity map map for the annexation and the current zoning, surrounding zoning to the north is um N4, which is a large lot suburban neighborhoods, and to the south is rural residential three.

To the east is uh N3 zoning, which is suburban neighborhood, it's a city zone district, and to the west is corridor mixed use one, which is also city zone district.

And this is just an expanded view for your reference.

So the annexation policy requires the location to be within a zone one or zone three.

Um this property lies within a zone one of the limits of annexation map.

And um, I'll have I'll show you the uh attachments here in a second.

Um the city will provide services.

Public improvements will be up to city standards, and a waiver of right to protest will be filed.

This falls in line with the growth policy and essential investments in prosperity.

I have a couple photos for you.

The subject property.

This is looking south.

And looking north.

Then to the west and to the east.

So the proposed zoning is going from rural residential three, which is allows a minimum of three acres up to 9.99 acres, and residential with some small scale agricultural uses are you are allowed.

The maximum lot coverage is 25%.

The corridor mixed use one and two allow for single and multifamily residential and some light commercial uses.

The lot coverage for corridor mixed use one is 65%, whereas the corridor mixed use two is 50.

The uses included in corridor mixed use are um not just the residential but neighborhood conveniences like uh daycare, grocery store, um restaurants, financial institutions, um, and uh entertainment venues.

The corridor mixed use two allows the same types of uses, but um the entertainment venue is allowed on uh uh at a um a larger scale, 50,000 square feet gross floor area.

The zoning commission has recommended approval and and based on the findings of the review criteria, it meets the growth policies in line with essential investments in strong neighborhoods.

The adjacent uses in zoning are compatible.

The tool subdivision to the west is already corridor mixed use one inside the city limits, and then the north northwest of the intersection is Cole Creeks Creek subdivision, and um it has corridor mixed use two zoned parcel, it's also inside the city limits.

It also meets the West the intent of the West Billings neighborhood plan, established development patterns with commercial nodes on arterial arterial intersections, it encourages planning in higher density and mixed use with the intent to bring neighborhood conveniences closer to the rural residents.

So the recommendation tonight is to hold the public hearing on the annexation and zone change, take any comments and act on the annexation.

Staff is recommending conditional approval subject to the annexation agreement.

Um failure to approve the annexation will prevent the council from acting on any related subsequent items.

And zone change 1073, the zoning commission is recommending approval.

That concludes my presentation.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Very good.

We'll have uh open up for questions from counsel to Karen and Karen.

Will there be a uh presentation from developer or developers agent?

Our developers agent is present, yes.

Uh okay, uh present uh and available.

I guess would would they like to make a presentation?

Okay, we'll we'll get questions of Karen first.

So council member Kennedy.

Karen.

Um Karen, just a quick question.

Is um is zoning now always single family with multifamily?

There's no such thing as just single family, sir.

Yes.

The zoning now, um, the state statute requires us um to allow duplex as well as single family and any residential zone district.

So we don't have a mechanism to require only single family dwellings in any zone district.

Thank you.

Okay, the question and um council member Rashwald or this is uh your company.

I think you and a key your desire to recuse yourself.

Um that uh just would want to put that on the record, and you're nodding your head.

So that's the plan.

Um other questions for Karen.

Council Robert Nee.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Karen, uh on the next item we're gonna have uh here uh item C, which is annexation agreement.

Can you explain why we're not looking at an annexation agreement on this annexation?

I'm gonna have to defer.

Uh council member Nissan Mayor and Council.

Uh this um project has a subdivision that's coming right behind it um at within the meeting or two, and so uh the way planning and public works for coordinating this with the uh with each other and the applicant was that that was going to occur um right afterwards.

Uh we are um in discussions internally on sorting this out with annexation agreements versus subdivision improvement agreements and the timing.

So um I think in the future you're gonna see we're gonna address that um at every annexation.

There's gonna be potentially an agreement or a document with the waiver and stuff up front.

Um, but anyway, we've this one is happening because there is the subdivision right behind it.

But is I but as I understand the subdivision waivers that are included in that one versus the annexation agreement has the waiver in that one, or are really vastly different in the sense that the subdivision is only um good for 20 years, and the annexation one is in perpetuity.

So are we not, and maybe I missed it.

I I were I thought we we were doing it, but maybe we're not.

Are we not doing the annexation uh the uh the waiver right to protest in this um this property that we're annexing?

So you're correct in the sense that the uh normally, yeah, with the annexation, that's when we do those um the forever waivers.

Um, and so yeah, in this case, we didn't have that in place, but we have the subdivision one in place.

Um it's like I said, we need to fix this process in terms of how those are being done.

Um, I can say in this case, um, at least from the standpoint of like Rim Rock Road improvements and such that that's happening and this, you know, property is going to participate, and that's that's actually scheduled right away.

So, but that's not um, you know, normally the situation.

So yeah, we have to get that aligned so that every single time we have clearly the waiver, regardless of the subdivision coming behind it.

Okay, is there any reason why we can't, because those waivers are similar in a lot of ways other than the timing.

Is there any way any reason why we can't condition this to have that particular waiver um uh signed with this annexation that we're approving?

Yeah, I don't see a reason you couldn't condition with annexation, you know, you could add that as a condition.

Okay.

That's the council.

And and with um uh following up on on a conversation I had with you this morning, and I appreciate Councilman's raising this same issue that I uh was concerned about this morning.

Um by statute, the subdivision waiver is limited to that 20-year period.

So I don't think we have flexibility in the subdivision waiver to make it not 20 years.

So it's really gonna have to be uh a very uh a separate uh thing.

And so um uh will there when will that waiver pop up?

Because the condition here is a mutually acceptable subdivision improvement agreement.

It is not an annexation agreement.

So where are we gonna put that waiver?

And is it so?

What I'm hearing is there is not going to be an annexation agreement here.

Uh uh Mayor and council, I guess.

The what I just was uh in the conversation with Councilman Renee says that if the council would like to add the condition tonight to this annexation that the waiver be executed, that that is something you could do to to address that.

We're gonna regardless the subdivision um is gonna come forward and we're gonna have the SIA.

But if you'd like to add that condition for the waiver, you could do so.

Since a waiver would typically be attached to something, an annexation agreement.

Is there any problem with in the resolution of annexation where there is the condition that says within 45 working days and prior to site development, a mutually acceptable, normally we would say annexation agreement.

Would there be any problem with just putting that in, say annexation agreement and subdivision improvement agreement?

And then it'll be up to you guys.

And you said this morning you would be bringing back to us these other documents.

So we'll have a chance to review them later, but just adding annexation agreement and in front of subdivision improvement agreement.

Would that be okay with staff?

Uh, mayor and council, I believe that would be okay with us to work through.

Yes.

Councilman Renese, that meet with your concerns.

Yeah, I believe that would be fine because annexation agreement includes the waiver.

Exactly.

Okay.

Uh when we get to the point of motions, let's try to remember we actually had this conversation.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, other questions uh uh for Karen uh before we ask the uh developer or developers agent uh if they have a presentation for us.

Any other questions?

Okay, I don't see any uh Taylor, Craig, whoever hear me okay.

Okay, thank you, Mayor and Council.

Uh my name is Taylor Kasperic.

I'm with Performance Engineering.

Um we're the the owners and the developers agent on this project.

Um thank you, Karen, for the presentation.

Um I would just like to note um the difference and why we've got CMU one and CMU two included on this application.

As you can see, the CMU2 portion is in the southwest corner of the property is largely for the project that's spurring this whole development.

And that would be Patty Shack.

Um the owners uh grant and Jess Skelsey are here as well, and they they would be happy to answer any questions you might have about that particular development.

But this is really planned to be a community-oriented area in town.

Um with Patty Shack being the anchor of it in the southwest corner.

The rest of this is planned as CMU one that would allow for restaurants, offices, retail, coffee shops, a lot of those uses that aren't currently existing in this part of town, and people are having to travel, you know, at least two miles to get down to Albertson's Den, uh Diamond X, that area of town, or even more if they're looking for other services.

Um I think those are great examples of commercial uses that are going out towards where residential uses are, so that those people aren't having to travel so far into town, putting stress on the city's road network, um and other facilities that that have other impacts that uh would go along with that.

Um the reason for CMU two versus CMU one in that southwest corner is largely because of the the size of it.

So CMU one would only allow for a smaller recreational facility, both indoor and outdoor, whereas CMU two allows for a larger scale um recruit adult right or a recreational facility, which is what Patty Shack will be.

Um largely uh you know, this is gonna be or this the intent of this is a uh community-oriented development.

Um I'd be happy to answer any questions that council may have on this question, Councilmember Boyette.

So thank you.

Um one of the things I've heard is that the people in the area would be opposed to lighting.

Can you explain the lighting for this big complex?

Especially in the evening.

For sure.

Yeah, so I mean, as we probably all know, commercial commercial uses generally do have site lighting, uh, keeping parking lots safe, um, making sure people can find their way around the development.

With that being said, our zoning code does have specific requirements as far as what that lighting needs to look like, having it oriented down towards the ground, cutoff shields, um, other provisions that would prevent the lighting from this development from going out into the surrounding areas.

Um other questions, customer niche.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, traffic is always the issue on Rim Rock Road, and you're in a really interesting segment here where um, you know, you got the roundabout and stuff like that.

Are is there gonna be access on to Rim Rock Road, or is it going to be coming off of 60th Street there?

Yeah, and this ties to the the forthcoming coming subdivision application as well, but there would be two planned accesses for this development.

One would be actually a shared approach with Cooley Ridge subdivision, which is immediately to the west.

Um, so there'd be one access off of Rimrock Road.

60th Street West borders this property on the east side of it, and so uh uh full development 60th Street West will be constructed, and a second access to the development will be off of 60th Street rather than Rimrock Road.

Okay, thank you.

Very good.

Other questions or Terrell or Karen?

No other questions?

Very good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh at this time, then we'll open it up.

This is a public hearing on uh item uh 2A and 2B.

So 2A is the annexation of this property, and 2B is the proposed uh zone change.

So if you'd like to comment on either the annexation or the zone change on item two, uh, this is your opportunity uh on Rim Rock at the corner of sort of 62nd.

Uh is there any public comment on item 2A or 2B?

If so, please come to the podium.

Just ask you to keep you keep your comments to three minutes and tell us your name and address.

And if there's others, make a little little line back there so we know who else would like to talk.

Hi, my name is Susan Walton, 1128 North 32nd Street.

I'm here on behalf of Tom Romine, who owns the two properties that are adjacent that are to the south and to the east of this zone.

And so he his questions were um instead of the CMU zoning, what about the neighborhood mixed zoning, which um as defined focuses on daily needs primarily for adjacent neighborhood residents, such as corner stores, personal services, and small restaurants.

Um with the exception of the southeast and northwest corners of Vermont and 62nd Street West, there are no other CMU zonings along the entire length of Vermont Road.

The CMU zoning allows a multitude of uses, many if not most incompatible with this area, including motels, bars, casinos, large retail and vehicle um sales.

So they were just wondering why they didn't consider the neighborhood mixed zoning.

According to that comment that the um other commercial amenities for the surrounding neighborhoods were um two miles away.

Um he's contending that they are one mile away on 54th and grand.

And so um one mile is hardly a cumbersome distance.

Indeed, virtually all of the tens of thousands of residents living north and south along Rimrock Road from 5th Street West to 54th Street West and Beyond function quite well, being a mile or more from commercial businesses.

Um and he he was also concerned about the traffic on um Rimrock Road.

Uh uh he's saying it's what's being ignored is a massive increase in traffic to such a development from east and north of this project as people from Yellowstone County Crab Copper Ridge, Ironwood, the subdivisions along Rimrock and 54th Street West, and all along Rim Rock to Shiloh, who instead of going south on Shiloh 54th or 62nd to accessing commercial businesses will travel west on Rimrock, increasing an already burdened street and making traffic even worse than now that exists for residents.

Um the last thing uh finally was he's well, there are requirements for the zoning code for separating commercially zoned areas adjacent to residentially zoned areas with fencing berms and intensive landscaping.

No such requires requirements exist for commercial and residential areas separated by the street.

In this case, 60th Street West.

Without a non-access strip along 60, say for the south 400 feet of lot seven, the value of my residentially zoned property to the east will be negative effective, necessity and the cost of a barrier on a strip of ground, perhaps as much as three quarter of an acre to separate the commercial on lot seven from the residential on my ground to the east.

I can't speak to his comments.

I was just sent to read them.

So thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

We'll ask uh when we're done with our public hearing, we'll ask uh staff and also give an opportunity uh to the developer's agent to uh comment on those questions or any other public comments as well.

Next, Mr.

Mayor, Council members.

This uh zoning that we're requesting.

And Paul, if we can get your name.

My name is sorry about that.

My name is Paul Clerk.

I'm from the South Side, South Side Triangle, of course.

When you're putting in the looks of Central, Broadwater, Grand, Park Hill, maybe now Rim Rock, it's going to get commercial.

It's gonna have heavy traffic.

You've got people from neighborhoods, and you've got people from businesses that want to use that road.

Get it together, you guys, because it's coming.

So did Grand, so did Central, so did Broadwater.

Anybody that's been in Ward, TJ's ward, or even in my ward down on Ward One.

The traffic is gonna be there.

So you're gonna need, and I'm just an outsider, guys.

I'm just a retired truck driver.

Look at if you're gonna use grand, use it for a business, what's there?

If you're gonna use Rimrock, use it for a business, what's there?

She's asking for a buffer zone.

Here it is with my my hat.

My issue, parks.

I know we can't afford them, Mr.

Scott.

I know this, but we have to maintain them somehow.

There's money somewhere.

We've got to be able to use it.

We've got to be smart.

How nice would it be to go to say they put a business up in there?

All right, kids, we're gonna buffer it in the park zone before we go back home.

Okay.

It's there.

This land, it's coming, you guys.

This ward is gonna come.

You can't do nothing about it, stop it.

The molt road goes up.

There's some beautiful homes neighborhoods up there, but you've got to get it together.

Plan for the parks for the people.

You got businesses and neighborhoods.

What's in the middle?

A nice park.

Does it have to be wide?

No.

Can it be?

We're talking uh square lots, so eight, you know, 54th to 62nd.

What is that?

Two miles, three miles, I'm not sure.

But there is going to be 800 yards, 400 yards.

Hey, it's be nice to have a trail, nice for some parks, playgrounds, you know, get it together, city.

That's what I got.

I'm out.

Thank you.

Other public comment on items 2A or 2B.

Is there any other public comment on item 2A or 2B?

No one is standing up, no one is coming forward, so we'll close our uh public hearing on item two, A and 2B.

Um I don't know if uh there was any staff or uh rebuttal or other comments from staff or our representative on anything you heard.

Thank you, Mayor.

I can just address a couple of the comments that were brought up.

Um one of them being the existing traffic on Rim Rock Road.

Um obviously is as moving through the TI or the subdivision process.

We are preparing a TIS for this, but also I'd just like to point out that the city is being very proactive in this area, and there's actually a road widening project planned for next year, even um, which will help out a lot for both the existing traffic that's there as well as future development in the area.

Um as far as why we went with the CMU versus versus other you know, mixed use districts or maybe low lower density districts, largely it comes down to that recreational aspect.

Um CMU 2 is the best zone district that fits Patty Shack and what uh Grant and Jess are looking to do.

And those at CMU one would provide that that complementary use for the Paddy Shack facility.

Um I realize that CMU does allow for for uses such as casinos, bar tavern, etc.

That some of those other zone districts may not.

However, I would like to point out that each of those listed zone districts that are that are often issues for neighbors or concerns for neighbors.

They do also have stop gaps built into the zoning code, for instance, requiring a special review if they're to be um utilized certain setback distance from residential uses from from parks from religious institutions from residential uses.

So while those other uses are allowed within CMU, um, this wouldn't be the last time that you hear about it before something like that would go in.

So lastly, I would just note that Rim Rock Road is a principal arterial.

It is one of the one of the busier streets within the city, and we'll continue to be one of the busier streets within the city.

It is a prime location for commercial use.

Um the zoning code, growth policy, everything else points to having commercial or higher density uses along principal arterials, and this proposal falls directly in line with that.

Um I would like to open it up if there's any questions for uh Grant and Jess to also.

I think it'd be great if they would like to just say hello or anything they want to add.

So this is our developers and those property owners.

Thanks for having us, Mayor and Council.

Um this goes back to when we finish.

If you would just introduce yourself.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm Jesse Skelsey.

This is my husband, Grant.

Grant Skelsey.

Um, we're very excited to be bringing something like this to Billings.

I grew up here.

Um we spent time in San Diego and Austin and got to see what you know, various community enriching um developments might look like serving residential communities um in that area.

And uh we're a young family.

We've got a three and six-year-old, and we really are focused on bringing a town square type environment to that part of town where it can feel like a third space for those homes, and they their kids can ride their bikes, you know, and that's really the type of um development we're we're aiming to create.

So, yes, we are at the owners of the of the Patty Shack, which will be the upscale pickleball social club, but we are also shepherding the entire development.

The the genesis of this development started with the Patty Shack as the um as the anchor business.

Um, but we have a lot of influence over those surrounding businesses and making sure that they're cohesive.

So uh hopefully everybody's excited about bringing something like this to Billings, but definitely open to hearing any questions.

