Disclosures.

How about are there any uh changes to the agenda?

No changes to the agenda.

Any uh public service announcements.

Uh I have a couple.

Um they're both regarding uh podcasts, local podcasts.

One is called the Bozeman Brief Podcast that uh our member A put together.

It's an AI summary of city meetings.

It's uh very informative and efficient, and uh I'd have a call to action, please of our board members here to please listen to the one that comes out for tonight's meeting, uh hopefully soon while it's still fresh, and uh evaluate both what is included for accuracy and also try to remember the meeting and assess if anything important was not included.

I'm sure uh member Aggie would find it helpful if we gave him some feedback.

Um we have uh a new joine here.

Go ahead, introduce yourself to the room, please.

Uh Chris Eggnantz reporting in for duty.

Um the other uh podcast is called the Bozeman Beat Podcast, and uh I know our uh Mayor Morrison is involved in it.

I don't know, and he can maybe speak to it if he wants.

Um it's very informative and timely.

Uh this past episode was about how this past winter is expected to affect runoff, and the prior episode was about housing in Bozeman, including affordability.

Uh so far they've been plus or minus a half an hour, um, and they've been really beneficial to get a more detailed discussion uh from people who know about complex issues in our community.

And I'd say Mayor Morsen, if you wanted to if you have anything to add, go ahead.

Um sure.

I I I won't add too much appreciate the um the shameless plug um for what we're working on.

Um but it's just uh yeah, we're gonna be covering things that you know matter and affect our constituents that City Hall has a role in, as well as things outside of City Hall, like our snow pack.

Um so there'll be many more to come trying to get them out monthly for the foreseeable future.

Okay.

Um let me dispense with some uh housekeeping that's normally at the beginning of meetings.

Um that's the uh introduction about where these meetings can be uh watched or accessed.

Um we're the community development board, a seven-member citizen advisory board comprised of volunteers appointed by the city commission.

Um we generally meet twice per month to make recommendations regarding land use regulations.

Um we welcome the presence of those here in the city commission room and those um listening or watching remotely.

Um here are the ways in which you can follow this meeting and provide public comments.

You can watch the meeting in real time and provide public comment comment by joining us via video conference.

You'll find to link the link to join us by going to the city's website at Bozeman.net, click on departments, then on city commission, and then on live stream and videos.

Uh you can find this meeting under the upcoming events list and uh click on the copy of the meeting agenda.

It is highlighted in blue, and then you can click the link to attend via video conference, also highlighted in blue in the second paragraph of the agenda and follow the prompts to register for the meeting.

Um if you are joining us via video conference and you would like to offer public comment, use the video conference raise your hand feature when it is your turn to comment.

Staff will call on you by name.

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

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

They are for viewing or listening only, and you will be unable to provide public comment.

You can dial in to listen to the meeting.

Uh you'll find the phone number and access code under section A of the agenda.

You can watch this meeting on Cable TV channel 190, and you can stream this meeting on your computer going to Bozeman.net, clicking on departments, then on City Commission, and then on live video uh or live stream and videos, and then find this meeting under the upcoming events list and click on view live event.

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

Okay, now that we've dismissed with that, we can uh continue with the agenda.

Um let me pull it up.

Uh next uh item is approval of the minutes.

These are the minutes of um February 23rd.

So I would entertain a motion to uh approve the minutes.

I move to approve the February 2020, February 23rd, 2026 meeting minutes.

Second uh is there any discussion or um any uh matters of uh inaccuracies or changes that anyone saw all right then uh front, would you uh please take uh a vote?

Yeah, mover Morrison.

All right, second or Egggy.

Aye, member Mitro.

I member Egnetz, yes, member Bonnet.

Aye and Member Delium.

I uh the next item on the agenda is a consent item.

It's for the Grand CLO phase three major subdivision preliminary plot application to further subdivide four lots and block 14 of Grand CL subdivision phase two into a 42 lot subdivision for residential single household and townhouse slash row house uses.

The subject property is zoned R5, residential high density district and contains 6.69 acres of gross lot area.

Uh it's generally located northwest of the corner of South 27th Avenue and Bennett Boulevard.

It's application uh 25703.

This is a quasi-judicial matter, and our uh city staff representative is uh Miss Daniel Garber.

