Hi, Lauren.

Can you hear me right now?

So, yes, I can hear you.

Yes.

Okay.

Shall we do this?

Welcome everybody.

I'm going to get things kicked off here.

Uh, thanks for joining us.

We welcome the presence of those here in the city commission room.

Uh, before we start the meeting, I'd like to remind those not physically present here of the ways in which you can follow this meeting and provide public comments.

You can watch this meeting in real time and provide public comment should you choose by joining us via video conference.

You'll find the link to join us by going to the city's website at Bozeman.net, click on departments, then on city commission, then on live stream and videos, find the meeting under the upcoming events list and click on the copy of the meeting agenda.

It is highlighted in blue.

Then click on via video conference, also highlighted in blue in the second paragraph of the agenda and follow the prompts to enter the meeting.

If you're joining us via video conference and you would like to offer public comment this evening, use the video conference raise your hand feature when it is your turn to comment, staff will call on you by name.

Please note that we will take public comments from those physically present here first, followed by those joining via video conference.

In addition to joining via video conference, there are three other ways you can follow this meeting.

These are for viewing and listening only, and you will be unable to provide public comment using any of these methods.net uh website, click on departments, then city commission, live streaming videos once again, find this meeting under the upcoming events and listen uh list and click on View Live Event.

You can watch this meeting on Cable TV Channel 190, and you can stream this meeting on your computer, go to the Bozeman.net uh website, click on departments, then city commission, live streaming videos once again.

Find this meeting under the upcoming events and list uh list and click on view live event.

You can always provide written comment before meetings by sending an email to comments at Bozeman.net or by visiting the city's public comment webpage.

Any public comment received by noon today will have been distributed to the board.

So calling this meeting of the uh community development board to order.

We'll start this evening by um introducing the folks around the dais.

We'll start with Mr.

Egggy, please.

Mark Eggie.

Chris Eggett.

Jason Delw.

Eric, thanks for Eric Bonnett.

And I'm Ben Lloyd.

Um also with us, city staff, Mr.

Saunders.

Uh we have one more board member to Oh, yes, sorry, via video.

Um not uh visibly present, but please introduce yourself.

Yes, I am Lauren Maitro virtually.

Thank you for having me.

Hi, Lauren, thank you.

Okay, uh Chris Saunders Community Development and Staff liaison.

Sam Sex at our city staff.

Okay.

Any disclosures from any members of the board this evening?

Nothing.

Okay.

Any changes to the agenda from anyone?

We have a fairly straightforward agenda.

Any changes to that?

Okay, seeing none.

Public service announcements of any kind.

Okay.

We'll move on to uh first item, which is the uh approval of the minutes from the previous meeting, I believe.

I will uh put in a motion to approve these.

Okay.

And this is for the 1215 as well as the 1117 meeting, correct?

Yeah, too.

Yes, yep.

Okay.

I'll suck them up.

Okay.

Um let's see.

I noticed one.

Uh I believe it's the typo.

I did not have time to go back to the um video, but um for the November 17th minutes on the bottom of page four.

There was the motion um regarding um units in uh RA.

The summary says four units per acre, but I'm sure it was four units per parcel was the item being uh discussed there.

So I'd say we should make that change.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, stop right here.

Nodding heads.

Okay.

Read.

Good catch.

So at this point, Sam will do a vote.

True.

Board member Bonnet.

Hi.

Board member Delmi.

Aye.

Board Member Agnatz.

Yes.

Board Member Egggy.

Aye.

Board member Mitro.

Aye.

And Chairman Lloyd.

Aye.

Motion passes how many of us?

Six?

Six zero.

Okay.

Next up on the agenda is uh our one and only action item.

And I think Tom is gonna kick us off this afternoon or this evening.

Chair.

It's uh traditional to read the title as we begin.

All these traditions.

This is a annexation and zone map amendment requesting annexation and the establishment of an initial zoning designation of R1 on 1.173 acres, the story mill road annexation application 25 525.

Now it's Tom's turn.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and good evening, board members.

Excuse me.

Uh my name is Tom Rogers with the community development department.

Um before I begin, I just want to welcome our our two new board members this evening.

Um really appreciate you being here.

And I uh I will I always start, we do a quick summary of these applications.

We have a board presentation uh or staff presentation, applicant presentation, opportunity for public comment, and then uh you get to go into board discussion, and if you see things are appropriate, you make a motion up or down or sideways.

But you do get an opportunity to ask questions, so we'll get to that point.

So I do encourage the uh the conversation and the question.

Happy to do that.

Um so we will get a point for that.

I just wanted to say welcome.

Glad you're both here and to the other board members as well.

Um also to that end with two board members and the board members that are here.

As you know, we have quite a few changes to our review processes and potentially you know, future our standards.

And in this particular case, um, this application was was granted sufficiency and element and all these types of things before a variety of other things have changed.

So my intention is not to make things more complicated, but we're gonna review basically on our old review criteria, and then on February 1st, everything changes.