Any questions for uh Jesse or Grant?

Don't see any.

So thank you very much.

Grant, did you have something?

No, I'll say thank you.

Okay, very good.

Thank you so much, guys.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, uh, so we have closed the public uh hearing on this item.

Uh back to council now.

Council, um uh do we have further discussion questions or motions?

Um council member Nees.

I'll uh make a motion.

Umducted a public hearing, uh considered a written and spoken public testimony.

I move to approve a resolution conditionally approving annexation 2505 as recommended by staff with the addition of with the addition of the uh annexation agreement, or I'm sorry, aim station is that mic on uh testing can you hear me now?

You broke it.

I did.

Okay, maybe we're fine with the addition of adding the annexation development agreement.

Okay.

Uh so uh there's a motion to approve item two A annexation.

Um, but in the resolution to add the words and annexation agreement.

Uh and second indicated by Councilmember Rogers, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh would uh council member Neise uh you'd like to speak to your motion, Councilmember Rogers to speak to your second.

Yes, I I think this is gonna be a really nice area developed uh for commercial.

I think that's something that's needed out there.

There's a lot of homes being built out there, so I think this is gonna be a really great opportunity for development like this there, and then other commercial businesses to to come there.

I think actually eventually it'll probably take some of the pressure off Rim Rock Road.

Um, but this is the kind of thing we need to see, not just developed here, but when we have large neighborhood developments all around, more small commercial nodes, something like this.

In fact, we're looking for some some of that stuff up in the heights as well.

So we look forward to these type of things coming in.

So thank you.

Very good.

Thank you, Councilmember Rogers.

Yeah, and I was just gonna reiterate the the same thing.

Um I think this will keep some of that traffic in that area and uh alleviate that back and forth that can become troublesome.

So good job, you guys.

Very good.

Um, other discussion on the motion.

Council Member Gillick.

Uh yeah, I'll also support this.

I think it's good to have a good distribution of commercial throughout your community.

So the more as was Councilmember Nees said, smaller ones all distributed closer to uh community means makes it more walkable, bikeable, um, less traffic demand on our streets.

So very good.

Uh further discussion on the motion.

Any further discussion on the motion?

Then I'll have to chime in to ironically, uh, this project goes back before there was anything before us.

I did uh speak with the um uh developers at the time who are looking for a site and I encourage this project.

I supported it.

I think it's a great uh it'll be a great addition to the neighborhood and to the community.

I will now explain why I will be the only person who votes against it, probably.

And it has nothing to do with the project itself, but I just to be consistent, council, you know where I'm going.

Um this is within the benefited area, the one and a half miles from Cottonwood Park, and under paragraph 21C of that development agreement going back 23 years ago.

Uh the city is required to um make reasonable efforts to the extent permitted by law, as may be uh and as may be negotiated on individual basis in discussion with the city to obtain contribution from such a person or developer to fund the development and or maintenance of the park.

Um, seeing no indication in the staff report that that process has occurred here, I am compelled to be consistent with my past position to vote against the annexation.

The annexation passes, which I fully expect I'll vote in favor of the uh zone change.

Um any further discussion on the motion.

Okay, if in favor of the motion, which is for approval of item uh two A, please say aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Nay, uh voting in opposition, uh myself and council member Tidswell, all other council members voting in favor.

The motion passes nine to two.

Um that then bring us to item two B.

Again, we need and at Councilmember, I apologize.

Uh the vote was of 10, so it was eight in favor, uh, two opposed.

Councilmember Rasplighter did not participate.

Um brings us to then to item uh two B, the uh zone change.

Is there any um uh either motion or further discussion or uh questions on item two B.

Council member uh Boyette?

Thank you.

Wyatt, um for the sake of the audience and the people out on TV land.

Let's say I, as a council member, don't like this zoning.

I don't like CMU one there, and I don't like the CM2 where it is.

Do I have does the council have the ability to say we don't like that, but we suggest a different one uh council member boyet and mayor and council.

Uh you would um not be able to do that this evening in this process.

Uh, you wouldn't be able to change the zoning that was um applied for and noticed and legally noticed and went through the process to get you to tonight.

So you wouldn't be able to modify it at this time.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, council member uh Sean.

Uh thank you.

I'll go ahead and make a motion.

Having conducted a public hearing, considered written and spoken public testimony.

I move to approve a resolution approving zone change 1073 and adopting the findings of the 10 review criteria as recommended by the zoning commission.

Very good.

Um council member uh Gullick, just to spread it around, makes the second council shaw, council member gullick, would you like to speak to your motion?

Sure.

So I just want to add to the course of I think this is really exciting for this neighborhood.

I getting these commercial nodes out into more of the outskirts of our city is really important.

So I I'm really looking forward to this project.

Thank you for bringing it forward.

Very good.

Uh Councilmember Gillick.

Uh as someone who did participate in the West End plan many eons ago, when you were on the planning board, actually.

Um, I this is exactly what was envisioned at that time.

I supported.

Very good.

Thank you.

Now uh further discussion on the motion.

Motions for approval of item two B.

Any further discussion?

Okay, we'll proceed to a vote.

Uh if in favor of the motion for approval, item two B.

Please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Uh uh all f everyone voting in favor.

So um motion passes uh council member as lighter did not vote.

Motion passes um 10 to 0.

Um that uh then concludes item two, brings us to uh related item three.

Uh Denise, would you read item number three?

Public hearing and first reading ordinance expanding the boundaries of ward four to include recently annexed property and annexation 2505, generally located south of Rim Rock Road and east of um 62nd Street West, and legally described as lot seven of Sunny Cove Fruit Farms.

Staff recommends approval.

Very good.

This is to uh add the recently annexed property to uh uh ward four.

Uh is there any staff presentation?

There's no staff presentation, so is there are there questions or is there a motion on item three?

Uh council member.

Oh, I apologize.

Thank you.

It is this is a public hearing.

Is there any public uh comment?

Uh this is a public hearing on item three.

Is there any public comment?

If so, please come to the podium and we ask that you keep your comments to three minutes.

Any public comment on item three?

No one's standing up, no one's coming forward.

So close the public hearing.

Uh now back to council.

Is there a motion or other questions or discussion?

Yeah, usually we defer to our word for representative, councilmember Tidswell.

Do you want to make the motion to add to your kingdom?

Very good.

Is there a second?

Second by councilmember Boyette.

Uh any discussion.

Seeing none, we'll proceed to a vote.

Uh motions for approval of item three.

If in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, nay.

Mayor.

Uh quick point of order.

Councilmember Nees.

Yes.

Um, ask Scott Aspenliner is not here.

So um this is not a recusional item.

So he would instead of being a recused, it'd be marked absent.

Is that correct?

I guess technically that's correct.

Okay.

Just want to make sure that.

Yeah, we'll we'll uh uh establish that on the record.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Okay, I believe that I had uh taken the ayes, and I believe they were unanimous um and that there were no nays, correct?

Okay, the motion passes three A uh unanimously.

Uh uh 10, no in opposition, Council Brass Blighter uh is not present with us.

He stepped out as rec uh uh indicated by councilmember Nice.

Um that concludes item three and brings us to item four, the main item of the night.

Um we have uh so Denise, would you read item?

This will also be a joint resolution.

So would you or I'm I'm sorry, a joint public hearing on the annexation and the zone change.

Um, I take that back.

Our our agenda does not um recognize um a uh a joint public hearing.

Uh uh so uh Wyath and Karen, I'm assuming we'll just handle these uh separately.

Oh, it does.

I'm sorry, I was looking at uh 4A and B, but it's in the the header got you.

So very good.

Um so uh Denise, would you please read 4A and 4B together?

Yes, Mayor.

So it is a joint public hearing for annexation 2506 and zone change 1074.

Those are resolutions approving annexation 2506, generally located north of Central Avenue, south of Broadwater Avenue, west of 44th Street West.

Legally described as lot three, a barber farm subdivision.

Staff recommends conditional approval, and then um a resolution approving zone change 1074, a 55.46 acre parcel of land, more or less, generally located north of Central Avenue between 44th Street West and 48th Street West, legally described as lot three of Barber Farm Subdivision, zoning commission recommends approval and adoption of the 10 review criteria.

Very good.

Thank you.

So uh we'll have our uh uh Karen is our presenter.

Uh we have a full house tonight.

So uh as you saw before, we'll have a presentation on both uh 4A and 4B, i.e.

the annexation and the zone proposed zone change.

And uh we'll give it an opportunity for the developer or the developer's uh agent to comment, and then we will um ask for questions from council and uh at that point we'll open it up for a uh joint public hearing on both of those items.

So with that, we'll turn it over to staff uh Wyatt.

Yeah, yes, uh Mayor and Council, thank you.

I before Karen uh begins the presentation on the joint items.

I wanted to uh call your attention to some of the documents for this um item this evening.

Um and we there are paper copies at your desks this evening, and we've coordinated with uh city legal as well as the clerk.

But um, we discovered that um several of our documents, the uh annexation resolution, the zoning and the zoning resolution specifically, had some errors uh this morning regarding um the mechanics basically of the annexation process and then the zoning, because this is a phased annexation.

So the there's two phases, and uh we discovered errors and and the mayor helped point this out as well as our city attorney uh this morning that there was some some uh errors there.

It's a mechanics error, so I'll just say that first.

It has nothing to do with the zoning um application process or the annexation petition process.

Those are all are fine.

It was the way the documents basically interrelated to each other.

So at your place, you do have a revised annexation resolution uh for this property.

And I'll just briefly highlight a couple of the items that we addressed in there.

The main thing was the referencing to uh the phasing, and if you look at section one territory to be annexed, uh it references now subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph two, which we added, and uh and the phased effective dates in paragraph three, which was also added.

Uh, if you move from there into section two, after you see the legal descriptions, you'll see um that we added language in section two and three regarding the both that there's an annexation agreement that's part of the action this evening, um, and also the territory to be annexed in in phases in three uh has an effective date uh for phase two uh that could be uh December 31st of 2031.

Uh, and then there's some allowances for the developer to request it sooner.

Uh and then if you go to section four, also regarding the effective date of the resolution.

Obviously, because this is phased, we have the tracks that are affected this evening, and then in phase two would be effective at that December date.

So those are the items that that's the language in that that were that was adjusted today to make sure that it matched up with this phasing.

We have done three of these processes.

Uh, this is the third one, actually.

We did uh ridgeline subdivision out at 48th and King, and we did Timberline, excuse me, Timbers subdivision um Alkali Creek Road.

Both of those followed the same process.

Um, and we just ended up with some mechanical references there that were off.

Do you want to just quickly reference you to the resolution for the zone change?

Same thing.

We had to make sure then that the proper phasing references are in this document because of course, as the city annexes property, you zone the property, but you don't zone property that you have an annexed.

Um, and you don't obviously, if you have if you have an annexed, then you're that's not in the city.

So we wanted we had to make sure we had corrected that uh and made sure those two documents complemented each other.

So if you look at number two amendment, you'll see that we reference in there phase one of the annexation and PND includes, and then it describes the property, which is actually that first requested annexation phase.

Um, and then we attach the exhibit B, which shows you that phase to make sure it was clear visually.

And then in number three, zoning map, we also noted the zoning master plan includes zoning for phase two that will be adopted by separate resolution at the time phase two is annexed, which again is in alignment with how we've done these in the past, because obviously until it's annexed, it's not zoned.

So I wanted to make sure I call those to your attention.

Um, that language, and then the last document was just was the ordinance for um the ward boundary, and we just had to make sure that obviously you're amending your bringing property into ward four that's actually been annexed.

Obviously, the part that has phase two is not going to be in word four yet.

So the the ward ordinance only addresses the first portion when we come back uh for the second phase of the annexation, that would be addressed to that time.

So just wanted to walk you through those uh again.

It's a mechanical process issue to make sure that the documents are all in alignment um as we go forward this evening.

And we everyone, as I said, including the clerk has the current documents.

So with that, unless you have questions on that, I will turn it over to Karen to walk you through the overall presentation.

Thank you, Karen.

Before you start, Councilmember Kennedy, uh city out of question.

I just want to make sure Councilman Kennedy, we're not jumping ahead of ourselves that your question is just specifically to these changes in the documents as opposed to the very good.

Go ahead.

So phase one that I'm looking at, and I'm looking at the map.

It's only we're addressing the zone change on the lower uh half of uh of that uh area, correct?

So councilmember Kennedy and Mayor and Council, um the what you're yes, in terms of the annexation and what actually will come into the city and be zoned at this time, you are addressing that phase one portion.

However, you're you're reviewing the entire zoning plan for this property because then when it comes in for the phase two annexation, then the zoning will also be done at that time.

So you're looking at the whole thing, but the annexation and the zoning for this evening will be that phase one portion.

So the question that I have for you is if we're only doing the bottom half, then until 2031, the top section will not be built unless requested sooner, and it would have to come back to this council to decide um to go forward, or it would take place in 2031, correct?

Councilmember Kennedy, uh, mayor and council.

I think part of what you just stated, yes, uh, I think I'm tracking on that yes, um, tonight you will annex the phase one area, and that will be zoned and brought into the city.

The overall zoning plan and annexation plan then is currently set to either be brought in on December by December 31st of third 2031 or before, as you stated, if the applicant or the owner requested it, and we have a process that's described in there.

At that time, you wouldn't do a new zoning application process.

So you would be annexing following the zoning that's been approved, you know, that's been reviewed here, and then bringing it into the city.

So the question I have is if the owner decides to come in before um 2031, does it come before the council?

Uh councilmember Kennedy, the annexation uh would come before you uh, but the zoning wouldn't come before you again.

You would annex and then the zone, it would follow the zoning master plan that you're looking at tonight.

So, yes, the annexation would the zoning you would follow what's already what's the master plan that's proposed here this evening.

Okay, I'll mayor I'll follow up after this because I have a couple more questions.

Okay, and while you're thinking about that, uh Wyatt, I would just call your attention to page two of the um zone change resolution, the new zone change resolution in subsection three zoning map.

And the second sentence that says, quote, the zoning master plan includes zoning for phase two that will be adopted by separate resolution at the time phase two is annexed.

So there would definitely need to be a resolution that would come back.

We approve resolutions, so it will come back in some form at that time.

So correct we'll need to define what that looks like and to what extent our hands are bound or not bound in a year or two, three years, three years, four years down the road.

Mayor Karen wanted to comment on that.

Go ahead.

Mayor and council, I just um a lot of these things might be answered in my presentation.

Okay that's a good segue.

Oh, I just why don't you go ahead and and uh uh shed light.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you for your patience.

So this is a joint public hearing again.

Um, the annexation petition 2506 and zone change 1074.

And again, we have the joint um joint hearing and then award boundary ordinance after.

I won't detail it since we just covered that on the last application.

Um, and here is your annexation exhibit.

I want to point out that um if the annexation passes but the zone change fails, the property is not annexed.

And if the annexation fails, the zone change cannot be acted on, or the ward boundary ordinance.

Um, this is a phased annexation and in two phases.

Um we have again Wyath just covered this, but we've processed phased out annexations in the past, ridgeline and and the timbers subdivisions, um, and our limits of annexation shows the property within our um uh area two on the annexation limits of annexation map.

You can see to the west that is also within that area.

Um, the area that's white is already in the city limits to the east.

Um, here it is the vicinity map for your reference.

Um, and the existing zoning.

Currently it's agricultural.

Um, the south across central is Corridor Mixed Use one.

Um to the west is N4, which is large lot suburban residential.

Um there's a PD to the east, which is inside the city limits, and then rural residential one to the north and to the east.

So um zone zone, the parcel is in zone one of the limits and annexation, and the city will provide adequate services.

All public improvements within the area to be annexed will meet city standards.

Um, and the property owners will within the area will to be annexed, will sign a waiver of right to protest, creating the creation of special improvements.

Um the residential property owners will join um the existing park main park maintenance district.

Um this will support Cottonwood Park.

The annexation along with the zone change are in line with the intent of the growth policy guidelines as well as the West End neighborhood plan.

Um, and the development meets all of the state of Montana requirements for development, which is outlined also in the zoning regulations.

Um phase one of the improvements included in the subdivision will be through um the annexation agreement, and then phase two of the improvements will be through the subdivision improvement agreement.

I say that right.

This is looking north and south, where they're starting some work for the corridor mixed use to zone district looking west and to the east.

So the zone change review criteria is um not only under our zoning code, but it is state statute, and that's where our zoning code criteria came from.

Montana Code annotated 76-2-304 is inclusive of those zoning review criteria.

When evaluating the mixed use plan neighborhood development um staff and the the zoning commission applied the 10 review criteria required under the state law and our local code.

This criteria is to ensure that any zoning decisions support the growth policy, protect public safety, and promote orderly urban development.

And the following summarizes how the determinations were made.

The zoning code criteria again is the same as our Montana State Code.

Should the council not want to follow the zoning commission recommendation for approval, findings for a denial will need to follow these criteria.

Runs concurrent with an annexation and applies to anything over 10 acres.

It helps to build new neighborhoods that are walkable and sociable.

It allows this also allows the phasing of that annexation, but it adopts the full zoning plan in advance, and the zoning would be implemented during that phasing.

It also provides more detail on the new neighborhood infrastructure, your roads and streets.