Um I guess uh maybe first I will call to see if there's any public comment in the room about this agenda item.

All right, hearing none.

Uh Trent, would you be able to see if there's uh anybody online with their virtual hand raised to give public comment?

Please use the raise your hand feature if you want to provide public comment.

No public comment.

Okay.

I would uh entertain a uh well, I guess uh first I'd ask the uh our fellow members if anybody wanted to pull this item off of the consent agenda to be treated as an action item.

Jason, I don't want to pull it off, but um in the past we have been able to ask a couple of questions just to get in clarity over the application a couple of things.

Is that all right if I do that?

Uh yes.

Um I believe uh Ms.

Garber is in the room and can come to the podium.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Hello, Danielle Garber, planning representative.

Great.

Um so Danielle, um, just for clarity.

Um so this is being reviewed under the old UDC.

Correct.

Correct.

Okay, um, so not under the new UDC.

I I saw that in the report.

And then for each one of these lots, when they then go in for their, I guess, building permit and application.

Correct.

Would that be under the new UDC and would those lots be called, I guess be qualified as R D lots then?

Correct.

At that point.

So okay, so they would be RD lots, but the entirety of the site is being reviewed right now as an R5 under the new or the old UDC.

Excuse me.

Correct.

So that's a little confusing, and I'm just trying to tea it all up.

Um and then can you remind me?

Does the in the old UDC is there minimum density assigned to R5?

It is correct.

Okay, there is a minimum density, right?

Yes.

Um I know in the new UDC, I think it was 14 units per acre.

Okay.

Um I guess my my only concern as I'm reviewing this is I want to ensure that the minimum density requirements can be met.

I know we haven't put dwellings on these sites yet.

Um it's my understanding that each one of these sites could be a single unit, it could be a duplex two, right?

I guess you can build it out as much as you can, but each one of these sites is being sold as an individual or it's being developed as an individual site, correct?

Uh except for the southwest lot, which will be attached units.

Um they have the option to uh provide zero lot lines with final plat on some of the individual lots if they desire to do attached units there as well.

Okay.

All right.

Because I did a quick calculation, and essentially we need about 101 units on this piece of property, plus or minus to meet the minimum densities of 14 units per acre.

They're subject to the minimum density of R5 zoning, though.

Okay, that's right as of R5, not R D.

Correct.

Okay.

And what is the minimum density of R5?

I don't have it off the top of my head.

I think it was eight.

Okay, but it's I um if I remember correctly, I believe it was less than what we it's less than current R5.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Um so again, I don't want to pull it off of quasi judicial, but I think uh my again, my my primary I want to make sure when this comes back into planning, minimum densities are met, which would be under the R5.

Uh so the minimum density calculation for the overall four parcels is being is meeting the R5 minimum with the adequacy prior to the uh effective date of the 2025 UDC.

So when they come in for building permits, we're not going to reevaluate the density.

The site plan, perhaps for the row houses when that comes in, um will be evaluated against current zoning, but the general individual parcels have no more individual or density plan or view, they'll go to building permit.

I think it's a it's just interesting.

We approved this long ago as an R5.

And what's coming back is essentially an almost like an RA or an RB sort of plat plan.

Um you look at the the densities and how that how it's been divided up.

They struggled with some of the minimum lot areas in the R5 zoning, so I think that the lots are pretty small.

Um we'll have a number of homes there.

Yep.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other uh questions from board members?

All right.

Oh, go ahead.

Yeah.

Uh chairs just a point of order.

Given that this is our our consent agenda, are you looking for a motion to approve the consent agenda or the uh the recommended motion that was provided in the staff report?

Um I guess I'd ask staff if they have a preference.

Uh you could call out to approve item E1 on the agenda on the consent agenda, that would be sufficient, or you could use the full motion.

Either way works.

Okay.

Only but up to the discretion of uh whoever's still inclined to make the motion.

Anyone?

I can make a motion.

Uh sorry.

Having a review and consider the application material, public comment, and all the information presented.

I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 25703 and move for the community development board at its or in its capacity as the planning board to recommend approval of a subdivision with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions.

Second second.

All right.

Any uh further discussion.

All right, Trent, would you please call for a vote or call vote?

Mover Eggnets.

Yes.