So I I'll just stick to that.

I do have some backup slides if anybody has questions, if we want to drill down to that a little bit more, but I provide that context mostly for our new members because it they might be looking at one thing and saying, hey, this is not the review criteria.

So thank you and be patient with us as we we go through that transitional period.

As the chair stated, this is an application for annexation and zoning.

And when we annex a property, uh state requires us to establish zoning at the same time.

So when we get an access to annexation app, we do both uh all together.

There are variety of ways that you can annex property in Montana.

Um, our policies for the city of Bozeman, we encourage what we call part 46, which is in this case is an applicant or a property owner requests to annex.

That dictates the process, what happens, and then part of the zoning piece is the applicant gets to say, I want to be zoned X.

And then we do the analysis based on that.

If we find that it's not in compliance with plans, we may suggest something different, but if it is, it's really up to the applicant and property owner to say this is what we think is best for our desired outcome.

With annexation and zoning, we are not looking at specific plans.

We don't know what those things are yet.

That comes from subsequent development applications, which may or may not go to this board.

It can be really challenging because sometimes there'll be a lot of folks in the in the uh in the audience who would really like to know what's happening in their backyard.

Um, in this case, as I'll get to in just a moment, we've had very little comment, um, and that can be the case.

Sometimes we get zero comments, sometimes we get quite a few.

Umtext, thanks for your patience.

Um this is for one single uh property.

Here uh it's wholly surrounded within the city of Bozeman.

We are kind of on the northeast side of the city, just north of Bridger Canyon Drive off of Story Mill and Boylan Road.

Got it highlighted here.

Um it's owned by the Bridger Creek Golf Course, uh, a little over one acre, and they're requesting what we call R1, which is a low density residential.

Specific purpose for that is it states in the applicant and the staff report um they wish to continue the same uh activities that they've gone up today and be able to provide their employees some some bathroom facilities.

Pretty straightforward.

But R1, or which will be RA is one of the few districts that allows golf course and accessory uses as a permitted use in that zoning district.

So there we are.

Um in this case, the the community development board acted as the zoning commission this evening.

Um does focus only on the zoning request.

I know most of the board members are familiar with that, but for the edification and the new folks, it we I'm happy to talk about the annexation, what that means, but your your decision, your recommendation focuses on the zoning requests.

The commission will make the final decision, so it's a recommendation this evening.

They look at both the annexation and the requested zoning.

We're doing that before the city commission here in a couple weeks on February 10th.

The state actually tells us how we evaluate zoning changes.

Got that zoning criteria in the staff report, got some draft findings for your consideration.

If you think those are appropriate, you are welcome to adopt those as your own, and we can move forward.

Um I'd mentioned earlier with annexation, that's a locally driven issue.

So the city commissions develop a set of policies and goals that I've outlined in the report.

It's there for your your review and and knowledge, uh, but it's that again that part 46.

Backing up.

What's being asked for?

So here's kind of a regional look or uh hardly regional, local look just on the northeast part of town.

I've got it highlighted in red here, just over one acre.

Um, it's adjacent to city property on a couple of sides, and then just to the south, of course, are some other unannexed lands.

It's it's accessed already by Story Mill Road, Boylan Road, both city standard streets with sidewalks, uh really, and even some places.

Story race story mill road is uh as a collector, uh according to our the the um Bozeman transportation plan.

Um conversation in the in the report with that.

We've got quite a bit of other activity and development going on here.

You've got your Canyon Gate development on the east side of Story Mill Road, Bridger View redevelopment, uh Story Mill Park, uh, and then of course the golf course there and some other variety of commercial industrial uses adjacent to Bridger Drive.

This colorful map uh where we always kind of start most coarse grain, and then we move a little bit finer detail.

This is what we call our future land use map.

This kind of indicates sort of general character, what the community might expect.

It allows the city to sort of detail and analyze and provide areas for all the uses that are needed: commercial, industrial, parkland, residential, uh, and everything in between.

Uh in this case, the properties within what we call an urban neighborhood designation.

That's that sort of off-yellow color.

It's quite a bit of that's in the area, but there's a kind of variety of uses here that are adjacent to those bigger uh corridors, basically Bridger Creek Canyon, Bridger Canyon Drive from industrial, kind of what's lighter industrial or makerspace mixed use.

Um we've got some commercial activity going across across the street to the east on Story Mill Road.

This is important because it informs the available zoning that can be applied to a property.

And in this case, they're requesting an R1, which is an implementing district for that urban neighborhood.

And this brings me to the next slide here, which is uh our our existing zoning.

Anything that's colored is annexed into the city and establish municipal zoning.

Those areas that are not that you can see the earth and the ground and up in the buildings below are simply properties that are not annexed.

They may be wholly surrounded, they may be adjacent to the city, but they're they're actually most of these would be zoned, but they're zoned under the county.

So the county planning office would detail and and and and suggest what type of uses would be appropriate for that case.

So in this case, as you read in the report, it's actually zoned light manufacturing in the county.