And then outlining, outlining the uses.

It allows residential and agricultural uses.

I wanted to point out too our zoning regulations allow other uses such as marijuana cultivation, sand and gravel mining operations, and commercial feedlots in the agricultural zone district.

Maximum lot coverage for that, any any buildings is 10%.

The N2 is our mid-century neighborhoods, allows single and two family residential development, 40% maximum lot coverage, and the maximum height is two stories.

The corridor mixed U1 allows for single and multifamily residential structures and some light commercial uses, and I'll touch on those.

It has a maximum lot coverage of 65% and a maximum height of four stories, but it also requires that those stories are stepped back.

So the second story would have to be a specific distance behind the front facade, and the third story would have to be a distance behind the second story facade, and so on.

The N1 neighborhoods, the NX1 mixed residential neighborhood also allows single and multifamily with some light commercial uses on a smaller scale than the CMU1, 60% maximum lot coverage and a maximum of two and a half stories.

And then the P1 district is for parks and recreation.

We have no way to restrict development with duplex housing.

We cannot force them through zoning to only build single family dwellings.

The NX1 uses allowed our residential schools, daycare centers, emergency service centers, just to touch on a few.

And then there's the parks area.

And additionally, I have a couple of red marks where there's proposed open space that'd be private parks.

So adjacent uses and zoning.

This development would include 3.46 acres of corridor mixed use one within the project site for a variety of businesses while maintaining compatibility.

There's a mix of housing types allowed within the N2, NX1, and Corridor Mixed Use One, ranging from single to multifamily 9 plus dwelling units per structure.

It's a variety, offering a variety of residential options options adjacent to county residential zones.

Touching on the surrounding zoning, cloverleaf subdivision has densities, cloverleaf and sundance have the densities from just under one to 2.28 dwelling units per acre, 44 West, and Clearwater have densities of 9.42 dwelling units per acre, and twin pine condos has a density about 5.94 dwelling units per acre.

The proposed mixed use PND provides approximately 6.7 gross dwelling units per acre or 7.55 net units per acre, striking a middle balance that respects the character of the surrounding neighborhoods while meeting the plans goals for a range of housing types and densities.

And just to give you a highlight of that, um to the north clover leaf.

My slide got cut off a little bit.

But the cloverleaf is uh, I believe it was 0.8 dwelling units per acre, and then the Wells Garden Estates has an average of a little just under two units per acre.

Um, Sundance is just a little over two units per acre.

Clearwater in 44th is about just over nine units per acre, and Shiloh Estates is an average of 0.8, where Twin Twin Pines Townhomes averages 5.94, and the Barber Farms is at 6.67 gross or 7.55 net.

Um sorry.

The zoning allows the same type of development as the neighboring residential zones.

It's a middle balance that's called out in the growth policy and the West Billings Plan.

Um we also need to look at the desired connectivity.

Um, projected expansion of roads for connectivity, adequate emergency access and utility connections are required.

Um this development comes with new infrastructure.

We don't get the infrastructure until we get the development.

Development requires the developers to participate in the expenses for that infrastructure.

This slide shows the connection to Central Avenue and expansion of a portion of 44th, which will be in phase one.

The connection to Broadwater and the North portion of 44th will be in phase two, with the developer providing the south half of the portion of Broadwater, and then the city to develop the north half at a later date.

Um, and they have dedicated right-of-way that would help with the expansion in the future, um projected expansion of 46th and 44th.

There's also a projected connection in the future, and there are no dates on these when they're going to be developed.

It comes with the surrounding development, the connection of Broadwater to Shiloh.

All of these connections and improvements are like I said, they're subject to the surrounding development.

The properties have to develop in order for those to be improved.

I've included this slide to show future development from central.

Yellowstone County already has plans to install a signal at 48th and Central in 2026.

The city has land improvements in conjunction with the phases of development and the contributions provided at that time.

The project offers a range of housing types, creating appropriately scaled commercial nodes along Central Avenue.

The proposed zoning supports these objectives by providing a mix of residential, single, duplex, multifamily to meet diverse population needs.

Commercial and residential integration also contributes to long-term economic activity.

The zoning supports adopted cities' policies for mixed-use neighborhoods, efficient development patterns, and housing diversity.

They all have to comply with the city standards, setbacks, building separation, building code, fire department requirements.

Hydrants.

Traffic impacts are analyzed for infrastructure with the development.

The zoning provides a mix of allowed uses and densities, and I'm I'm now I'm sounding repetitive, but these are all of the requirements that we have to look at.

It provides for transition between county subdivisions and higher density city neighborhoods.

It allows placement of commercial uses along a corridor rather than an interior street on an arterial.

It utilizes existing utilities and city services efficiently and reflects existing patterns of urban growth and the suitability of the property for both housing and neighborhood services.

So the recommendation tonight is to hold the joint public hearing and take comments on the annexation and the zone change.

Staff recommends approval, uh conditional approval of the annexation.

Again, failure to approve the annexation will prevent council from acting on the um subsequent items, and the zoning commission recommends um approval and adoption of the review criteria of zone change 1074.

That concludes my presentation.

Okay.

Thank you, Karen.

Uh, we'll open up for questions of Karen, and when we're done with questions, Karen will see if the developer has any comments.

Counselor Rups is Council McKennedy.

Thank you, Mayor.

Karen, I'm sorry, I was a little slow on understanding something.

Could you go back to the slide that showed the improvements, expected improvements to Central Avenue?

Um I I thought I had heard you saying that there was going to be a light at 48th and Central, but then it looked like there's one at 44th on that slide.

That was the city's projected improvements.

That's that's different.

But yeah, could you bring that diagram up?

I just might want to just take a screenshot of that real quick.

Perfect.

Thank you.

I can look at that and take other questions.

Okay, that's it.

All right, Council McKinney.

Karen, could you move the one right above that?

18.

Okay, looking at 18 here.

I and then I'll have you go to one other map.

Um, up to 18 here.

The if they're improving the lower half of this, then the projected expansion of 44 street west will only be half built.

And then the projected expansion of 44 Street West will need to be built also, correct?

Yes, sir.

It will be with phase two.

It will be with what?

With phase two of the annexation.

Phase two, so they'll have to put that in.

What about the projected expansion of 46?

When does that come in?

They do not have a date certain on when those are going to be improved, and it's not going to be any time soon.

Debbie Melling is here if you have if you have specific questions.

The real question I have is because if 44 has to come in with the um north half of this, um, why wouldn't you have both of them come in at the same time?

Because that will alleviate a traffic problem.

I'm gonna let Debbie answer that question for you.

Okay.

Um before you do that, then let's go back to um I wanted this.

Do you have this one?

That one it shows it shows the zone and then the top there, it shows the green on it.

And the only reason I'm asking this so the people out there know what I'm asking.

Okay.

So you have the green at the top there.

Uh the green at the top, you're anticipating with Broadwater Avenue that you're having an NX one in that area, which I guess if you had all of those streets and everything built out, it would probably make sense.

The problem I have with it is um coming tonight to ask us to approve of something with the possibility that this is going to be built out.

Um I can't support that.

Um so I would ask that we take that um NX1 over the top out of this and leave it all NX2.

Okay, I'm sorry, sir.

I don't know if there was a what I'm asking is can we amend that Wyatt, this goes back to the question that was asked earlier.

Uh this is the developer's request.

So uh we don't have the power to make changes.

We have the power to reject or accept, but would you address that question of amendment?

Yeah, council member or mayor and council member Kennedy and council.

Um so yeah, you wouldn't be able to amend that tonight um and change what the zoning that's in front of you is.

Um this is what's been asked for, the application went through the zoning commission, went did all the legal notices um to bring us to tonight to show what is being asked for and what's been applied for and what's been reviewed.

So you wouldn't be able to tonight um change to something else or take it out.

Uh that would you'd have to they would have to start back and have a new uh proposal.

So that's the short question, Customer Kenny.

Yeah, I it kind of leaves us in a real spot.

Um and uh that's a that's a piece that's a sticking point with me.

I guess I would like to know about the uh 44th and uh 46th.

Uh Debbie, could you come forward and address the timing or possible timing of the uh north extensions or Mac Foguson or City Engineers coming forward?

Um when those might happen and whose responsibility they would be 44th and 46.

44th and 46, because they're the two that are mentioned in here on either side of cloverleaf.

It's slide 18.

So mayor and council, uh there we go.

Uh 44th Street West, which would be uh road C on this map.

Obviously, it's proposed in several phases.

Phase one would be the the south half of that.

Um the the developer obviously is proposing that in two phases.

I don't have, I mean, there's not a current capital project for the uh extension of 44th from Broadwater to uh grand.

We are setting some uh infrastructure up for that, uh water, things like that, but no plan right now for that uh extension of 44th from Broadwater to Grand, you know, today.

Do you have on Broadwater there?

Do you have the funding to build that?

Uh the broadwater along the frontage of the uh project in question here would be at least the the sort of south half of that would be constructed with this this development.

So if you do not have the projected expansion of 44th Street West all the way to the north there, where would the traffic go?

Uh well, currently, as proposed, this development uh would connect to uh Broadwater, complete Broadwater.

Broadwater currently is constructed west uh to 48th Street.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, some uh uh follow-up, sure.

Go ahead, Councillor Customer Rowan, please.

So I don't mean to jump a line here, but while you're here, Mac, I'm struggling to understand the traffic patterns here.

So if there's not funding for 44th or 46th, aren't we just going to dump a bunch of traffic in 2032 onto bluegrass?

Uh no, no, no.

Uh I don't think excuse me, excuse me.

Um I guess I should have said something before.

Once we got into the whole clapping business, we got problems.

So please don't do that, okay?

But uh go ahead and uh address that connection or packing connection.

Council member Owen, we have a traffic study uh and it looked at these very questions.

Um so one, it looked at at the first phase, uh basically 100% of the traffic is going uh through two streets onto central, and there's kind of a step uh level of improvements that are required at that with phase two, traffic is still primarily uh going south.

There is no uh physical connection to uh bluegrass proposed uh with this development.

And and so uh Mac, if we can just clarify the the map that's shown here is from a uh plaid.

Um and that's why it looks like there's a connection, but in reality, it there's a cul-de-sac and a dead ends.

So there is currently no connection into bluegrass, correct?

That's correct.

Okay, so everything on this screen that you have up in front of us, everything except the piece going right through the proposed annexation is not funded.

It's not happening right now, at least in a in a five-year CIP window, right?

That's correct.

And then if we're looking to this proposed concept of connecting Broadwater all the way down to Shiloh, do we have a right of way to do that?

Um could you actually construct it?

Uh there's a there's a uh skinny little 30-foot right-of-way through the uh between the Billings Clinic property and the uh Yegan property right now, but there's not a full right-of-way going east for Broadwater yet.

Okay, so what you're telling me, just to be clear, is this project as it comes in right now?

Um there is no way to access Broadwater.

Am I understanding that correctly?

Through the middle of the subdivision.

Uh when it it'll access Broadwater out at its second phase, yes.

But the mayor just said a dead ends.

Right, but we're talking about a physical connection.

The the other question was is there a connection to bluegrass?

And my answer was no.

Um there's a there's a disconnect there.

And that disconnect is broadwater.

Well, yeah.

Right?

No.

Hang on.

I'm I'm not understanding here because I'm trying to understand if someone can drive from the middle of this proposed subdivision and get to bluegrass.

Um it the way it's the development is proposed in the agreements, they would not physically we would leave that physical connection till the future until there's some future catalyst, either clover leaves uh asked to have that connection or some other uh catalyst, but they're not physically making that connection, but the right-of-way would be connected.

Okay, so you could walk across it or something.

Um theoretically.

Okay.

And then the last question, and then Mayor, I'll get back in line.

Um, there are some proposed improvements to central, but they are not in the five-year CIP window.

Um the improvements that are uh noted, and this this kind of came out of the traffic study.

Uh, I think Karen had a map there that kind of schematically showed uh, you know, as you step through the development, the first phase uh requires a right turn, uh westbound right turn into it.

Um different phases require different uh additions to central, and and those are all spelled out.

So and those improvements are paid for by this development.

I I'm with you on that.

But in the CIP, there is a proposed central like 48th to Shiloh in future years connection, right?

Uh I would have to look at that, I believe so.

Would you mind because I'd like to ask a few questions about that when I get my turn back?

Um and then the traffic study that you're talking about that's already been conducted, is that available to the public?

Uh yes.

Okay, where can they find it?

Um we uh our office.

Uh oh, okay, it's not published online.

And I also think it was some uh submitted with the development, I believe.

Okay, thank you.

And Mac, while we've got you, if you could just go back to 18 again, uh, because that was a little confusing.

I just want to make sure uh I've got a simple summary.

So um that's the one right above that with the roads.

So it's a correct statement, isn't it?

That if the phase one, phase two were quickly built out, there'd be two ways in and out of this subdivision or this area, one south to central, and the other north up to Broadwater, because the developer would have to build half a right-of-way of Broadwater, but that would be a legal access in and out.

But those would be the only two connections upon construction of phase one and phase two.

Is that a correct summary?

Okay.

And if I could just add, I guess just to clarify on this map, maybe to partly to council member Owens question.

What we're showing here is where there are right-of-ways.

There's a difference in as the as the city engineer uh Mr.

Fogel Song is saying, the there's physical actually built roads, and then there's right-of-way that's there for the future construction of roads.

And so a lot of what you're seeing here, especially at Broadwater 44th, 46th, um, is the future right-of-ways where the roads could be built.

So it's not that it's ultimately that's what would happen, but yes, they're not physically getting constructed all, you know, now.

So just wanted to make sure you're clear that uh clarification.

I also should have said, although you could get to Broadwater, the only access once you get to Broadwater is to the west.

Not to the east from right, is that uh angle.

Uh more questions, uh, Councilmember Kennedy.

Mac, you just said that bluegrass that uh the subdivision would have to approve of going across through bluegrass, correct.

Um what I stated.

The clover leaf, what I stated was uh that the basically with this development being completed, there wouldn't be a physical connection to that road to road, if you will, and then if if uh the city council or clover leaf or someone else, that there needs to be a catalyst for that to be done, and that could be done by SID or somebody builds that for some reason, but uh at this point we didn't have that uh as a request.

Who has to give permission to do that?

I guess that's what I'm trying to get at.

Um the the city council uh for the south side clover clover leaf is in the county, so um perhaps the city, you know, to to build that okay, thank you.

Okay, uh very good.

Uh uh further questions.

Uh uh uh council member uh Shaw, Councilmember Nice.

Thanks, Mac.

I have another question for you.

Um I I think what we're trying to get at is I we're expecting to hear from a bunch of people who are very concerned about having a bunch of cars dumped in their neighborhood.

So I I just want to reiterate this again.

Uh because I haven't driven this.

This is closed off currently, and it would only open up going up into that subdivision with some sort of future action from a local government entity.

That's correct.

Okay, so it's not approving an annexation doesn't automatically trigger that or anything like that.

It would still have to come back to council at some point in the future.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Well, and again, just to clarify, they're in the county, so we don't have any jurisdiction over that property.

Oh right now, local government entities.

Uh every kind of council niece and counsel rups is Bernice.

Thank you.

Can you hear me okay?

Great.

Okay.

Um so just to clarify, because I'm a little confused on what's going on in Broadwater north of this property, which under phase two, they would build the um their half of Broadwater, correct?

Well, that's not a complete road.

So who builds the other half of the road?

Um so some someone in the future, either um I could see it happening in a couple ways.

Uh one might be uh let's say clover leaf came into the city, then then that would be an SID or something for that.

Uh potentially in the future.

Let's let's say all the right-of-way was uh collected all the way out to Shiloh.

Maybe that's a city capital improvements plan.

There, there's there's many mechanisms uh to do that.

But until that time, until that happens, a broadwater won't really be a uh passable road because it's only half developed.

Well it'll be uh it'll be it when when we say a half street, we generally do curb plus 30 feet that allows two ways of travel.

So it'll be a um an unfinished two-way street.

Unfinished four-way street where the first two half two lanes are going to be on the south side, correct, and the other two lanes undeveloped.

So that fire fire vehicles can travel on that, etc.

So it's it's uh it's not uh it's it's more than a half street.

Okay, and then uh I did have another question for Wyatt Mayor, if you don't mind.

Uh please go ahead.

So why if the um what we're approving tonight is the annexation for the future, as I understand, correct?

I'm sorry, not the annexation.

We're approving the zoning for the future.

The so council member Nees and Mayor and Council, what you're so you've got a zoning, basically the master plan layout of the whole property for zone.

We're approving, but this is what we're looking at is it's a single zone, and then um N2 and NX1 and the northern half of the of the property.

And but in is based upon what I'm hearing tonight, a lot of this stuff won't be developed for many, many of 2031, I think is the deadline, but so quite a ways out.

And by that time, we'll have our new map in place.

Um, as far as what options, because not every land is going to have uh single zone anymore.

It's gonna have a multiple choices that the developer can choose and go to planning department, say, hey guy, I'd like to change the zone from N2 or NX1 to you know N3 or NX or S or say me N1 or maybe to the um NX One could go to N2 or N3.

Now you would have to approve that, but wouldn't have to come back to City Council.