They're requesting a residential because the city indicated this area designated in development for residential.

But variety of uses or uh zoning districts, all the way from light residential to more dense residential, um, commercial activities, and even in some industrial.

So it's quite a variety in this particular area.

Review criteria.

Historically and currently for today and for nice to tonight's application is is the zoning criteria of A through K.

Um, A through D must be in the affirmative.

The others can be a little bit more gray and nuanced.

However, in this case, uh staff's review based on the applicant submittal adopted plans.

We are uh found that the application does meet it um all of the review criteria in this particular case.

So we have that in our analysis there, and of course, I've highlighted here A through D must be in the affirmative.

And again, um those were our findings based on the analysis and for that for your consideration.

We do follow our standard noticing practices, boards on site, adjacent property owners are mailed, uh, legal uh ads in the local paper.

Um I prepared this this slide um just this afternoon, uploaded it to the file that I can read it here, and just after that, we received a recommendation uh a letter of recommendation or letter of comment letter, pardon me.

In this case, they actually did find or did suggest that it's R1 was reasonable for this particular site.

In addition to that, our development review committee, or development review committee or DRC is made up of city professional staff, engineering, uh public works, transportation, planning, uh, water sewer, our streets department, police, fire.

They all analyze and consider these applications before we come to you.

They did not find any impediments that cannot be addressed with future development applications, whether it's site plan, subdivision uh, or our sketch plan, whatever the future plans may be for the site.

Finally, uh future actions, as I mentioned, because city commission will consider the annexation and zoning on February 10th.

Uh, but they do and are required to consider your recommendation.

So we're here before you this evening to have this conversation uh and hear your thoughts and determine whether or not you think R1 is appropriate for this particular prop property.

This is the motion that's in your packet or in the staff report.

I have it for reference.

Um, but I do have the applicant.

They've got quite a bit of horsepower here for you this evening uh that can expand on the conversation and certainly answer any questions that I may not be able to answer.

But with that, I have the kind of the context map back for you.

Thank you for the time.

That's all that I have for you.

And again, thanks for your time.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Tom.

Any questions for Mr.

Rogers?

Stragnets.

Yeah, I'll I'll throw two out there real quick.

First of all, throw a report.

Thank you for putting it together.

I'm always impressed.

42 pages for what is at least I think is a relatively simple annexation, but um it's a lot of great material.

So thank you.

Um questions are this uh section five of the terms of annexation uh or subcategory five.

Um it talks about street improvements to furry mill road between boiling and bridger drive, light signalization, paving curving.

Um and then it also says intersection improvements to starting mill and boiling, including signalization, channel, paving gutters.

Um I'm just curious, maybe um to embellish a little bit on that.

In that only, I know that there's been a considerable amount of pro improvements already made in that area, and I look at both of those roads as being like probably brought up to standard at this point.

Um is there additional um the things that are gonna be done to those roads uh to satisfy um this annexation in this property.

So specifically referring to the listed um what's called SID special improvements or the waivers to those.

Um yeah, great question.

So how we work with these in in this case you're correct, it to my knowledge.

I am not the transportation and public works engineer.

They may have something in the long-term um capital plan for infrastructure improvement on those intersections.

It's not planned in the near future, but we do require, and part of our annexation policy is to ensure that the waivers for potential future improvements to mitigate development in the area is shared equitably across all parties.

Umgineering in this case was pretty narrowly focused.

Typically, these uh waivers are actually more extensive because of other infrastructure that may not be up to snuff.

In this case, there's only only a couple that were listed, uh, and just on those intersections.

However, uh there's nothing that's planned and likely nothing that's meet needed at the moment.

Of course, Canyon Gate, if and when their site plan and subdivisions come forward, they may trigger something else.

But again, it's all based on you know a TIS, the data that we collect with future development and what may be required.

It always gets a little bit nuanced because Bridger Drive is an MDT uh roadway.

So they are always involved and they're driving the intersection of Story Mail Road.

And based on warrants and all the other types of things.

So I'll stop there.

Um second question is um, and it might be for the applicant, but is there any sort of outreach?

Because I mean, this is one parcel of what looks like about seven or eight parcels that are still kind of this island of county land fully surrounded by city land.

Um I don't know if has there been any outreach to maybe build some more momentum around annexing maybe some of these additional properties.

Um I will defer to the applicant for that.

Um I'm not aware of any.

Um we always have that conversation internally for sure.

Uh sort of a unique particular area.

And some of these property owners have contacted our department over the years.

Nothing's come forward yet.

Okay.

Last question, and then I'll I'll pass the mic.

Um so they're at they're applying for an R1.

Um, I guess this is we'll call it old code.

So there's R2, R3, R4, right, as well.

Um golf course uses or auxiliary uses allowed in, let's say an R3.

No.

No.

Okay.

Or an R2.

R2, yes.

Okay.

Well I'm gonna have to check the code on that.

RA, RA it's allowed.

Okay.

But R2 is part of RA, so it's possible we've expanded.

I just don't recall if R2 allows it.

R1 definitely does, as does RS.

Okay.

Okay.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions for Tom?

Jason.

Yeah.

Um so what happens to parcels such as this that are annexed and initially zoned in this interim between when the revised UDC takes effect.

Do they just convert to the respective uh applicable new zoning?

So like R1 and R2 will become RA and R3 will be will become RB or R3 would become RB.

Um, correct.

And so unless or until um like a site application or something were to come in to a development application.

What's happening right now is just the initial zoning, and very likely it's gonna convert to the new zoning before any actual project is proposed.

Is that right?

Absolutely.

Yes.

Yeah, in fact, in this case, it's it's sort of a unique situation.

Our ordinance will stay R1 by the time it's finally adopted because it requires a couple of weeks between each reading.

Um, it will on February 1st becomes R RA.

Okay.

We can handle that administratively, but to your question, there's no applications that we're reviewing currently, so it will be reviewed under the new new code when that's when that becomes official.

Okay.

And so I mean I realize what happened here, like when they were ready to proceed.

It was the then existing code or technically the still existing code.

And so R1 was really their only choice.

But if we were trying to assess the appropriateness, we should be looking at the use tables of the new code.

So the use tables for RA and RB.

I mean, is that basically right?

I will slowly say that's correct.

But it's like as a practical matter.

You know, as a specific technical thing, no, it's RA, R1, pardon me.

That is what we're reviewing it on.

We're all aware that that's going to change before anything actually happens.

But you, as this board have already evaluated and considered R1.

It's appropriate that it became RA.

So they're really it's it's a really sort of a meshing of that that situation.

Okay, great.

That's that's what I have for now for staff.

Like probably we'll have some later, but probably after we hear from the applicant.

Okay.

Sure.

Yes, sir.

Um with the benefit of having a computer at my fingertips, um, was able to look up the existing zoning.

Um a golf course is allowed under RS and R1 is not allowed under R2 today.

As Tom mentioned under code in effect on the first, then it will be allowed in RA.

Okay.

Yeah.

And I think that would if that wasn't mentioned in the staff report, it was mentioned in the applicant's narrative as well.

But essentially at the time they submitted the only eligible implementing zone for the future land use urban neighborhood designation was R1.

Thank you, Chris.

Other questions for Tom?

Okay.

Um, I wonder if you could describe for me the range of activities that would be considered uh accessory uses for a golf course.

I was afraid you're gonna ask me that.

Um when we're when I was doing the analysis, we were doing the analysis of this, we you know, we look at the golf course, you know, it's a public use, is it a park?

Um, but we immediately go to our definitions.

And if you look at the definition for a golf course, it clearly states that a golf course and like supporting components of that.

And I think it would be kind of a reasonable litness test.

I mean, there at some point somebody might consider something that would be beyond the scope of what's directly related to a golf course.

Difficult for us to answer that.

I would look at that on a case-by-case basis, considering that size, scope, nature of the golf course itself.

Um, but clearly, you know, the storage maintenance, um uh location of all the the you know, the the machinery involved to maintain the the greens, the the you know, the tees, all of those types of things, uh an area for the staff to be able to do that.

Um, even gasoline storage, you know, you got to have gas with his machines and whatnot.

Um some backstock for for fertilizers, those types of things would clearly be part of that.

Um hard for me to conjecture what would what might not be, but I'm sure we can think of something that might be a little bit more than a you know uh a kind of a local golf course kind of operation.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

It's it's helpful to have those things just kind of enumerated in the room when we're talking about a residential zoning designation.

Of course, Eric.

I'll just curious also on a because this is you know essentially like a multi-parcel use, right?

Golf courses on a separate parcel.

Does the use on this parcel is it required to be a principal use, i.e.

golf course, or could it be an accessory use, i.e.

accessory building that's accessory to this other parcel?

Interesting question.

And um as you were asking yours, I thought of something else from for commissioner um or board member Egggy's question.

I think they're related.

Um yes, it can be a standalone use.

But if you look in the use table, it has a little S by it.

S means special use, which means it's permitted, but only after review, and we have an opportunity to assess potential impacts on adjacent properties.

And if something's there that's clearly demonstrable that could have some impact, we may require mitigation of some sort to address that.

So, yes, it's a principal use.

It can stand alone, you don't need a house, you don't need anything else, it can be a golf course.

But to establish it uh or expand it, it's gonna require a special review.

In this case, we call a special use permit, which runs with the land.

They have to meet the standards that might be a part of that.

So in this case, board members Age's question of like, you know, if they come forward with something that's it's potentially impactful for adjacent property owners, well, we can have a conversation about that.

If I could add to the answer to Mr.

Bunny's question, the way that Bozeman uh has its code organized, um we consider a lot for the purpose of zoning review to be all the combinations of parcels owned for that part for that purpose.

So if you look you know downtown over at say for security bank, I think they're sitting on top of like 12.