And so is so when we're approving uh land zoning for the future like this, and today um I'm assuming they're probably I don't know if this developer is planning on building the whole thing out, or if they're only going to build the residential portion uh the end two, and then try and sell off the the high density to let someone else who's more specialized, because sometimes developers are more specialized than others.

And so when they do that, then that developer buys that land, they're gonna come to you and say, hey, listen, I don't like the annex one, I want to do annex two, which is much higher density.

And so when we are approving this, because we've got these numbers of density per acre that were kind of approving for this whole thing.

Is there anything in that we do as far as uh tie this land to a density factor that can't be changed by administration uh appeal when they want to change and up the zoning?

Councilmember Nees and Mayor and Council, um, I'll probably defer to Gina a little bit here.

But my understanding is that if you approve this tonight, if this gets annexed with a phased annexation and it gets zoned with a zoning master plan with the first portion coming in the city and being zoned, even though it you would it would come back to you for the second portion to have the resolution for the annexation or excuse me, the resolution for the zoning to be determined, we would be working off what this master plan.

We would not if if someone came in and decided and wanted to do something different, we would have to go back to these documents first and say, wait, uh is that even can you even do that?

Which I'm not sure you could, because we would be following what has been agreed to here.

So I don't think part of what your scenario was of, you know, oh, it changes and they come in later with something else.

We would have to go to these documents and what was approved and what's on the docket basically based on this, and we wouldn't be able to, yeah, we wouldn't be able to just go to a different version.

So that multiple options that they could choose from on the zoning map that we're building now would not impact the single zone use now.

The it wouldn't impact the the zonings, the three zonings or four, I guess, that are proposed here that yeah, correct, because we're following what has been approved and adopted here.

Great, thank you.

So why it's just to clarify that what you're saying is both parties are bound by this master plan zoning master plan in the future.

That is my understanding, yeah.

And that's how we're we're carrying the other the other ones that have gone this same route, yes.

Okay.

Uh I guess Councilmember Boyette, right?

I didn't recognize anybody else, right?

Council Member Boyet.

So uh Wyatt, I'd asked you earlier if we could change the zoning and you said no, which I understand.

But in this case, there's five different zoning areas.

Can we do we have the ability as the council to say no?

I like the the five of them, but I just want to move them around a little bit to different locations on the same property.

Yes, sir.

I mean, that's just for the sense of everybody.

Well, so councilmember Boyette and Mayor and Council, no, I again don't think that that could be done tonight in the middle of the yeah, with what's been proposed.

I just wanted to make sure of that.

Uh Councilmember Rups is had you did you have your hand up earlier?

Did I okay?

Okay, further uh uh councilmember Owen.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Wyatt, I have a couple of questions regarding the sort of analysis we were provided in the staff memo.

I think um I've I've seen some comments, um, some some of the public comments that have come in expressing concern that um folks in this development might be using nearby private parks.

Can you talk a little bit about whether or not staff looked at that and the nature of those concerns and uh council member Owen and Mayor and Council um no, I we we didn't look into specifically, I guess, usage of parks and other developments um and actually defining determining which ones there are public parks, there are private parks with public easements that allow public access.

So we would have to drill into that and find out the conditions in any adjacent subdivision about what's actually allowed.

Okay, so we don't know as we sit here right now whether there are private parks, whether the parks that exist, even if privately supported have public access rights, we don't have any of that information from us.

No, not at this time.

I couldn't tell you the details on each of those.

Okay.

Um how you know we we always cite our very our our pretty outdated growth plan and our very outdated neighborhood plans, but there is a West End neighborhood plan under development.

How does this fit into what you've seen in the drafts of the West End neighborhood plan?

Uh, Councilmember Owen and Mayor and Council.

Um, given that what we're seeing out here and the transition of city to county, which is obviously a big stressor that we're gonna continue to have for years to come.

Um, but with what we see both in the current plan and what's being looked at for the future, I would say that this type of development in this location um is in alignment with the those expectations overall.

I mean, you're talking about in this case, um, in this location along central, obviously the commercial having some commercial um on the frontage of central, which is in alignment currently with with what we look at in terms of areas where you have services for neighborhoods, et cetera.

But also when you're talking about um basically two family attached units, duplexes for the most part, and some fourplexes in a couple of areas.

Um, that actually, yeah, is is actually in my estimation.

I mean, you're you're kind of on the lower end of some of the residential development expectations that we'll see in different parts of the the community, but in terms of how that fits in with what's there now and all in the county adjacent, yeah, it's it fits in pretty well.

Okay.

So one of the things um we sort of dance around this a lot when we talk about development in this part of town, but we don't squarely hit it.

And I think we need to squarely hit it given um that we're almost to the end of the year, is the current analysis underway of the aquifer in this part of town, the work that the Bureau of Mines and DEQ is doing.

We don't talk about that here.

Um in fact, we never talk about it when we talk about development on this end of town, but I know you're following it.

I I I would like an update.

I would like to know how it factors into your analysis, how you would recommend we as council think about that.

So briefly uh tonight, Councilmember Owen and Mayor and Council, uh, you're correct.

We are um waiting and also trying to, I guess, provide well, not I guess, to provide more information to the Bureau of Mines.

They're close to having their model complete.

We um had a meeting actually just a few weeks ago with them, um, and they weren't as far along as we actually thought they were, uh, but they did ask us for more information regarding development activity in this area uh in the county and the city.

So we're sharing more of that with them.

Our anticipated my my plan with that was, and I thought we were closer to it, honestly, you know, but we'll get there, was to have um at when we do have that model and we do have all their results complete uh to do a joint meeting with city council, county commissioners, and planning board literally to go through the whole thing because that's really the best way to have everyone hear it, understand, ask questions because yeah, I think ultimately there's gonna be um impacts in the future.

DNRC is a big player in this too, uh, because they're reviewing county developments right now.

So I we're we're hoping, and I and I don't want to say exactly because we thought we were closer, um, but I think we're hoping early 2026 we're gonna have that to share.

So I had thought we'd see it before the end of this year.

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

So I'm sorry, I didn't mean to call you.

I I agree.

Okay.

Do you at this point anticipate the potential of a development moratorium on the West End.

Councilmember Owen and Mayor and Council, I I don't know.

Um, I I think it's gonna be um that's where we've got to see how that information is gonna be used by like the state uh to do, especially the county development.

We we know that nitrogen levels are going up, which is an which affects the septic flight permitting.

We know some of the wells are going down, which affects the water.

So I think there's a lot of things going on there, but I don't know at this point.

And we're as interested in anyone is how the state is gonna start to address it when they get that information.

But nothing in your conversations with the state so far has led you to have concerns about this development.

About the the development tonight we're talking about.

Um, no.

No, I mean not within the city on water and city water and sewer, no.

Okay.

Um and then mayor, I did I was hoping to get a follow-up from Mac on what's in the CIP if he's had a chance to look, because I'd like to understand what um the potential source of the funding is for that project and how we might be able to move it up if necessary.

If we're going to dump a bunch of traffic onto Central, I'd like to understand our capacity to move that out your project up.

Um sure.

Uh council member Owen, uh, great question.

Uh Debbie and I just looked that is in our our sort of long-term list of potential projects.

Uh it's obviously not in the five-year plan.

Right.

Uh the way we would advance that would be similar to what we do with all the other projects that are in the CIP, and that's that uh multi uh we have we have a tool, it's called MODA acronym slipping me right now, but we look at all sorts of things like safety traffic.

There, there's 10 or 15 different elements, and we rank those.

Uh obviously, if some of the elements on central start to elevate themselves, we would we would do that like another project and and uh prioritize those.

I I guess Mac, what I'm specifically trying to understand is what's the potential source of funding and what might have to be the trade-offs if we were to put that in the five-year window.

Oh, in the in the current five-year plan.

Correct.

Um, you we would simply have to I I guess is it a gas tax project?

Is it a probably a gas tax primarily?

Thanks.

Hey, Mac, well, we've got you on that topic.

Um legally, we can only tag the developer for their roughly proportional costs in contributing to traffic problems, for example.

Um, once they're part of our community and and as part of the subdivision process, for example.

However, we can tag them for whatever we want to as part of the annexation process.

If they don't want to come into our party, we they don't have to, and we don't have to accept them, we don't have to annex them.

So my question is for you, as part of annexation, is there any condition that we might want to add um as a condition of annexation that would be really important to make this project work for the community?

Um, and that we'd be willing to let the developer walk away if they didn't contribute to that degree.

And here I'm thinking finishing off uh broadwater uh as more than a half street.

Personally, I'm not I don't have anything in mind.

I I I'm not advocating for that.

Um, but I just want to raise the question as a reminder, kind of the council that we have an opportunity with annexation that we will not have later uh with um subdivision process when we are limited by that rule of rough proportionality.

Um we're still in the annexation world.

So is there anything that we should be asking of this developer as a condition to annexation?

That we're that we're not currently.

Yeah, May Mayor, I I think we did a based on the traffic analysis, I think we did a pretty thorough analysis and and looking at the there's very various turn lanes and contribution to the signal.

I'd I I would have to start to reach pretty um, I don't I would have to have a lot of basis for starting to reach more than what we have uh currently.

Okay, I just so I think in summary uh no.

If you were anxious to get something, I'd I was gonna say speak now or forever hold your peace.

So uh okay, other questions for Mac, and then we'll try to move to uh we'll give the uh uh developer their age an opportunity to comment on anything they've heard, and we'll move to uh public hearing.

So Councilmember Kennedy.

I'm glad you uh brought up Mayor, the condition for annexation.

Can we have a condition for annexation that they would have to remove the annex one in the north section of this property?

Can we have that as a condition for uh I don't know if it's you, Wyeth or if it's Gina?

Um it's gonna mostly be Gina.

Uh, but I would I would say no, you cannot do that because it's zoning and we're that's not within any purview of the annexation, but I but I'll defer to Gina.

The the real reason I ask that is because if you zone it this way, and you know, we've talked about the roadway, we've talked about all of that, but if you annex it with this in there, and it only is half bills, and someone acquires that property later, they can put in to the NX One right away.

So I have a concern on that.

And so that's why I'm asking as a condition for annexation.

Can we remove that?

Councilmember Kennedy, mayor and council.

Um I would certainly like to look at that issue closer, but it is my um I again don't like to give legal opinions on the fly, but um it is my initial reaction that given that that is their request that's part of their application, that you could not remove that um as part of annexation.

I mean, I mean, you could it's annexation is within your discretion.

So if you do not like the application, you don't want to annex this property, council does not have to do that.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, very good.

Um we've had uh good back and forth here.

Uh the developer just is present and or the developer's agent.

Uh Taylor, you've heard some comments, so I just want to give you an opportunity to make whatever presentation uh you want and also comment on anything you've heard before we open up for public hearing.

Definitely.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Um obviously there's been quite a bit of discussion, so I'll try to hit on the majority of the points and and comments that have been made.

Um, but be happy to answer any questions after we get through it.

I guess just based on recency and and council member Kennedy's comment.

So the NX1 is proposed both at the north end of the development adjacent to Broadwater, as well as just north of the commercial uses on the south side.

Um from a planning perspective, and going back to one of the slides that Karen had in 10 years, 15 years, we we don't know when, but Broadwater is eventually going to be connected through over to Shiloh Road.

When that happens from 48th to Shiloh Road, Broadwater is gonna be a very busy thoroughfare.

Um so it wasn't happen chance that we selected NX One to be placed there along Broadwater Avenue.

It is gonna be a busy road, and from a planning perspective, it makes most sense to have a higher, and I don't want to say high density housing because it's one to four dwelling units, zone district adjacent to a collector roadway like that.

Um just to give a little background on why that zone district is placed there.

Um further to that, we are following the PND process for this.

As part of that process, you can only have one zone district go up to 88% of the overarching plan.

If you were to remove that NX1 zone district, the N2 would exceed 88% of the overarching plan.

With the point there being that the vast majority of this zoning application is N2.

It's a single family zone district that allows for up to duplexes.

Um district proposed within the city, the state right now, would allow for duplexes.

Um I realize that you know, adjacent to this development, there's County N4, County R1, County R3, a lot of single family zone districts that are being that have single family homes on them.

With that being said, all of those zone districts could also have duplexes on them right now per state law.

Um so we have proposed N2.

Um with the understanding and the and the desire to be transparent with what we are planning with this development.

We could have selected N3, N1, other city zone districts that only allow for single family houses.

But our client and and their intent with this development is to build duplex living units.

Um as was noted on a couple of the slides, the anticipated density with this development is about seven and a half units per acre.

Um at that rate, it is actually lower than what the 2016 growth policy calls for in this area.

In the 2016 growth policy, it calls for this area to be medium density housing, which would be nine dwelling units per acre.

Um which, you know, we we want to we prepare this to fall in line with the growth policy as well as the West Billing neighborhood plan, which is being prepared, um, which also points to this style or that this type of zone district being put in this location.

Um in terms of you know this property in particular, and you know, the our our client, this property has been on the market for two and a half years.

Um I realize that there are other single family home developers that you know potential neighbors or or members of the public would prefer to see develop this piece of ground.

It has been on the the market for two and a half years, and nobody has been able to make a pencil out with single family homes.

Um that goes to not just the cost of housing right now, but also the cost of services when you're pulling city services, city water, city sewer, city storm through a development.

It does not pencil out and be an affordable housing option for people that would be looking to purchase those homes.

Um to the to that point, the city has already made a significant investment in serving this area and ensuring that it is brought into the city.

Um last summer waterline was extended down Central Avenue to serve Clearwater and 44th Street, which is a very similar zone zoning plan on the south side of Central.

Two years ago, sewer was extended out Monad Drain and up through Clearwater and 44th.

This will be a continuation of that investment that the city has made.

Um pulling 24-inch water line up the middle of the property with the intent that in the future that would connect to Grand Avenue and loop the city's water supply.

Um in terms of when it uh mayor cole is in terms of the proportionality.

I appreciate that um there weren't any additional items added on as far as proportionality.

I think um it would be unfair to a single developer when you've got other developments that just got annexed in to the south to the southeast, um, that would not have had unproportional requirements put on them, and then the next person just to the north does have that.

So appreciate the consideration, but also appreciate um a fair fair discussion amongst developments.

Um I would like to note that N2 has a height requirement or a height uh maximum height allowance of 27 feet, which is two stories.

Our client and the developer of this does typically build single-story residential units.

Um has no intention of building two two-store units in this development.

With that, I would be open for any questions and would just leave it with.

We do feel that this is the highest and best use of this land.

Very much uh questions, uh Councilmember uh Boya, Council Member Rupsis.

Um, I noticed you have two um NX ones, one on the north and one on the south, which is to give you the percentage.

Could you not take the north and put it with the south?

And that way you'd still have the same amount, and that would guarantee that only duplexes would be built on the north side.

Just a question.

Yep.

Yeah, and I would just go back to you know, thinking of this in 10, 15, 20 years.

Broadwater is eventually going to connect through to Shiloh.

Um right now, the only people that would be using this section of Broadwater would be this development as well as Sundance.

But into the future, Broadwater will be a busy street.

And while I understand the sentiment of um not desiring four plexus instead of duplexes in that area, the intent is to build duplexes there.

Um the only trouble is we don't know that five years from now.

That's the main concern.

Yeah, and I guess I would just lean on the the maximum that would be there as a four-plex.

This is we're not we're not proposing or considering NX2, which would be an eightplex, NX3, which would be a much higher density residential zone district.

Um we we have tried to be cognizant of the surroundings, whether whether you know that's um agreed with or not.

We have tried to be cognizant as you could see from the slide that showed the densities of different developments around here.

Um, we're we're proposing a density that's actually less than the growth policy.

Um it is higher than the adjacent developments and properties.

However, I would just say that those are county properties which tend to have a much different development pattern than a city property would, which goes to the interface of the city and the county, as we as Wyatt alluded to as the city grows, um, there will be more and more instances where there's um connection between county and city properties.

Would you be would you agree though?

What could could you think about moving having N2 up there instead of the NX one?

We definitely could.

I I'd be curious as to what the formal process of that would need to be.

Um but that would also go to dropping us below or above 88% for that.

Yeah, and staff can talk about the process, but I assume it would be withdrawing the current uh proposal and amending it.

And I don't know how far back in the process you've got to go with new meetings, but uh uh Wyatt, could you comment?

the the formal process of that would need to be um but that would also go to dropping us below or above 88 percent for that yeah and and staff can talk about the process but I assume it would mean withdrawing the current uh proposal and amending it and I don't know how far back in the process you've got to go with new meetings but uh uh why could you comment that was a question what that process would look like to make a change that kind of change or any change on mayor and council and I'll defer to um Karen or Hannah make sure I'm on track but if yes I think you the last part of what you said so to change it as you're describing you would the applicant and the owner um would have to go back and basically start over again um you you would I guess yeah I don't know how far you to get into this right now I they would they would need to go back and and start with a new application new request and and go through the process if you're gonna change it so again kind of what I said earlier that's still the situation if you're gonna start changing where zonings are and adjusting districts and such and I guess given if I mayor and counsel to that to that point our client and developer intends to start construction on this next year.

This process takes two and a half three months at a minimum which would really delay that ability to start next year if we don't even know if we would be annexed until March.

So given that I would refrain from desiring to change that.