Um and we treat them as a parcel.

We don't expect you know setbacks in the middle of the building and those kinds of things.

So in this case, we have multiple parcels, you know, on the north side of Mackelhatton, just immediately here, the parcel we're discussing this evening, others.

Um that's all considered a single property for future review.

Thank you both.

More from Jason.

Yeah.

Um are the two parcels being aggregated.

No.

Okay.

On the page eight annexation map, uh, I wasn't seeing two parcels, but I did see reference in the legal description to two parcels recited in the deed.

So can you explain um what's going on there?

Sure.

If you look at um even the city CIS, Montana Cadastral, uh, they'll typically aggregate parcels uh in proximity like that under single ownership.

But upon deed research with the clerk and recorder, you'll find there's underlying uh multiple properties.

In this case, it's the old um vacated railroad, which is the strip of property on the west side of the property, still owned by these folks, but there are technically two parcels there.

But for simplicity and and clarity on maps, they're typically aggregated and show it at one.

Uh and that's true in many properties in downtown like Bozeman area.

There's often lots underneath there.

I'll stop there and hopefully that's answering your question.

Yeah, okay, thanks.

Can't see I can't see Lauren, but uh want to make sure she has a chance to ask questions if she has any.

Thank you.

I do not have any questions at the moment.

Okay, thanks, Lauren.

I think at this point we can hear from the applicant.

Um if that's all the questions for Tom, and we'll bring it back up here after the applicant presents.

So thank you.

Good evening, board members.

Uh my name is Joseph DeAngelo.

I am an architect with 45 architecture here in town, and I'm representing my clients, um Dane and James Gamble, along with uh uh partners that also own the uh the property with them.

Uh I'm also here with uh Celine.

Um she is our civil engineer from Morris Marley.

Uh I believe Tom provided you with a very detailed overview.

Um I think I would like just to add that um when my clients came to me and uh talked about uh going through a process to be annexed into the to the city, they were kind of looking at um a way for them to continue use, a use that they've been using the property for since 1994 and something that they look at as a uh huge benefit to their business, and they just are looking to continue that similar use into the future, making upgrades.

Um and like uh Tom said, um, any future development because the golf courses don't fall under an individual category would have to go on to a special use kind of application process.

So um I'd like to open it up to any questions you might have for me.

Any questions for Joseph?

Jason.

Yeah, so it's the uh that second parcel, I guess I'm not sure if it was reflected, but is it essentially just sort of a meaningless little strip that's not really material to the Yes?

It was uh essentially um a separate tract that has a different like legal definition that was combined when the uh railroad uh abandoned that property and that got combined with the uh the original.

Both of those legal depth uh kind of descriptions um I believe happened prior to my client's ownership of it in '94.

Um the property, I believe the uh there's a metal or wood structure on the property that's been there since 1974.

I suspect the railroad was already that tract of land was already combined with it at that point.

Okay.

Um here's a little bit of a long question or has some setup, and I'd say your clients are probably free to contribute to the answer if if they would like to.

But um, so I realize R1 was the only available zoning option um when you submitted.

Um and I'm sort of wondering about like down the road, um, let's just say that they decided to build more of like a warehouse to serve some equipment, you know, possibly even leasing to BSF for their grooming equipment.

Um and then thinking, well, maybe we'll do a second story with some housing because it's hard to get employees because they can't afford to live here.

Um I would think that like a different kind of zoning, like R3, which would become RB as opposed to R1, which will become R A, might be more flexible for that.

And so I know that when you submitted R1 was the only viable choice, but the question I guess is like what about what about now?

Is it still your client's first choice?

Uh so when we were looking at it in the old code, um I believe R S and R1 were the only options.

RS was abandoned probably prior to not sure, 2018-ish, so that wasn't an actual option.

Right.

Looking forward, um we uh we underwent this um kind of application process late last year, and I had a meeting with the planning department at that point to discuss the their opinion if the the new UDC was going to get passed or not.

Um based on their recommendation that they fully believed it was going to get passed, we selected R1, knowing that it would be turned into RA.

I think the difference being, as you highlighted, the density um uh between RA and RB.

It is a density um based on dwelling units, and I believe uh height limitations, um street frontage coverage, I would say, and a couple other things are very similar between the two.

Um when you say density, are you are we referring to like the challenge of meeting the minimum required density or no?

The R um so RB would it would allow for uh a denser dwelling unit um kind of application.

Um that wasn't in consideration at the time based on the current uses and the future proposed uses of the property.

Um so it seemed not necessary.

Um I do know that um is it um R3 turns to RB?

Is that correct?

That's right.

Um there is some higher density around there.

Um if there was a designation of RB, um RB also, as you pointed out, uh allows for golf courses special use um uh activities.

Um that wouldn't preclude any future plans my client would have for their property.

Right.

Yeah, and I'll uh I'll probably ask some more questions to staff too, is kind of far as like what the path forward is, you know, if sort of R1 were to be what happens at this application versus and it and then a later idea were to need it different versus the opposite.

Um I did look it up, you know, the minimum density in RA is six dwelling units per acre, and RB it's it's eight.

Um but then I also saw that uses that are allowed in RB that are not allowed in RAM or multi- multi-unit dwellings, general services, health and exercise, and personal service.

Um to sort of think of like in the future what you know, because we're setting a zoning that's kind of supposed to be for forward looking.

Um so I didn't note that.

Um but anyway, I guess the short question, which uh if you if you answered it um or if your your clients um one to was just I realized that R1 was the only real uh viable option at the time you submitted, but the the question is how about now?

Like is is it still your favorite, or would you would they prefer to have I I think that it would convert to RB?

Yes, I um based on all my conversations with clients.

They uh haven't expressed any inclination to use it for dwelling units.

Um and then for therefore like the density of dwelling units is irrelevant essentially if they were ever to think about it in the future to maybe relocate operations from this property to another and want to market it in a certain way, maybe.

Um Dane, would you did you have any comment on uh the options?

This is uh Dane Gamble.

Dane Gamble, uh co-owner of Bridger Creek Golf Course.

We discussed the all alternatives and the flexibility contained within the existing code at the time.

And it it in our mind becomes a moot point because we're there to take care of the golf course.

The parcel that we work from essentially meets kind of a minimum space requirement that we can envision, because we can envision doing things better than we have in the past.

Jason, just to answer uh one question but that you had regarding the little uh strip of land that was formerly railroad right away.

Uh it is not insignificant, it is significant because it takes us to the west side of the property where we then uh cross um Boylan Road to access the golf course.

Oh, gotcha.

Yeah.

That's part of the old turkey red line.

And uh well, there's a lot of history that could be gone over.

Yeah.

Well, the reason that the purpose of my question was just uh didn't I didn't mean significance in terms of importance.

I mostly meant in terms of size, and the follow-up question would have been if it made sense to do different zoning for each of the parcels.

But it sounds like the one parcel is quite small.

Yeah, no, I I couldn't imagine any very you know anything different.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions?

Be happy to answer or give you any history on it.

Okay.

Chris, do you remember when zoning went from AS away?

Yes, disappeared in 2002, and RS stayed on the map but become became unavailable for new sites in 2018.

And it affected us not a whit.

So thank you.

Last call for questions of the applicant.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now it's time to take some public comment.

Anyone in the building uh would like to offer public comment?

Please come to the podium.

Sam, anybody online?

We do not have anyone dialed in tonight.

Okay.

With that, I think we will uh close the uh comment portion of the meeting and bring it up here for a board discussion um motion and a vote.

Entertain a motion on this item or discussion first.

There's some recommended language.

Chair will make a motion.

Okay.

Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application two five five two five and move to recommend approval of the 1071 story mill road zone map amendment with contingencies required to complete the application processing.

Second.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any discussion.

Mr.

Bonet.

I'm sorry if I'm out of order.

You're not.

Um I just my thinking on this is just looking at the adjacent land uses and zoning that are planned, then I think that an RB zoning designation is more appropriate.

And I from what I've heard the applicants didn't really consider RA versus RB, because they were making a you know, kind of strategic move in terms of getting this thing going.

And it seems like they don't really care.

But I think you know, if it at some point there was a future owner, you know, the other three corners of that intersection are all zoned RB or higher.

Um so to me that that seems like it's a more appropriate zone designation.

That's my take.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I mean, I don't know.

It could go both ways.

You know, and this is always one of those strange things where do I know better than the owner or not, you know.

If this land was ever, you know, flipped to somebody else who had aspirations to put multi uh unit dwellings on it, um, then it would probably be um better positioned right as as our well R3, I guess is really what we're looking at here, not RB yet.

But um uh but right now, you know, the use is not that, right?

It's being used as something differently.

Um I think it's curious, like this whole area is kind of a patchwork quilt of stuff at this point, even the B2M that's in there.

And I'm not sure.

I I mean I even know that the VQM, I think that's capped at a certain elevation, and the northern portion of that B2M isn't even being that's if I remember the site plan application for that, that's open parkland.

So this our one proposal is in a sense not necessarily up against B2M, it's up against basically kind of a an open park, and I think it was mostly drainage that was put in there for the rest of the property.

Um yeah, I mean I I kind of I appreciate the applicant.

Um I look through the criteria, I guess this does satisfy all the terms of the criteria, right?

So I can't limit it based on well, I think it could be a little bit denser or not.

It does satisfy the statutory criteria.

Um so I I'm uh I'm likely gonna vote for it.

Um but I do uh I do because I was getting at it too.

I understand the push, like, okay, it should this be densified a little bit more?

Is there few better, you know, more um opportunity in the future if this changes hands.

Um but you know what?

If it comes down to that's two up two uh units per acre, it's really you're just looking at two to three more doors on a property and maybe a little bit you know more versatility in terms of how you can position multiple units against each other.