Jasper Ripsis thank you uh Taylor just to um I had heard that these are going to the the developer is the developer of the happy homes complexes and it's going to be this complex is going to be essentially just like what's down off uh Shiloh by Costco now is that an accurate representation on what they're who that is and what they're planning on to build it would be a fairly similar representation yeah.

Right.

And why the I know we have a um prohibition against N1 N2 N3 on our Terials but that wouldn't count as the Broadwater here would be a collector right council member Rips is Sam Aaron Council correct yeah the yeah it doesn't that's not the same criteria prohibition it's just that as Mr Kaspernik mentioned earlier I mean Broadwater as a collector getting is going to be busier and so that's the reason part of the reason.

Thank you.

Uh Taylor if I can ask you a question and then make a comment the the question I guess is you don't have a crystal ball we know that but um if this NX2 um or I'm sorry the NX one continues on that north strip when would might you actually build that out you I know you would want to start the project next year but that's phase one this is in phase two you can't give us a date obviously but the circumstances would be when broadwater is built out and is busy is that I I'm I'm thinking it might be many years down the line.

Yeah yeah I mean obviously in the annexation agreement we've got 2031 lined out for phase two um a lot of that would be market dependent I would say but typically our our client is building a project a year um you know potentially a project or two a year this is not the only property that they have so typically they're moving from one portion of town to another back to that portion of town.

So I think the 2030 2031 time frame is a reasonable estimation as far as when that would be okay um and then the comment is the developer constructed the uh buildings at the bottom of Shiloh below the shelf across from the zoo or north of the zoo and across from Costco also the basketball uh themed um uh units uh south of King Avenue at about 44th uh my comment is in my opinion those are aesthetically lacking um and uh you're not an architect you're not the developer you're not even a painter um but uh I would ask that if this thing does go through that uh the the the message be communicated that there's value to variety even if you they have to be consistency to save money is there some way to make them look uh uh more individualized than what they do now which is reminiscent of Soviet Russia in my opinion but um so uh uh but I'm getting into the merits and we haven't any public comments so why I didn't need to do that you can comment if on anything else and we'll see if there's any other question or I'm sorry it didn't even move look left uh uh council re uh niece councilmember Rowan thank you may um do you know if the developer plans on building all the different phases and all the different types of property the CMU one the NX one I mean it or is he planning on selling those properties off to someone else to develop thank you Councilmember Nees so the the developer would most likely be building all of the residential aspects himself um the commercial units he doesn't necessarily have any um distinct plans for at this point he has talked about potentially building a gym uh fitness facility on on a portion of that that would largely serve you know both his development or the or the residential to the north as well as the community um but that's kind of pie in the sky at this point.

He has talked about potentially building a gym uh fitness facility on on a portion of that that would largely serve you know both his development or the or the residential to the north as well as the community.

Um but that's kind of pie in the sky at this point.

So thank you.

And I would just note, I mean, back to the aesthetic standpoint.

I I realize that um you know, our our client has found a very particular niche in in what they build.

Um that that is balanced with trying to keep those units affordable for residents of buildings.

They're not gonna have granite finishes, they're not gonna have Roseville fixtures.

We are they are in the in the business of providing quality housing for their tenants at a reasonable price.

So I would just add that.

Um to the previous statement.

Taylor, you had the neighborhood meeting about two months ago, yeah?

Correct.

In that time, what have you done to address the neighborhood concerns?

You've heard them.

I don't think there's been anything sort of late breaking, because they're certainly consistent with what I've seen over the last what efforts have been made to try to alleviate neighborhood concerns, respond to them, help folks understand.

Tell me what's had transpired between September and tonight.

Yeah, so I mean, um obviously as we get comments filtering in to ourselves, trying to respond to those, keep everybody informed as far as what the process is.

Um when they can show up, have their voices be heard, attended the West End task force meeting last Tuesday, um, presented on it.

I think there was only one uh resident from from the surrounding neighborhoods that attended that.

Um really just trying to provide the information that we have for this.

Okay, I just want to follow up.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I specifically asked if you'd made any changes to address neighborhood concerns.

Have there been any changes between the neighborhood meeting based on the concerns you heard that night and what we're looking at right now?

We have not.

Okay.

Uh no, and I would I would say I mean, I understand the the concerns and the requests of the adjacent neighbors, but I think you know uh Commissioner Brooks at the zoning commission said it best I can understand and sympathize with the with the neighbors and comments that are being made, but as far as looking at you know, growth of the city and applications like this, there's a lot of people that are in the city that are not at this meeting that would agree with or view this application as being great.

So um, or directly in line with the growth policy, directly in line with the West Buildings neighborhood plan that the community as a whole are providing feedback to.

So thanks.

Okay, very good.

Uh we'll open up for public uh if there's before we do that, uh last thought.

I was just gonna ask, could we take a quick break?

It's after 7 30.

I'm just anticipating there's gonna be a lot of public comments.

Yeah, I I had I'd lost track of time once when you're having fun.

You know, it's just so we normally take a break at 7 30.

So let's do that.

We'll take a break, we'll come back, we'll have public uh uh comment, and then we'll kick it back to council.

So um it's uh seven forty-eight.

We'll be back uh uh at uh seven fifty-five.

Start at seven fifty-five,

Okay, we'll uh uh reconvene here.

Uh we'll I'll lay out some uh preliminaries, and uh with that I think that'll probably give uh council member Denise time to uh uh join us again.

I want to make sure that he's present before we hear any uh uh public comment.

So um this is then uh public hearing, and so we'll open it up in just a minute to uh uh for members of the public to comment as they feel fit.

Um ground rules.

One is uh time limits.

You'll see a timer on the screen, a countdown.

We just asked that you keep your comments two, three minutes and tell us your name and address.

Um also I'd ask the crowd to refrain from clapping and uh uh verbal expressions just because once that starts, we really it's very difficult to control.

It's just not fair, it takes away from the fairness of the uh event.

And also, I just wanted to thank everybody for your willingness to come out tonight.

And uh, if this is your first time seeing the new Billings uh City Hall, welcome uh to that as well.

So um with that, uh, this is a public hearing.

Um often what happens when we have a lot of people in attendance, uh, comments become redundant.

So we just ask that uh if someone has already said something uh and you want to weigh in, just sort of make it very quick or say I agree with so and so.

If there are also representatives of the group, you might want to have them up first.

So we can be sure to get the the broadest uh uh set of input and then save some of the later comments later.

And also, if somebody wants to have a little poll and ask uh for people to raise their hands, you know, who's in opposition, who's in favor, um, feel free to do that as well as a way to have uh broader input.

So um, why don't we start?

And again, uh, let's make a little line so there's not a delay as we wait for people to uh come forward.

Um, that way we also can tell how many people are ready to make comments.

So please, Susan.

Good evening.

I'm Susan Sullivan.

I have lived in the Clover Leaf Meadows subdivision for thirty three years.

And I'm here to add a new component to home market valuation.

So tonight we have heard many, many uncertainties.

I've heard the word I think.

I've heard the word to my understanding.

I've heard we're in preliminary discussions.

So on and so forth.

Nothing affects market home valuations more than market uncertainty.

And council members, we have produced market uncertainty tonight.

I brought along with me my property tax bill.

My property taxes are just under 14,000 dollars.67% from last year.

So of market uncertainty, which we have created tonight, not only in the 49 homes in Cloverleaf.

If my property taxes went up 25%, can they come down 25%?

You take that number and you multiply it by the 49 homes in Clover Leaf.

Go to the north.

There's 50 homes there.

There's a hundred homes there.

Go to the West.

There's 80 homes for sure.

There's a hundred homes.

There's 200 homes.

If you can knock my property value down by 25%, and you take that number and you multiply it by a thousand homes, because you've just produced market home price uncertainty.

Take your calculators out.

If you have a I'm just using an example.

A thousand homes that are affected by this market uncertainty on the West E.

And let's say those homes drop by a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars.

That number is one hundred and twenty five million dollars of lost valuation that you've created.

Do you think this property that's be going to be annexed, or you're talking about, is going to produce a hundred and twenty-five million dollars.

Look what you look what you've lost in property valuations, what you've lost in entities.

My my little property real estate tax.

There's 39 entities that are affected here.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next.

Hello, Mayor and the Council people.

Uh Steve Zibawa, 810 Bluegrass Place.

Oh, you go.

Uh 810 Bluegrass Place.

Uh thank you, Mayor and uh Council people.

Uh in my opinion, this is uh just a jam session.

Someone's come with a very high offer on a piece of property from out of state investors that are going to be buying the paper on this deal when all the rental units are filled up in here, and they're trying to uh run a deal through that does not make any sense because if you go to the west, the density is very low.

If you even lower if you go to the north.

And then if you the only thing that came in this uh appraisal that they basically came out with to somehow justify this high density deal is to take units that are basically emptying out on King Avenue, and uh what stocks got his homes on over there is uh three-story high rise and so forth, and that's what they're trying to throw into this one.

Well, if you go around this neighborhood of this 50 acres, there's nothing like this next to it.

Nothing.

You're you're putting in a very high density, happy home.

The only person I think is going to be happy on this program based on the discussion at the first meeting that we went to and the second meeting is Ken Conkle and the and the barbers.

They are trying to jam a deal.

It doesn't make sense at this piece of location.

I'd love the idea of having more affordable housing, but it's not, it's it's gonna affect how the whole thing gets affected, like my wife was just mentioning.

So uh, you know, that when the they built the Costco deal, there are no million dollar homes or half a million dollar homes anywhere close to that.

It's all empty land around there.

So they picked out a good piece of property, they put it in there, and that's it makes a lot of sense.

And it works.

They built it behind Montana Sapphire, same exact thing.

There were nothing there except for commercial properties.

They empty out on four lane roads with good cul-de-sacks or and roundabouts and so forth, nothing like what we're talking about here.

Everything you talk about on Broadwater, there's nothing ready to go on Broadwaters, nothing on 44th, there's nothing on 46, there's nothing on central, there's nothing on 48th, there's nothing but a lot of traffic, and you're gonna empty out, you know, if you have 350, 450 residencies times uh, say three cars per resident, you know, as far as in each one of those duplexes, add up the car traffic.

It's anywhere from 700 to 1,000 more vehicles emptying out, running here, running there, going to whatever.

So I I really think that's a problem.

There's a simple solution here.

There's developers that want this property, but they want it like with an N4, which is more compatible for this particular piece of property.

This is not compatible.

That's uh kind of the key secret.

It's it's very disingenuous as far as how they calculated that this is just an average like seven is gonna be good when everything around it is like one home per acre, two homes per acre, maybe three homes per acre, maybe four.

But anyway, uh, so you get the picture.

So I'm in favor of not approving this, and uh, I think they need to go back to the drawing board and actually talk to the neighbors.

Very good.

Thank you.

Come to terms.

Hello, my name is Kelsey Ryder.

I live at 1135 Bluegrass Drive East, and we are here to collectively represent um the mothers and children of the neighborhood.

So I'm going to read a statement.

Members of the city council, thank you for your time and consideration in hearing our thoughts tonight.

We are here to express our objection to the proposed zoning plan number one zero seven four.

We stand tonight as mothers and children to show and argue this proposed zoning change affects not only our children, but our children's children.

We stand tonight to represent other voices that need to be seen and heard.

Zone change 1074 does not comply with billing zone change criteria, specifically section eight, which states does the new zoning consider the character of the district and the peculiar sustainability of the property for the particular uses.

The neighborhoods surrounding the proposed area to be developed are all single family neighborhoods.

The proposed zone change would not match the character of the surrounding district.

While we are not against development, in fact, quite the opposite, we embrace and are welcome change.

However, we are for thoughtful and planned change, not haphazard planning.

The two areas that have potential for current um concerns specific to our current stage in life, as we see them, include the following.

Number one, an increase in the number of vehicles potentially using the surrounding neighborhoods as thoroughfares, and two, school issues.

As for the first item, an increase in number of vehicles.

The roads surrounding the proposed development do not offer the infrastructure to support an increase in traffic demand.

The Department of Motor Vehicles for the state of Montana states the average household in Yellowstone County owns 1.8 cars.

At the minimum, the provo proposed zone change states that there will be 350 units.

This means at minimum, there will be an additional 630 cars within our direct vicinity.

This is the minimum number.

Where are all these children going to attend school?

This isn't to mention the current maintenance needed to so desperately in our already existing schools.

As is as is exhibited by our daughter using a restroom with a shower curtain for a door stall.

These are just a few of our concerns if this change if this zones change occurs.

We stand with our neighbors and support the other concerns that they have addressed tonight.

We ask, why not zone this area for a desperately needed elementary school?

If not at the very least, why not zone it for no multiple family housing than duceplexes?

Again, we are not against change or development.

We just want the development to consider the character of the surrounding areas.

Thank you so much for your consideration.

Very good.

Thank you.

Um, Katie Stanley, I'm at 1150 Bluegrass Drive West.

Um I am echoing a lot of what Kelsey mentioned.

Um, but I did just want to let I mean I've been here for almost three hours with these kids, and I am their advocate.

And I need to let you guys know that this development is going to affect them.

That's why I made them sit here for three hours, and they're gonna go home right after this and get in bed.

Um, this is this is important.

And um, I I really I do appreciate the opportunity that we have to talk to you guys.

Um I we moved to Cloverleaf just this spring, and it's been great.

The kids are riding their bikes around, they go to the neighborhood, then the neighbors, they go to the park, they are they're all over that road.

Um, but with that increased traffic, I am truly concerned.

This guy right here, I'm saying don't go in the road, even now.

He just does it.

You know, it's it's difficult, and I'm very concerned that he's going to run out.

He's gonna ride his bike out there, and there's gonna be that much many that many more cars coming through.

Um, and then in addition to that, these two are at Metal Arc Elementary, just had parent-teacher conference with her teacher um yesterday, or no, on Friday.

She was telling me she's maxed out.

Her, there's four fourth grade classes, and she is at, she's her classroom is maxed out.

How are these uh additional children?

Where are these additional children gonna go?

And it it's hard to see that many more.

I mean, I I love that we're growing, but we need to be able to to support that.

Um for these reasons.

I ask you to please deny the zone change 1074.

Um, I do respect that we need to things are gonna change and things are gonna develop, but I would just ask that we think about these things, how they're gonna affect what currently, and if we can do them not haphazardly, really thoughtfully.

Um, and I just appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you for your patience.

Next.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor and City Council for listening to me.

Um, I'm not very comfortable doing this, but I'm here.

Um, I'd like to mention that uh looking over the paperwork that I was able to obtain online.

I noticed that Sundance has 2.2 families per acre, and the proposed unit is going to be six development is going to be 6.67 to 7.5 families per acre.

That's a three to one increase in population density.

Uh we already have a very dangerous street on Sun on Central at Sundance, where we go in and out of our HOA area at rush hours.

It's very bad.

Uh the stops, stop lights down on 48th are good, but the staging of traffic is just horrible between the two directions.

Uh, adding more to this area is really crazy, but it's development, it's the future.

I just would really like to see the density maintain something more similar to the housing that is there.

Um, I've been in this home for a little over a year.

Um I come from San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles, next to Northridge.

And the reason for moving here was my wife got the opportunity to change occupations, or not occupations, but to change locations.

And I retired recently, so why not?

My sister lives up here, and we're enjoying the wonders of Montana, and I've been coming here for years.

It's just grateful to be here now.

Um seeing this development scares me.

Um there's four plexus uh against our backyards.

Really like to avoid that.

Uh sorry, it's just just me.

Um, my other concern is uh what kind of businesses is it possible we can see a casino or other uh nightclubs coming on our uh strip in front?

Um I'd sure like to avoid that.

Um I noticed that the population density, they're saying it's it's low level, but it's because it's 8.1 housings per acre, is what they're proposing, and mid-level density is just at 8.5.

It's very close.

Uh it should be considered that in the consideration of the density of this area.

Um, we just don't have that.

We really don't want it.

Uh it affects our housing prices, um, it affects our quality of living, our quietness of neighborhoods, and the reason why we moved here.

And I'm speaking for most of the people I spoke to in our HUA.

We're we're just kind of shocked.

We'd much rather see something similar in density and drive forward.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Welcome to Billings.

Sure, I apologize.

Did we get your name?

Did Denise?

No, we didn't.

Good Willard Barry.

Willard Barry.

Thank you very much.

City Council members, Mayor Cole, friends, neighbors, good evening.

My name is Tony Gaffkey.

I'm a resident at 4602 Leahona Lane, Billings, Montana, 59106.

I'm here on behalf of Sundance Subdivision to express our opposition to Barber Farm Zoning Request 1074.

Our subdivision is united in this up in this position, and I'll keep my comments clear and concise.

In 2016, the City of Billings adopted its 10 growth guidelines.

Planning objectives meant to guide decisions like this one before us tonight.

In the materials we shared before this meeting, which I trust you were able to go through, and it was a very concise on point and counterpoint to the developer's uh proposal.

We outlined zoning request 1074 and how it conflicts with several of these guidelines.

For time today, I'll focus on just two critical objectives.

Objective seven, does the zoning promote compatible urban growth?

Objective eight, does the zoning respect the character of the surrounding district and the suitability of the property for its intended use?

In our view, both objectives show the current plan is incompatible.