So I don't I don't think this is the parcel that I'm necessarily gonna die on and say this has to be our you know our B.

Thanks, Chris.

Yeah.

Um I mean I mostly I agree mostly uh in substance with um member vonet's comments.

Um to my mind, um unless you felt like oh the we wouldn't be able to meet the required minimum density of RB, then I don't know why you would not have just want not why you would not want that added flexibility.

Um the ability to have the use of the multi-unit dwelling seems worth it if just in the future.

Um but it's not that big of a property.

I feel like we gave the applicants an offer an invitation to sort of say, yeah, you know, we picked R1 because we were basically pigeonholed to only do that.

And I try to give them opportunity, or I do give them opportunity to say, like, well, but no, now that we're here now, would you rather have something different?

And they they didn't.

So um, you know, there's always the possibility that plans would change either from this owner or a different owner, and if they needed a different zone, then they could just do an application.

Um so they would have to spend that time, you know, spend those professional fees again, whether it's these folks or or new owners.

But at this point, I mean, um, even though I think it would be better if it were R3 converting to RB, um, I'm I'm willing to go along with their request, um, especially given the exchange that we had and uh you know, support uh support the application.

Thank you, Jason.

Anything more mark.

Okay.

Laura, anything to add?

Uh nothing additional.

Um I I agree with what was just said.

Okay.

And I'll weigh in basically um based on size, context, um, and the uh the owner's preferences and the criteria met.

I am agreeing in general agreement, um, some intensification is warranted, but I am generally in support of the uh of the application.

So with that, well, chair, sorry.

I actually I'm gonna make my one editorial comment, which is uh I think board member told me suggested that perhaps you know, if a future owner wanted to change the uh the underlying or to change the the zoning designation, there would be that opportunity.

And I'm not sure if that I don't know if that's true.

Um I think that once the zoning designation is set.

If a future owner wanted to change the zone zoning designation, we might consider that spot zoning.

And um the I'm not sure, yeah, I'm not sure if there would be the opportunity in the future to change the zoning on such a small parcel.

I just just just saying that as part of the for the record of the public hearing.

Okay.

Thank you.

Now, roll call vote.

Uber Egggy.

Aye.

Second or Delmu.

Aye.

Board member Bonnet.

Hi.

Board Member Egg Naz.

Aye, yes.

Board member Mitro.

I and Chairman Boyd.

Aye.

Motion passes 6-0.

Okay.

Moving on in the agenda too.

Update from Mr.

Saunders on some economic data.

Yes, the city has for a number of years um commissioned an annual report on housing and economic issues.

This is the release for the most current one that uh closed through January of last year.

It we always struggle with the fact that it takes so long to get the data because it you've got to get it reported.

It has to go up to the appropriate agencies, the agencies have to prepare it, it has to then get released, and then we get to do the work uh with our consultants.

So it's unfortunately uh takes a long time to get it out, but um this report is out and available.

This is uh some of the information that we rely on when we do our land use planning uh to help give some of the current status documentation that's required.

So we felt you folks would like to see the latest and the greatest.

Um it's available through the um economic development department's website.

They're the commissioning agent for the city who uh coordinates that.

So just uh transmittal of some information there.

Okay.

Thank you, Chris.

And then the following one is uh schedules for upcoming meetings, and so your next meeting is on February the second.

Um, and we are scheduled for ethics training.

Uh that's annual activity.

Um, one other thing that's uh just an FYI because of the President's Day holiday in February, our regular meeting on uh that week will move to the 23rd of February.

So a little bit of a schedule change there per the adopted um policy of the board to drop to the following Monday if there's a Monday holiday.

Okay, thanks for that, Chris.

And I guess I should ask for any public comment on anything that weren't on our agenda at this point.

Anyone in the building hiding somewhere?

No.

Anyone online, Sam?

There's no one online.

Okay.

Were we gonna have any discussion on the economic market update report?

Or I thought there was a lot of interesting content in there, and I wouldn't mind just pulling forward a couple things, and that's all right with you.

We certainly can.

Um the expectation is more just transmittal of the information, but it's on the agenda.

If you wanted to bring something up for this evening, that'll be just fine.

Uh yeah, maybe because it's dense and it's okay.

Um but two things that jumped out at me is actually the first one's on the last page, and um so it's a pretty simple one.

Um as you we look to uh housing unit types um and estimated growth and kind of uh what the forecasts are.

Um I noticed that single housing, single households, right?

New units for 6,400.

Um, and so is that um and then there's duplexes, triplexes, four plexus.

But when I look at single households, I I'm thinking like, okay, here's here's a single house with the yard on the side and a yard in the front and a picket fence and a mailbox.

Um it constituted about 42 percent of the expected housing that or 45% of the expected housing that's needed.

Only reason I bring it up is that we haven't, I mean, other than tonight, I think this is the first R1 annexation come through my time period here.

We're I don't know if we're maybe addressing that need.

Um in some of the annexations and other projects that have come across our kind of across the dias here.

So I think just opening up for conversations.

It's a very interesting question.

Um, the opportunity for somebody to ask for R1 has been out there uh continuously.

We haven't seen a lot of requests, as you note.

We haven't seen a lot of requests as you've note I think uh the bulk of housing in Bozeman for at least the last 15 I think possibly 20 years has leaned toward the attached housing component so we are seeing a shift over time this may be some of the shift back it's always an interesting question of um there's the difference between what people would like and what people can afford and so there's always that um tension which is certainly not a new thing in this town it's been a been an issue um for very many years on costs but it's a fascinating question I can't tell you what methodology they used to get to this does uh the department have any uh data on essentially how things build out or exist versus what the underlying zoning is because surely there's places that are quote unquote underbuilt for what was allowed and I believe that a lot of our initial zonings we're seeing are asking for greater even though they know they're gonna do the lesser so long as they can still meet the minimum required when you average it out.

There's quite a bit of that the fastest way to get your hands on that if you look on the community development viewer there's an opportunity to turn on the zoning and an opportunity to turn on the existing land use and then you can see not just what zone but actually what got built and there are a number of larger developments in the area that could allow something else and chose to build to the lower end of the density it honestly was one of the conversations and and purposes in some of the standards in the UDC update because when the city zones to a higher standard or a more intensive district that then puts some pretty strong signals into our utilities and transportation and other kinds of planning and lots of money gets spent in support of that higher density so to have the a higher density district build out lower we a bunch of money public or private has been spent that wasn't needed.

So matching up a more predictable balance was part of the the the rationale in looking at adjusting upwards the minimum densities so if someone says I want to build R5 great we'll do the analysis if that's what gets approved then we want to know that it's going to follow through that those capital investments are not going to be you know sitting there foul for however long if you want a lower density district and and that's what you want to do great we'll do that too and again we'll match the infrastructure more carefully to it.

When you said on the community development bureau you could um enable to see the existing use what uh what how are those uses uh described um if you want the full report you can go under the community development website it's also linked in uh the in the land use plan in appendix B under land use there's a link to our annual land use report and it's got a description of all the different categorizations of how we classify things um okay we update that on an annual basis and um so try to keep that pretty current okay I just saw on the member uh Bonette showed me yeah but yeah it's so it's really granular I mean it's like two parcel yeah okay now the one caution I'd give you there is if you've got a 50 acre parcel the first building that goes up says the whole thing swallow so some things are still working their way through the process but it's the the limitations of the tools we have other items people want to talk about I think the other thing that jumped out at me here is the 18.7% vacancy rate that's yeah uh I think that that's a 16 year high it is a high um if you look at the the past trends for housing um the number of homes that were built in I think it was 22 was the all-time high construction for the city for those permits getting issued I think it was roughly 2400 homes which normally would be a multi-year um aggregation of total construction so there was a huge surge in um apartment type construction and uh it kind of all came online similar time frames so our expectation is we won't see very many new projects um over the next few years as that absorbs up and then as it starts getting closer to a uh appropriate level then we'll start seeing applications coming back in and it's just the ebb and flow that comes through I mean I I wish I wish we could see that cost per unit number go down

So our expectation is we won't see very many new projects over the next few years as that absorbs up, and then as it starts getting closer to uh uh appropriate level, then we'll start seeing applications coming back in and it's just the ebb and flow that comes through.

I mean I I wish I wish we could see that cost per unit number go down, knowing that there's all that inventory out there, but I know there's uh macroeconomics at play here.

Um but it's like one of those things where like the inventory's there, it's just I mean the developers just aren't willing, and that's okay to part with some of those units for a cost that's maybe a little bit more appropriate for Bozeman.

But okay.

Other topics.

Okay.

Anything else for the good of the order?

FYI, um Courtney Johnson, by the way, who was appointed.

Um it didn't work out for her, so she had to step off, and we have two new members.

I thought we could take 15 seconds and have the two new members introduce themselves and just a quick background and on where you come from, what you do, and uh then we'll probably wrap it up.

Let's start with Eric.

Sure thing, thank you.

Umet, I'm uh an architect registered uh in the state among several others.

Um I uh originally moved to Bozeman to work at the university in the architecture department where I still do teach uh part-time.

And I also uh co-run a practice um called Studio Cohab, where we are uh focused on a variety of kind of mission focused and innovative housing um projects.

So great.

Yeah, welcome.

Very excited to join the board and uh work with all of you.

And we're excited to have you.

Thank you, Eric.

Lauren, anything from you?

Yes, hi, my name is Lauren Maitro.

Um I have been in Bozeman for five, six years now.

I also practice architecture.

I'm currently working remote for a firm out of Hawaii.

Um so I get both the sunshine and the snow nowadays, which has been really nice.

Um very excited to join the board and just get more involved in the community.

And again, welcome.

Thanks for being here.

Anything else?

Yeah.

Okay, with that, I think we are adjourned.

Goodbye.

That's the standard we're gonna follow.