Aerial maps, as we've seen show Barber Farms is bordered on three sides by established N3 and N4 neighborhoods, Clover Leaf Meadows, Sundance Subdivision, and Shiloh Estates.

Sundance borders directly to the west with 125 lots averaging about one-third of an acre.

By contrast, Barber Farms is proposed to include at least 350 rental units on a similar size parcel, nearly triple has been brought forward tonight, nearly triple the density of Sundance with even greater contrast to Clover Leaf and Shiloh Estates.

So takeaway is very clear, very clear to me, and I believe should be clear to this room.

As currently proposed, the Barber Farms would stand out as a high density rental island development.

Incompatible, incongruent, inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods.

It does not transition.

It does not blend.

It isolates itself in both form and density.

So we're not opposed to growth.

We understand this land will be developed.

Our request is that you, the city council, require performance engineering to create a plan that fits the area and enhances it.

One proposal, uh one proposed approach is N3 single family lots along the perimeter, transitioning inward to higher density into zoning.

This creates a natural, thoughtful progression, allowing the development to feel like a continuation of the community rather than a dense rental enclave next to an established owner-occupied homes.

This would be well received by Sundance and by Clover Leaf and Shiloh Estates.

Most importantly, it upholds the city's growth guidelines, promoting compatible urban growth and respecting the existing character of the area.

So in closing, I appreciate your time and careful consideration.

We hope the developer will collaborate to adjust the plan for a balanced and beneficial outcome.

If, however, the developer is unwilling to engage.

We respectfully urge the city council to deny Barber Farm zoning requests 1074 as currently proposed.

Thank you for your time and your service to our community.

Thank you.

And for your past correspondence.

And again, go ahead and make a little line there.

So you're ready to go.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Mayor and members of the council.

My name is John Wonder, W U N D E R.

I live at 925 Bluegrass Drive West in Cloverleaf Meadows.

I am here to request the billings city council to deny the proposed billing zone change 1074 involving the Barber Farm Tract.

My wife and I moved into Clover Leaf Meadows in 2002.

We've been there almost 24 years now.

Because of the nice houses on large one-acre plus tracks, safe neighborhood, quiet neighborhood.

It was then and still is today, a great place to raise a family.

And we and likely my wife and I, and likely many others in the neighborhood, we're going to be adversely affected if the zone change is going to be approved as submitted.

Contrary to what the billings or what the staff is stated tonight regarding the compatibility of this proposed uh zone change with the surrounding area.

It it's highly incompatible with the existing single-family homes as others have stated.

I think staff mentioned that in Clover Leaf Meadows where we live, the average dwelling density is point eight dwelling units per acre.

And so this proposed zoning is going to have 6.67 dwellings per acre.

How can that be compatible?

I mean, that's that's uh illogical.

And so um, as also mentioned previously, the proposed increase increased dwelling density, it's going to reduce home values, no doubt about it in the single phone family homes, both in cloverleaf and and the other surrounding subdivisions on single single families, it's going to hurt us all.

That is not in the public interest.

And so I did have concerns on the having access on Bluegrass Drive West to Broadwater, but it's my understanding, and at least there's no plans for it now.

I hope there never will be a plan because that park in the Clover Leaf Meadows Park that gets heavy usage by children and everybody else.

It would create a safety hazard.

Certainly would affect the uh public health safety and welfare.

So just to summarize, as you've seen from other testimony, it's blatantly obvious that the rezoning of the barber farm track as proposed is not in the overall public interest.

There is a need for more housing and billings, but rezoning the barber farm tract as proposed is totally inappropriate and should be denied.

I thank you very much for your consideration.

If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, members of the council, mayor, and um friends and neighbors.

My name is Brenda Larson.

My home is at 1145 Bluegrass Drive West in Cloverleaf Meadows.

Um, I am speaking in opposition to zone change application 1074.

Um, all of the homeowners, the 49 homeowners in Cloverleaf Meadows are opposed to this um zone change.

And I specifically wish to address criteria seven and eight, which require that zone changes promote compatible urban growth and respect the established character of the district.

Thoughtful zoning does not simply accommodate growth.

It ensures that new development integrates with and enhances existing neighborhoods.

It honors the history, scale, and community expectations that residents have invested in for decades, whether they're county or city residents.

The proposed rezoning would allow densities up to four dwellings per lot and mixed commercial uses immediately surrounding the site are well-established neighborhoods of low density single-family homes.

Approving the zone change would create an abrupt and incompatible transition that directly undermines both of these criteria.

We are opposed to growth that disregards the character of our community and overwhelms our schools, roads, and services.

We are opposed to developments that have no clear plans for traffic flow when arterials will be completed.

Lots of maybes, ifs, and sometime in the future.

In 2023, the state mandated that cities like Billings allow duplexes in every neighborhood previously reserved for single family homes, effectively eliminating true single family zoning.

And we were shocked that this is a new reality.

And then on October 1st of this year, the state went further and stripped billing citizens of our longstanding right to protest rezonings by petition.

State laws may have taken away our petitions, but it cannot take away our expectation that local leaders will still listen.

We are asking you, this council, to stand with your constituents and preserve what little control we have left regarding the character and live the livability of the neighborhoods we love.

Therefore, we we respectfully urge the council to consider the potential impacts of this zone change carefully and to ultimately deny zone change application 1074.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Um mayor and council.

I um don't have much to add, otherwise, I'm a representative of Twin Pines development.

My name is Randy Speer.

I uh live at 4220 Limber Pine Lane.

And as a representative, we are opposed to this um uh 10 uh 74.

It is incompatible, as you've heard.

Uh if any of you have actually driven out there during rush hour, I don't know about staff or council members or you, mayor.

It's terrible.

And to dump another 300, 400, 500 cars on Central, which is actually the only road that it's gonna access to.

Uh basically uh you're you're really creating a safety problem.

So again, I do agree with everything that's been said.

I would like to pull this audience who's actually in favor of this.

Amazing.

Who is opposed?

You are the representative of this group.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Um my name is Roger Aldinger.

I'm the representative Aldinger Acres subdivision, which I developed some some years ago when 48th Street was still a gravel street.

I sent most of most of you, or if not all of you, an email, so you got most of the history there.

But I guess I just want to agree with the people who've spoken and say the only way that I can see that this is compatible with the area surrounding it, is if you totally ignore the six subdivisions that are surrounding it.

Six subdivisions.

Most of the people from my subdivision did not come.

There are a few here.

But what good is it due to protest?

So they didn't come.

I hate to say I hated to see that attitude, but that's the way it is.

Um I'm just um uh just expressing again 33 homeowners in my subdivision, 49 in clover leaf, so you're at 80, and that doesn't include the other four subdivisions that are adjacent to those.

And so the only way you can get to this compatibility is if you look at what is being developed across the north side of central.

That may be compatible, but there is a boundary between the two, which is the street central.

So um, so that the compatibility is a big issue.

Um traffic is another.

I'm looking at we were told by the engineer at the initial meeting that there could be up to 400 units.

Well, 400 units, two cars or two vehicles per unit, that's 800, in addition to what we already have, which is a problem.

And that doesn't include what is coming in from the new subdivision on the opposite side of the street, nor does it include what is proposed down the road when the when a new school is built.

So anyway, those are just some concerns along with the safety and the high traffic, move moving the traffic, but the the compatibility aesthetically is my biggest concern.

Not opposed to duplexes.

I own some, but I am opposed to um all look alike.

Let's get some some aesthetic value in there, and then I'm okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello.

My name is Dean Kyle.

I live at 4627 Sunburst Lane.

And uh I am opposed to the Barber Farms Zone Change proposal 1074.

I believe it's inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods.

I also believe that Central Avenue is a natural barrier, and we should not be considering anything south of Central Avenue 44 or Twin Pines.

And it should only be considered uh just the properties that surround the property in question.

And uh so I'm asking that tonight that uh that the uh property should be denied.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor Cole and Council members.

My name, ooh, I'm short.

I'm sorry.

Um Mayor Cole Council members.

My name is Elise Hable.

My husband and I reside at 314 Lightstream Lane.

He and I both work nonprofit jobs and pulled together every dime we have for a home, and we're very proud of it.

I'd like to address a few comments that have been made both in this meeting and in the previous zoning meeting.

The first that I'd like to address is the uh the development that was brought up to the south of Central.

We acknowledge that development to be owned by McCall Homes.

This poses a different character character display as opposed to the happy homes.

Sorry.

Um, we're all familiar with the McCall development.

We're familiar with the curb appeal and their desire to connect the community.

That is why that development might bring a little bit more uh curb appeal and connectedness than the proposed happy note similar development to the happy homes.

I'd also like to address that the traffic study that has been that has been conducted does not account for the uh for the population that will be residing at the McCall development to the south of Central.

Those results will still have to wait until that development has been fully inhibited.

I would also just like to finish by saying by addressing a comment that the while we concerned neighbors are here tonight, the rest of Billings is not here.

Um I would just like to ask that the council acknowledges these neighbors and their um willingness and excitement to come out before you tonight um on behalf of our the homes that we're proud to own.

And I really also just want to take a moment to thank you for um asking very thoughtful questions tonight and um listening to those that have come before you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Ryan Katcher.

I reside at 4630 South Woodhaven Way.

Uh, and I want to reiterate what was just said uh and express gratitude to you for being thoughtful and asking tough questions to the developers and their representatives.

Uh, like everyone in this uh audience here, I oppose the development as it is currently proposed.

Um, this is my first city council meeting.

I'll be brief.

Uh, I came here with an open mind.

Uh, we love buildings, we love where we live, we love the area.

We love seeing the open spaces in the open fields, and we recognize that it is inevitable that they will be developed.

So I came here with an open mind to watch and see what was proposed.

Uh, a little background.

I've spent the majority of my adult life as a law enforcement officer.

I know what it means, and I know what it feels like to sit on the stand as the developers did moments earlier, and be asked very difficult questions.

Uh, Representative Owen, you you did a great job with your questions.

They were direct, they were concise.

Um, and while I was watching them, my mind went back to being on the stand and having tough questions directed at me.

As a law enforcement officer, when I take the stand, I am proposing to change the future of somebody's life.

These developers are proposing to change the future of my life, of my neighbors' lives and the lives of all these people here who live in this area.

When you take that responsibility, you better be prepared to answer tough and direct questions.

You do not change other people's lives without taking into consideration all the facts, all the details, all the implications.

And before you do that, you better be prepared to have some answers.

I told you I came here with an open mind after watching the developers and their representatives squirm and equivocate and hem and haw and have ambiguous answers to try to shirk your good indirect questions.

I am deeply concerned.

And after a short time watching them, I oppose this development.

I oppose this proposal, and I hope that the developers will take more time and consideration before anything's approved and we move forward.

Thank you very much for your time.

I appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Next.

And again, go ahead and uh just to reduce the transition time.

Mayor, City Council, um, I just want to start out.

Well, I've got to give you my address and name.

Um, Carmen Kyle, 4627 Sunburst Lane.

And I just want to say thank you for your service, just to kind of change the direction a little bit.

And I do want to say that I did look at the 317-page packet that was given to all of you before all of your additions.

And I did review and read the section relating to the this specific request.

And it did cause me to have a question or two.

One question was what is the additional development that's gonna be coming before the city council within the next few months?

How does that affect and how is it tied to this particular zoning change request 1074?

I I don't know.

I don't know exactly what that means.

The other question that I have for the uh for the group is relating to parks.

Jennifer was nice enough to mention the parks.

And we have a very large, very nice park, and so does Cloverleaf.

And we pay for that with our HOA fees.

So what's gonna happen when in that section it said the city would not require the developer to put in any park?

They could put something in if they wanted to, but they're not required to.

So does that mean that we're gonna get overrun and we have to pay for the maintenance on that?

I I don't know.

Can you guys answer those questions for us?

Um, I am opposed to this change because I don't feel like it's to the benefit of our community.

I also feel like there's a lot of people who don't have an advocate here today.

Um, and I'm talking about the people who may be renting these units.

And specifically, um, no offense against the developer or anybody else, but I have done some reading and research online, and there's a lot of comments made from people in other subdivisions from the same developer that there were concerns because the homes are not built with proper insulation, and that the costs of heating and et cetera extremely high.

If we're really trying to do affordable housing, my heart is broken in the fact that I don't want somebody like my parents to come in and need to be here for medical or other purposes and find out that their heat bill is four times as much as it is for my house.

That breaks my heart.

And they're these people aren't here to talk for themselves.

So I'm trying to talk for them.

And I just appreciate again your time, your effort, and your great questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And speaking of questions, we won't answer those questions until everything is done, and we'll try to maybe come back to those.

We'll ask staff to do that, or I can do that as well.

So, but go ahead.

Thank you.

Uh, Mayor Cole and City Council.

My name is Steve Grosso.

My wife and I uh live at 925 Bluegrass Drive East, and we raised all our children in that home.

We've been here for 23 years.

Uh it's in Clover Leaf.

Sorry, is that better?

Um Karen's picture to the north was a public sign, uh, a notice about the uh potential zone change.

It was not a photo of the single family homes on the southern border of Cloverleaf.

It made it look like there was nothing to the north but a dry grass patch and a zone change sign.

Cloverleaf is actually to the north of where those uh photos were taken.

And so the engineer mentioned the skinny little right-of-way between the Yegan property and cloverleaf between Broadwater and Grand called the 44th Street West Expansion, and that borders between the Yegan property and the entire eastern border of Clover Leaf Meadows.

What are the implications to the residents whose backyards currently are adjacent to that property?

What will the traffic look like?

When Shiloh was developed, there are now sections of road interrupted by roundabouts, but those roundabouts serve purposes of controlling traffic, and in our observance, also the control of the racing that occurs along what we call the Shiloh Speedway.

Nightly, when there is not snow on the ground or hazardous rain, there are races between all those roundabouts, and you can hear them from our neighborhood, you can hear them beyond our neighborhood.

Is the 44th Street expansion gonna become Shiloh Speedway annex at my backyard?

Children play in these backyards.

Some of the backyards have fences, but some do not.

In order to be in compliance with the cloverleaf bylaws, these are to be PVC three-beam open fences.

But that doesn't provide sound and safety barriers against the high traffic that these backyards will now see.

Does the 44th Street expansion plan include sound and safety barriers to mitigate the risks of the increased traffic and racing that these cloverleaf eastern border backyards will see?

As I understand it, the answer is no, since the expansion does not have funding or plans for that.

If I heard that correctly this evening, the developers anticipated timeline of beginning the project should not mandate a permanent and irreversible premature decision by the city council.

So we respectively submit that you oppose the annexation and zone change 1074 as proposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next.

My husband and I together.

Um very proud of my children and of what they have accomplished.

I am a mother, I'm a wife, I'm a business owner here in town.

Um I'm very concerned with the zoning change 1074 because of the I guess I would say it does not match the other um subdivisions around it.

Sorry.

And because of the job that I have, I'm kind of a nerd and I like numbers, so I just did a quick little figure.

Your average in those four subdivisions that are pretty close around it, your average uh density is 1.3795.

So this is four.

What they're proposing.

6.7 per acre.

That is 4.8 times more than the surrounding subdivisions.

How?

How can that even close to become incompatible to what is already there?

It does not.

Um in my research, I you know, again, kind of a nerd, but that's fine.

There are only four major streets that service the West End.

You have Rim Rock, you have Grand, you have Central, and you have King Avenue.

We built Ben Still in 2017.

What accommodations have we done to account for all of that traffic?

Because again, I've lived there for 22 years.

I was there way before Ben Steele.

I was way there before most of those subdivisions were.

And it's deadly.

I mean, I I don't know.

You guys probably have the figures, and you can look that up.

Your city services, I'm sure have been extended way beyond capacity due to the heavy traffic.

There's nowhere to go.

Um not that long ago.

There was a death on Grand Avenue.

So where'd all the traffic go?

Because if I remember right, Central was partway shut down too.

So you gotta had to go to King or you had to go up around to 56, I believe, and down to Rimrock.

There is just you can't add a thousand more cars to this without somebody dying again.

So that's all I really wanted to say.

I appreciate their time.

I appreciate your service.

Have a good evening.

Good.

Thank you.

Is there any other public comment?

Before we close the public comment, right?

Don't want to cut anybody off.

Okay.

Please make a line if there's anybody after this gentleman.

Uh my name is Jared Browning.

I live in the uh Aldinger Acre subdivision, also 4719 South Woodhaven Way.

We've been there for about seven years, and really that's been a great place to raise our family as well.

I can I concur with others who have been here uh saying the same thing.

Two years ago, uh, my big complaint with this is just the infrastructure.

I think we've already talked about that two years ago, the subdivision that went in right south of us.

Uh, we didn't think it was going to be a big concern, but apparently, because of of billings city water and services, we've had that a big problem here, obviously, and our water uh that we pull from our neighborhood as a well.

Um any influx of people in that area dropped our well a significant amount of feet.

Not sure if that was mentioned here tonight or not, but any subs any structure in that way we lost all of our water pressure and and uh ability to really supply our homes in our in our subdivision.

We are on a neighborhood well, and so that's just one small evidence of any kind of building structures in that neighborhood.

It just doesn't have the infrastructure to build it up.

The traffic right now is is crazy.

There's no place for people to go already in the mornings when you're parked outside trying to get out on Grand Avenue because of the school, because of the subdivisions that are going in.

It's a significant amount of traffic anytime between uh 7 30 and about nine o'clock.

It's just back to back bumper to bumper traffic, no nowhere for people to go.

There is a pretty pretty significant problem there.

And it's just too many people at a short amount of time.

Um and the safety, obviously, those other things I've been kind of concerned about also with with where people are going to be going and the and the sidewalks and subdivisions.

So maybe in the cases of looking at properties in billings, there's already structures in place right now that can use city services that are already there.

Sewers is there, water is there.

I just drove past two of them tonight uh on Central Avenue uh across from City College.

There's a pretty good significant amount of acreage there that nobody's building on.

That would probably be a great spot to build on in that case for this kind of a structure.

I'm not sure if there's homes going into this.

Again, I apologize coming in late.

I didn't realize this was happening tonight.

We've become a little bit more prepared.

But uh the just the infrastructure is the problem, in my opinion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next.

Good evening.

Thank you, Mayor and City officials here uh for keeping letting us be here so long.

I did send y'all an email, uh, but there were a couple items that um I didn't address in the email.

Uh, number one is and ma'am, your name and advertising.

Oh, yeah, that might help too.

Janelle Lendy, 4619 Shining Light Lane.

Um, when it comes to the use of broadwater, that is at the second um entrance to the Sundance subdivision.

And they talk about how nobody's really gonna be using it.

It's all going over to Shiloh if it comes the opening, but that is our second and exit and entrance uh off of 48th Street West.

And the traffic is so heavy, you know, you can't take a left, you go right.

Um, and you have to go around in a big circle in order to get where you actually wanted to go because you can't get out of the neighborhood off of 48th or out of the other entrance off of central at the 4600 block.

Um, I also had a concern that I did email Mike Waters, who is supposed to be an elected official for the county, and asked some questions of him.

Why are we not represented since we are in the county?

Um on this juncture of annexing county property to billings, uh to the city of Billings.

Uh those are my only other concerns other than the big email I sent you.

And um thank you for your time.

And I oppose the annexation and the proposal of the 1074.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Corey, close the public comment period.

No one's coming forward, no one's standing up, so we'll close the public comment period.

Thank you.

And uh uh thank you, everyone uh for your patience and your respectful manner.

Um this is what's right with America.

Uh thank you for being here.

Uh now the hard part back to council.

Uh um uh uh follow up on some questions.

Council member.

Uh if you it's if you uh excuse me.

Absolutely, absolutely, thank you, Council Member Rupsos.

So uh Taylor, you've heard uh some of these comments, feel free to respond as you'd like.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Councilmember Repsis.

Um speaking with some of the neighbors, especially at the West End Task Force meeting, you know, we're also human, we're not immune to understanding their feelings.

Um I guess just to address some of the the comments and in particular as it relates to the criteria for the zone change.

So looking at it from an urban growth bill um from an urban growth standpoint, um we are providing a mix of housing options, which is what urban growth is intended to do, both mix of housing options, commercial use is adjacent to those to those housing options so that people aren't having to travel all across town.

Um at a density that albeit it is significantly higher than those adjacent to the neighborhoods, is not super high, in particular relating to the growth policy, how that outlines high, medium, and low density.

Um I would also like to just maybe pose that as a question both the council and and to the neighbors, is that annexing into the city of Billings, there are three single family residential neighborhood districts, N1, N2, and N3.

Obviously, we've we've selected N2 for this application.

However, with the state law, even if we were to change that to an N3 zone district, a similar density could be achieved by any developer, whether that's our client, a future developer, whoever that is.

And so it asked in terms of how that relates to the criteria that the city evaluates as far as urban go urban growth um and how it relates to the neighborhoods around it.

Unfortunately, the state law, regardless of what the proposed zone change is, kind of dictates that at this point because we are largely proposing duplex housing units and achieving that density.

And so even if somebody were to come in and do an N3 zone district, it allows for duplexes.

And so at that point, the city and or the neighbors are banking on a single family house developer um building this out.

Um couple other notes.

The TIS is prepared for the subdivision aspect of this.

It was prepared after the Clearwater and 44 West development to the south, so it does account for that traffic within the statistics on it.

Um I'd be open to any questions on coming out coming out of the public comment period from council.

Okay.

Um are there any questions for Tilly?

Don't see any.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, council.

Uh, we'll kick it uh uh back to you, but before we do, I just wanted to ask or answer or attempt to answer one question that was raised uh uh about uh park uh dedication and uh why feel free to correct me if I get this wrong.

But question was uh raised about um uh the dedication of park and how that process works.

Uh under state law, that's usually reserved to the subdivision process.

It could be required as part of our annexation.

That is not part of the proposal for annexation on this, but uh typically the subdivider would be required to either put up about 10% of their land as a park or put up money uh equivalent to that 10% that goes into a kitty for improvements in that area.

It's up to the developer to make that choice.

Uh that process you again usually happens in subdivision, which is down the road.

That has not happened uh at this point, so we can't speak to that uh uh what might happen in this case more specifically.

Uh is that a fair description, Wyatt?

Mayor and council, uh yes, that is as far as the subdivision process, there is um requirements in the planned neighborhood development uh process for some two percent open space.

Uh when Karen was making the presentation, she did sh highlight a couple of areas that they're proposing for that.

So that is being accommodated there, but you're correct on the subdivision.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that's about two percent.

That's a separate requirement.

Okay, very good.

Okay, uh back to council.

Council, uh, how would you like to proceed?

Councilmember Kennedy.

I have two questions.

Wyatt, just a quick question.

If the developer were to withdraw on this, how would that um if they withdrew this tonight and the council um accepted that wouldn't delay and they could work with the neighborhood and everyone to see if they could come up with something that would be palatable?

Um so what would the withdrawal look like?

Uh councilmember Kennedy and mayor and council.

So at this point in the process, uh if yeah, if there was a request for withdrawal, you the council could entertain that request um if you approved it.

Um basically it's I guess to specifically if you if the zone change was denied tonight by you, it's a one-year waiting period to come back for the request.

So if you were to entertain a withdrawal tonight, the application could be withdrawn, and then it could come back sooner, you know, as soon as basically if if they put something else together or wanted to to approach it a different way or something.

So that would be the the process there.

Second question I have then is of the developer.

Would you be willing to withdraw this evening?

Thank you, Councilmember Kennedy.

Um given you know the the potential to be blocked out for a year um from an additional application, should this get denied.

I think we would move forward with withdrawing or requesting to withdraw the application tonight and potentially retool the application and come back before city council with that.

Thank you.

Are you asking now?

Yes, please.

Thank you.

Uh Wyath, let me just ask you about the procedure on that.

Um and Anna wants to comment.

Could you address a little more on the procedure and where uh it goes back in the process?

To what extent there have to be republication, renotification, uh, those kind of details, Anna.

So there's there's two ways that this could be done.

Withdrawal is one of them.

That would have to be a whole new application process, or the council could refer the application back to the zoning commission, which gives the applicant the ability to update the zone change layout.

We can re-notice the public, have a new zone change commission.

So I think given the context, I would defer to the applicant and to council, but that is also a second option is putting it back to the zoning change commission and allowing that adjustment and renotice, etc.

Very good.

And just to clarify, uh, that would then um give an opportunity for uh uh changes.

Uh also a new hearing before the zoning commission, and that's where they would pick up the process.

That's correct.

The one catch here is that this requires a 60% majority vote whenever this is done.

Is this has to be referred back to the zoning commission with a 60% majority vote by council?

Okay.

Okay.

Um thank you for the uh discussion of that uh procedural issue.

Uh Councilmember Rupsis.

All right, very good.

Thanks.

I want to ask about that because I thought we put that in uh and it was probably just before your time, but um we didn't have the ability to send something back to the zoning commission uh for a long time.

And I and I thought that we put that in there, but the only reason we were to be sending something back was that if information came up, new information came up that was was not known and had to be reconsidered.

I didn't think that was ever put in with the intention of letting them go back and adjust their application.

Wyeth, can you do you remember it?

This was just it was a couple years ago.

That is sounding vaguely familiar.

Not something we've had to deal with in the past, but I I would say there is something new tonight, Mayor if you don't mind.

There is something new tonight as far as we just got new uh maps with the phase one, phase two.

That's all new information to us that I don't even know if the zoning commission had that information.

They got the same same information we got, I think it's different than what we got tonight.

That's the only that's the only new information I think.

Is there uh Wyath or staff?

I think Council Member Reps, you're we're putting that question to staff or um council member rips is we're we're gonna have to we'll have to look in here to the regs.

I can't I I'm not positive on what you I know what you're saying, and I know when we made the amendment, I don't um I'd have to look at the exact language to verify the requirements um in terms of what has to be um of a curd to send it back that way the way Anna's describing, which is is one way you can do it, but we we'd have to look here to verify it.

And I'm I'm sorry just to clear was that just on the zoning, or was it because the zoning commission doesn't have anything to do with annexation questions, right?

Correct, yeah.

And so that yeah, the new I think clarifying the other comments about the annexation and new information, yeah.

The the zoning we get we give the overview for the zoning commission, but you're the ones who decide on annexation.

So there's that whole, there's that piece too.

And the zoning commission is reviewing it in the anticipation that it's going to be brought into the city, and then you know, they're the city zoning commission.

So I don't know, yeah, what they would have known or not.

I mean, I they would have known everything that they would need to know for what they're doing, but you're deciding the annexation.

And there might also be some questions about whether we can require the referral as opposed to this situation where it might be a referral at the request of the developer.

But um uh council member Sean, Councilmember Owen had a lot of people.

That was going to be the distinction I would make is that I if I can remember correctly, part of it was us putting in that amendment so that this body could refer it back to the zoning commission regardless of what the developer requested, if I remember correctly.

But it sounds like to me what they're requesting is a withdrawal.

I feel like that's been formally made.

I my question to Wyath is what is the dramatic is there a dramatic difference between these two processes of totally withdrawing the application, going back to zoning, is it just timeline?

So yes, withdrawing the application would require a new zone change fee, and then us re a new submittal date, whereas a referral back to the zoning commission does kind of help them with their timeline associated with it and the associated fee.

I mean, council member reps this is correct in the sense that new information can be required.

I I feel like that kind of could be found by council should they so choose to based on testimony and based on as council member said the phasing of the resolution, you'd have to delay associated the vote on the annexation to run concurrently with the zone change as well, because you cannot act on the annexation without having a zone change assigned to it.

So that's part of our city code.

Just for Owen.

Because I think while traffic volume isn't inherently a concern, traffic flow and traffic patterns is for me.

And it sounds like there's a study we haven't had a chance to look at.

And I would like a chance to look at it.

Okay, Councilmember Gillett.

Oh, thank you.

And I appreciate everyone's uh real um patience and really thoughtful input, and you came well prepared in terms of uh um being well educated in terms of uh referencing the the 10 criteria.

Um but I have to say that I wouldn't be not be able to come to a different conclusion than what the zoning uh commission came with with their unanimous recommendation.

Um we're talking about we're not talking about uh uh uh a radically different density.

We're talking about N2.

We're not talking about four story buildings, much less skyscrapers or or big changes.

We're talking about N2.

That's 88% of that property.

Um I don't even know what the developer's gonna go back and do.

What do they resort back to um if if we if we send this back, they have nothing to work with.

So I think I just I find it really like we need to be thinking about not only we need to be able to think about if we're meeting state law, local ordinances, balancing the interests of the property owner and their their developer and the future users of that property.

We need to balance that with the interests of the surrounding people.

And making sure that we have development densities that can pay for their own way that help with the infrastructure.

And I think what we've seen with the state legislature intervening is of course correction that we cannot sustain the patterns we've been using in the past.

And so I just it seems I don't know what the developer can do if we send this back, honestly.

So I'm not really supportive of withdrawal, but um obviously I'm I'm just one voice here.

Uh very good, Councilman Renese.

Thank you, Mayor.

I um you know, I'm looking at this property, and I would it's it's landlocked, and it's by by county high, you know, very low density properties, which I would enjoy living in.

Um, and so I I understand, I understand there.

I I live in a low density area as well, and to have an uh a development like this come in would be concerning to me.

But it is at the same time, it's it's it's owned by these people who want to put property in, and the state law limits us to what we can and can't do.

And so what so I'm looking for a way that the way that we can how this can be done.

Now, you know, I've talked about transition.

I I think I I don't like the way the zoning is right now.

I would like to see some additional transition.

Yes, there's not much between N3 and two.

Your frontage, if I remember correctly.

It's your frontage is I think 100 feet on N3 and 50 on N2, something like that.

So you are gonna have larger lots in there.

It's gonna be a little bit lower density, not a lot, but it's gonna be lower, and you are gonna have townhomes.

That's what this developer wants to buy or build.

The state says you can build townhomes homes all day long at N3 property.

I don't like it.

Um, but that's something we as a body, a community have to tell our state legislators to change.

Um, that's something they overwrote.

So it is not up to us as a city council to say you can only build so single family or duplexes.

Well, we can look at it as in our toolbox, all that we have is some density is in our area is N is N3.

That's a the lowest density that we can build.

N4 is county only.

We can't, and that's not in our regs.

We can't go to N4.

Uh again, unless this body were to change that and add N4 into our our area, but but that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

My concern is um, you know, as Mayor Cole said, the time the time you can try to get development happening and connectivity, which by the way, I don't like the idea that a lot of these properties are not connected well, um, because they're all kind of blocked off.

The one connection you have is to the north and the the property there, and I looked at their their um their site map, it it's a temporary call de sac there designed if one day to connect to Broadwater Avenue.

So that is when they vision, they anticipated connecting to Broadwater.

So it's not a surprise to the neighborhoods.

I know when I bought my property when I looked at properties 30 years ago, I looked at the maps because I wanted to see where all these roads were gonna connect because I didn't want to have that change.

So that's not a surprise that Broadwater is going to develop, it's gonna connect to their property.

It's gonna be a long time.

And because this is gonna be phase, there's gonna be a lot of changes between now, uh, between phase one and phase two.

My my the only way I can see this happening is on the annexation is seeing the uh developer build not only the south side of Broadwater, but the north side as well, from there all the way over to uh 4048 stream.

And if those properties ever come into the city and are annexed in, then the developer would reimburse for that.

But that would be the only thing.

And then I don't think phase two should even be built until Broadwater to Shiloh is is completed through whatever phase public work has to do.

And at that point in time, I think then Broadwater will be able to handle that traffic.

You won't have a lot of cut through traffic.

Uh Cass Renish, I'm just gonna cut you off on and just remind us we gotta we're really getting deep in the weeds, right?

So, unless something like that can pass through, and then and then on the zoning where because if the developer's gonna, if we're gonna approve a or through regoing to back to zoning, I want to indicate what I would be so they developer knows what I would like to see uh on this property come back to us if it comes back.

The same thing on this on the uh the east and west sides, the best we can do.

I would say have a transition of N3 along either side of it.

It's gonna be a little bit lower density, they could still build duplexes there and let them do the end and two.

And I think someone in the public comment mentioned that, and I think that was is a good way to consider that.

But I think the developer needs to build that transition as much as they can within their border of the property.

Um the only other consideration is Broadwater, in my opinion.

I know it's a collector now, but eventually it's gonna grow to be an outer.

I would like to have seen some CMU one up at the top of there because the silo, you're gonna need some smaller commercial development up there, and but that's that could be maybe zone change later on.

Okay, I'm gonna recognize council member uh Shaw, and then we'll come back to uh uh the developer to see uh because council Gullick raises a very good question.

What what what would be the point of a delay?

Uh what might happen.

And of course, we're not gonna hold you to that, but it would be interesting to know if if the developer has any thoughts.

Thank you.

Councilmember Shaw.

I appreciate that.

I was gonna say I have a lot of thoughts like that.

I would have a lot of comments I would love to respond to, but I want to just know where we are in the process.

It sounded to me like the developer requested a withdrawal.

Are we waiting for a motion on that?

I I think then we can argue the merits of it.

Uh he's or is does that automatically trigger it?

I I we haven't really done this very much, so I'm I no, I think I think it was uh more conceptual at that point, and Anna then raised the option of this second option.

And so I think we do want to hear from the developer.

Okay.

But um uh before we do that, Wyatt, you wanted to interject something.

I just all I just wanted to do is call out in terms of what we were talking about regarding the referring the application back to the zoning commission.

Um, and it's in our uh council decision process with zoning applications and it and it basically like part of what Anna described, referring the application back to the zoning commission for an additional public hearing based on a determination that one new information has been submitted that the applicant and public has not had a reasonable opportunity to examine and comment on.

Two or two, new information has been presented that was never submitted or considered by the zoning commission or staff.

A city council referral back to the zoning commission will require publication of a new legal ad, posting of the property, mailing to the surrounding owners, a referral back to the commission under this section requires a 60, as Anna says 60 percent majority vote of the present and voting members of the council and may only be done once by the city council.

Uh I I guess we have a question about the procedure before we hear from uh Taylor and maybe the same thing, Councilman Boy.

Just a question on that, Wyatt.

Is um does that mean it's the same zoning and everything, just to look at this new information, or can it be changed?

Because this evening we were told we can't do any changes.

So if it does go back to the zoning commission, can there actually be changes made on the zoning?

Um council member.

If if not, are we looking at the same map and all of that?

Councilmember Kennedy and Marin Council, my understanding is that that this new information and that discussion and all could result in some sort of change potentially.

I mean, that's I think what the intent of that is, but I don't but not necessarily I mean, I guess maybe, but that's what that's about is to go back and reconsider it based on new information that's being considered by the zoning commission and then by you.

So yeah, I mean, I think that could happen.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, uh Taylor, uh if you just withdrew that issue goes away.

Um there's it you but it might take a little bit more time, you'd have to resubmit, you make whatever changes.

You're entitled, you can get a vote up, vote down, it's up to you.

We can't force you to uh to withdraw.

So uh back to you.

Yeah, no, appreciate the opportunity, Mayor Cole.

I think just given you know new information, not information, 60% uh need for the the vote, even to just refer it back.

I would stick with the request for withdrawing the application.

That would give us the opportunity to actually meet again with the neighborhood um with a new plan before we even get to zoning commission.

So very good.

You're uh reaffirming your request to withdraw.

Correct.

Okay.

Uh Councilmember Boya.

I'd like to make a motion to accept the agent's uh request to withdraw.

That'll start our talk now.

Very good.

So we have the motion to accept that.

Um and Councilmember uh Kennedy, you had I'll second.

Okay, so that's the uh uh uh motion that is on the floor.

Um discussion.

Councilmember Shaw.

I will support the motion.

Um I think it's the best path forward for both the developers and the neighborhood.

I I want to reiterate, thank you guys again for being so respectful when you came.

I feel like you did a very good job of hitting your points.

Um we understand usually when people come to city council, they're upset about something.

And so you did a very good job, I in my opinion, of managing that.

Um, like councilmember Kulik, I'm not sure what tools the developer has to adjust this, but I think given the situation we're in now, that process is really important.

And I'm hoping that at least the neighborhood can feel like they've been heard and get some of these questions answered because you had some legitimate questions about parkland, about can casinos go here, can nightclubs go there.

I all of those can be answered, and I think will help set your minds at ease.

So, in my opinion, I think this is the the best path.

Um, and I really hope that this can come back to council in a timely manner with some adjustments that will make it more palatable for the area because it as many of you said, housing is so important in billings, and so we all know we really desperately need it, and it's difficult when change comes to each of our areas.

Balancing that is a struggle that this body has to deal with.

And so we appreciate your in your input.

I really appreciate it, and um thank you all for being here.

Very good.

Thank you.

Further discussion on the motion, Council Member Wan.

Um, Mayor, I don't want to make a uh a friendly amendment or any sort of change to the motion unless I have to, but I think um I will also support this motion.

Um there are some things that I think were deficient here that were not the developer's fault that I think need to get addressed when this comes back.

Um I we've spent a lot of time hearing from the public, and I would echo councilmember Shaw in just really praising the tone and tenor of the conversation tonight.

We've spent a lot on um the criteria seven and eight, but I find what council has been provided on criteria four to be woefully insufficient for the complexity of this project.

And I think we need to improve the analysis around it a little bit.

I was actually counting sentences, and the exact there are exactly 16 sentences of analysis provided for criteria four and 16 provided for criteria four in the Seneca farm, which was unanimous and non-controversial.

This is not that.

And so I am concerned.

It sounds like there's some traffic studies that would help the public understand, would help us as council understand traffic flows in this area.

I think those need to be disclosed, both to the zoning commission and to the public so that those can be heard.

Um we cannot continue, I think, um, to have a conversation about community impacts without hearing from school district two.

We sort of send over a request, they don't respond, and we just say box checked.

I think that is procedurally insufficient.

We've talked about it over and over on council.

Meadowlark is jam-packed, and I mean jam-packed.

We need some conversation with school district two.

We need some analysis.

What's their plan?

Where are they going here?

How do we think about this going forward?

I understand we can't deny these things based on school district impact, but I I think we need to understand it a little bit better and have some conversations about it.

Um, I also think that what we've got here from fire and police does not provide an adequate record for us to make a decision on.

Um, we need some understanding.

I know that the police department already responds out here.

I get that.

But if we have this sort of patchwork and piecemeal road pattern, we're going to have people making reckless decisions, impulsive decisions, and trying to circumvent poor traffic flows.

We need to understand what that looks like and how we will respond.

And I think we've got councilmember Aspenleiter and Councilmember Rupsis who are doing good work on traffic studies and traffic calming.

Um, but we don't have enough analysis here in number four to make a decision on it, in my opinion.

And then lastly, um, Wyeth, please, if possible, can we provide them any information on where DEQ and the Bureau of Mines are?

Because while you mentioned tonight, and I think it's accurate that there is this concern about how septic systems are impacting nitrates.

There is also a fundamental question of recharging the aquifer that is relevant to our conversation.

Yes, we don't regulate septic systems, nitrates are not really our issue, but how the aquifer is recharged and how we might think about layoff layouts of this development and runoff in this development and how we're getting the aquifer recharged matters for the whole West End.

And I think zoning commission needs to think about that.

I think we as council need more information to think about it.

So I don't want to make a whole bunch of conditional amendments to the motion out there, but I would hope we could provide additional information to the public and to council for future consideration here.

Thank you, Mayor.

Very good.

Thank you.

Uh for the discussion on the motion.

Councilmember Kennedy.

One last piece.

I I think it's very important that we clarify a few things that came out tonight.

One of them is that the subdivision uh directly to the north of this has the okay to put the uh roadway through their subdivision.

That's been asked many, many times, and it was answered tonight.

I'd like to see something in writing that um the homeowners or who has the decision making to go ahead and go through that subdivision.

The other piece is it's just like uh councilwoman Owen had talked about we need more clarification on these roadways.

Um is 44th going to be put in, when is broadwater, what's the anticipation on it?

Um that's real important.

It's real important not just for this um annexation and subdivision, but also it's very important to all of these people in these subdivisions around there because they really need to know what is the city planning on doing or who's planning on doing what, and how is it gonna take place?

I think those things all need to be answered.

And then I'm I'm willing to vote for withdrawal this force thank you, Mayor.

Um, I just want to address everybody here.

Uh, for those of you that don't know, I live in Legends West.

Um, and so that's uh on Central Road, just east of Sundance and just east of where this um the subdivision is is uh planned.

Um over the years, I I've been there for 21 years.

Uh I was one of the first houses in that subdivision.

Um about 15 years ago or so, a developer came through and wanted to put a big NX3 complex, which those are the big apartment style um buildings that we see off of King Avenue, uh right at the end of Bell Avenue uh behind our subdivision.

Uh we were able to kill that at the time.

That was before Monad was extended, before Rocky Vista University, before any of the King Avenue development.

Um it wasn't uh it wasn't allowed then.

But two years ago it came back, and pretty much this council, minus a couple, uh approved it.

Um I tried to speak up for our neighborhood.

I had a different perspective the second time is uh it came back because of my uh what I'd learned by sitting in this chair.

Um I tried to voice my my neighborhood's concerns and and try to minimize some of the downsides of that.

But we now have NX3 zoned, where it is the only option for them to get north is to come through uh Legends West or Twin Pines and uh get out to Central.

Someday that will happen.

So I get what you're talking about.

Um I think the scale is very much different.

When we're talking about zoning, we're talking about types of land use.

And somebody living in a house next to somebody else living in a house is not an incompatible land use.

Is all N2, right?

That's what this neighborhood is is contemplated.

We have council has the obligation, it's called quasi-judicial.

The we act as judges whether or not an N2 district is compatible with another district.

I would have supported this tonight.

I I hate the type of development, but I have no ability to uh judge based on aesthetics or build quality or neighborhood community feel, neighborhood characteristics.

Those things don't exist during the vote, the zoning challenge or the zoning uh process.

So the challenge is the developer gets this uh back to you is is really what are the other tools.

There is no single zoning district that is lower density uh like you would want next to your your neighborhoods from what we hear.

It doesn't exist.

So N2 can be anything from your house to uh a tiny happy homes uh duplex.

That's the span of what's allowed in that zone.

I don't know what the developer is gonna do.

I'm I'm happy that they're willing to engage.

Um like I said, if I could if I could vote against something because of aesthetics, I would have done it.

And I've I did vote against uh the ones that went down uh across from Costco because I felt it wasn't safe place to put neighborhood residential under that ditch and and where we're gonna build res reservoirs.

Um I also mentioned in my invocation about travel and how that opens your eyes to some things.

Um we like to complain about traffic here in billings, uh, but go to any other city our size or larger.

I just came back from Mexico City.

You want to talk about traffic?

We don't have traffic here.

I I understand it's it takes a few extra seconds to get out on central because I do it every day.

I know what you're talking about.

I hear you.

I won't be on council when this decision is made.

It'll be a brand new council.

Six new people will be sitting up here the next time it comes back.

Um so who knows how they're gonna do.

I don't know what the developer is gonna do uh how this will come back.

Um I'd encourage you to stay connected, but temper your expectations on what can be done here.

There are not many tools in the toolbox.

So thank you.

Thank you, Cosper Uh Rupsis.

That's a good segue.

I just want to chime in also.

I will support the uh motion to with allow the withdrawal, but it is an opportunity to provide uh some perspective for the benefit of the neighborhood and echo a lot of what Kessler Rupsa has just said.

Um I would have voted in opposition to the annexation of this property um based on what you heard before.

Namely, it doesn't uh do anything for Cottonwood Park as required under our development agreement to at least have those that negotiation.

But I would have lost that battle, and it probably would have been annexed.

On the issue of the zone change, um uh I appreciate the input from the neighborhood.

I I don't think we've ever seen a more organized um unanimous uh opposition to a development um based on the issues that you already know, namely the in particular the uh uh require for compatible urban growth.

I said requirement.

Well, no, really just that that be a factor of 10, one of 10.

Um, and it begs the question.

A lot of people said, well, obviously, this is not compatible with cloverleaf.

How could it be?

Were the questions?

Well, we have to understand what compatibility means in this context.

Um I appreciate the cloverleaf is a very different neighborhood.

As somebody who lives on one acre, I understand that better than than many.

Um, but compatibility doesn't mean the same.

Compatibility is typically measured considering both the type of development and the intensity of use.

So, in type of development, this is also residential.

It is compatible with clover leaf because it is not industrial, it is not commercial.

Um you stop there.

Well, probably not, because you can look at this degree of intensity.

So is it uh compatible based on cloverleaf?

Well, remember that cloverleaf was not compatible with the uh wheat fields when it was moved in.

It was tremendous greater density than anything around it when cloverleaf was put in.

Um was uh uh the uh uh sundance compatible with clover leaf.

No, it was 300% rate of intense density than clover leaf.

Is the density of clover leaf something that our city wants?

No, it is not.

It is not um uh it creates all sorts of barriers in the cost of uh uh uh to bring uh utilities past uh uh development of that low density.

And again, I'm one of you.

Um, but it causes all sorts of problems.

So um here the the uh legislature, as you heard, passed law in 2023 that says, and I'm quoting uh section 76, hyphen 204 quote in a city with a population of at least 5,000 residents, duplex housing must be allowed as a permitted use on a lot where a single family residence is a permitted use.

And zoning regulations that apply to the development or use of duplex housing may not be more restrictive than zoning regulations that are applicable to single family residences.

So arguably um the legislature has made this decision.

Uh duplexes are equivalent to, yeah, those homes in uh clover leaf.

I understand that doesn't rub uh people right or or may rub you wrong, but I I think that the legislature has made that decision.

So that's on that issue.

Traffic, yeah, there is gonna be more uh traffic, um, all of this development, but think uh what the the the alternative is for this body.

If we were to say that no, you can't have any more development in this property because on this property because it's gonna have more traffic.

We're creating a de facto moratorium on any new development that might feed onto central.

That is not gonna happen.

It shouldn't happen and it won't happen.

So um, yeah, uh rush hour is is can be tough, but uh we're a long ways from any tipping point uh where we could determine that we should have a de facto uh moratorium.

Um parks, interesting question.

Um I won't get into that aesthetics.

I do have real concerns about the aesthetics of this developer.

But remember, um, this is not Bozeman.

We do not have the ability to require aesthetic standards, and if we did, the cost of our housing might more closely resemble Bozeman 2.

And we don't want that.

And so um there are costs, there are benefits of uh uh more dense development.

And then um uh lastly, uh although we received many, many uh uh uh letters from people uh voicing very understandable concerns.

What was singularly absent for most of that was any sort of acknowledgement of the developer, the owner's right to develop their property.

If we have government telling you how to develop your property, uh when you're on when the shoes on the other foot, uh it won't feel so good.

So this is just to echo council member Rups' um uh uh uh message that this development could be a lot worse uh than what you might get here with one story duplex development.

So we'll see how this shakes out.

I do appreciate the developers' desire to do something to uh work with the neighborhood to make uh this even uh hopefully a little bit more palatable, but you do need to be realistic, and thank you, Councilmember Rupsick, for making that point.

Um sorry for going on at length.

Uh further uh uh uh discussion before we have a vote on the motion.

Okay, all right.

So um the motion is to just uh uh uh uh accept uh the uh developers uh withdrawal of the uh both the annexation application and the um uh zoning uh application.

Uh I assume uh they go they go together.

So Taylor, you're nodding your head.

Uh this is a package deal.

Uh so we would uh uh allow them to withdraw and come back at the time of their choosing.

So if the motion is clear, uh if in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, everybody, for your patience and for your input.

Um that then uh concludes items four A, four B, and four C and um and also item five.

Yeah, oh okay.

All right.

Okay.

So that concludes item four and five.

If everybody could um uh exit quickly without talking, and then you can talk out in the lobby.

Who did about what I ask Wyatt that question while we're there still um sure before we move on to public comment on non-agenda items, Councilmember Boyette?

So uh Wyatt on number five, it it showed ward number four.

We were we were talking, we thought we think it's ward five.

Councilmember Boyet, yes.

Um, we're we were going to suggest that we actually revisit, you know, look into that after you council member uh Rupsis actually brought it up.

So yeah, next time when we do this again, we'll take a look at that.

Okay, okay.

Then uh the next item on our agenda is is public comment on non-agenda items.

Is there any public comment on something not on our agenda?

Mr.

Clark, Mr.

Mayor, Councilman.

That was interesting.

I noticed some of your faces were like, well, I've never experienced anything like this, but it kind of fell back to what I said at the um Paul Clark, it's all side triangle.

Kind of fell back what I was talking about the first time.

Those streets are gonna get busy.

These people are just experiencing what maybe 27th Street has experienced in the past or my South side.

These are neighborhoods that are gonna get apartments, they're gonna go up across the street from South Park.

We have towers, North Park, we have towers.

They might want to eat it, put some towers up, be safe, which falls back to my agenda.

Parks.

I know that some of you have one acre homes, two acre homes.

We do the people.

These people came in representing themselves, squashed the idea of duplexes and quads and that.

For now.

They withdraw their annex, which I'm down to a couple minutes.

But that was interesting, you guys.

This is something that I've always wanted to see.

And to come to a close.

And so we um the senior citizen center.

This hat was donated by a woman.

Uh they knitted more than 50 of them.

Uh free.

And these people were from New Mexico.

Very, very uh well, the Apache, the Navajo tribes.

You know how their source of income is very limited.

So shout out to the senior citizens.

Uh I did experience a meal with a lot of them and me go up and start visiting with a lot of people, shake hands.

It's fun.

Uh number two, bus stops, family services, you guys.

Again, that is a place where maybe I need to come to a neighbor to someone, and how do I get a bus stop for these people?

I mean, a lot of them are walking around with wagons just to get food.

We need to get a bus in there.

We need to get a bus stop.

I it sounds like it's a bad, you know, juju.

It's hard to do, but it can be done.

Uh number three, south side.

Again, I'm worried about my neighborhood.

They just experienced a little bit what's going to happen.

Okay, we have industrial in our neighborhood.

We have the sugar factory, we have the refineries, we have busy streets.

We've got to fall back on some of them issues again for me law enforcement.

Hey, and so are street lamps that are not there.

It's a dark place.

Uh number four, south side pool.

Can we have any plans?

Does anybody know what it's gonna look like for nine million dollars?

Does anybody have an idea what it's gonna look like once we finally get there at 20 million dollars?

Just saying.

Uh number five, Sixth Avenue underpass.

We're cleaning it, but we're not.

So apparently we're getting four times of cleaning so that I don't have to walk underneath that bridge and smell pigeon dew or you know, whatever's not dead on the ground, and the nice beautiful swamp that's in front of the Reno Club.

How can we get that thing drained out?

I see that they did plant some greenery.

Uh boy, I got about halfway.

Slow down traffic on Shiloh.

Hey, what's wrong with speed bumps?

Nobody wants to play a speed bump with a 68 Camaro, let alone a Harley Davidson.

Okay, my time's up, you guys.

Blessings forward.

And to some of you, like I think I you said six of you are gonna be con.

We're gonna be looking at new faces.

Guess who they get to look at?

Public blessings.

Thank you very much.

Any other public comment on non-agenda items?

Wow, they all laugh.

No one is coming forward, so we'll uh nothing.

We'll close the public comment, period.

And um council, any initiatives?

Please say no.

Okay.

We're adjourned.

Thanks, everybody.