Second or Morrison.

All right.

Member Mitro.

Aye.

Member Delmium.

Aye.

Member Bonnet.

All right.

Member Eggie.

All right.

All right.

Uh motion passes 6-0.

Um right.

Next item on our agenda is special presentations.

The first of which is regarding the integrated water resources plan update.

Is this our utilities director?

It is.

Um as the board's aware, uh, there's a lot of plans that the city prepares in support of our land use plan.

The integrated water resources plan is a very important one.

And um it's in process of being updated right now.

So both for general awareness and also to help the public be aware of this process that's underway and encourage participation with that.

We asked uh Mr.

Coates to come do uh an update for you and um share some information.

So we'll turn it over to him.

Uh good evening, Chair and members of the board.

Again, I'm Sean Coates uh utilities director for the city.

Uh so to give a brief agenda outline here, I'll talk about background of the integrated water resources plan.

Uh I'll talk about uh work by our water advisory committee to date.

Uh our first community survey results, and then uh finally next steps uh what we're doing with that plan.

Uh to give a little background, uh so there's a little bit of history with the Bozeman's integrated water resources plan, and what this is is a 50-year water supply plan for the city.

Um it's it it basically it's it's done a number of things for us over the last uh decade.

Um you know, one of the biggest things is number one is it informs policy and practice.

Uh basically tells the community how we're going to manage our water supply.

It supports our short and long-term planning.

So when we when we uh develop and then uh pick our capital plan projects, we're following what the integrated water resources plan tells us what to do.

Uh it established our water conservation program.

So basically the last IWERP and it was adopted in 2013.

And what that told us is hey, we want to absolute prior absolutely prioritize water conservation.

At that time, we didn't really have a water conservation program, and now we've got one of the best ones in the country.

Uh so it tells you that, you know, hey, we really listen when we adopt this document that we're doing the things that this document tells us to do.

And that's we've had really successful um uh program there out of the water conservation work.

Uh, and then that last plan included some engagement.

So there was a technical advisory committee associated with that last plan in 2013.

So what's what is some of the progress that has been made since 2013?

Uh again, we've implemented our water conservation program.

As a result of that program, we've reduced our uh gallons per person per day water use by 25 gallons per person per day.

So pretty extraordinary results since that time.

Uh we've acquired additional shares in the High Laia Reservoir.

Uh currently we own about 60% of the shares in the reservoir.

Uh, our non-potable irrigation systems, we've implemented two uh large city-owned systems uh using non-potable water sources.

So we irrigate our cemetery as well as the sports park with non-potable water sources.

Um it's been uh one of the things that, of course, the last IWERP told us to do.

Uh and then we are in the process of looking at groundwater uh feasibility analysis.

Currently, we don't have any groundwater wells in the city that are uh for potable use.

All of our water supplies come from surface water sources.

So that's one of the areas that we're looking to expand our water portfolio.

And then lastly, um, you know, the one of the big focus areas of the 2013 IWORP was to optimize our existing uh water supplies and infrastructure.

That's things like uh investing in replacing old water pipes uh so they don't leak as much.

Uh it's things like really maximizing the the use that we the of the water that we push through our water treatment plants.

There are various limitations that we've had in our infrastructure in that along those lines.

So we've been able to eliminate some of those bottlenecks.

Uh so some of the numbers associated with our realized supply expansion.

So we've realized 1,334 acre feet of of water expansion to date since the 2013 integrated water resources plan.

Um we project as a part of our five-year capital plan that we'll realize another 1,575 acre feet of water.

Now, one acre foot of water to put that in context will serve about four single family home units, or it will serve about eight uh apartment units if they give you a sense of how much water that is.

Uh realized savings.

So if we look at our water conservation program, we've been able to save uh 1,000 almost 1600 acre feet of water to date over that time frame.

So pretty extraordinary number there.

And we're projecting an additional savings in the next five years of a thousand acre feet.

Uh so why update the plan now?

Uh so number one changing needs.

Um, it's been over a decade, decade since that first plan was developed.

Uh so we just wanted to acknowledge that today is not the same as it was back then.

Uh so let's take another look at this document, and then really look at a sustainable water uh future.

You know, how do we build the infrastructure to support a thriving community for generations to come?

Uh so from an engagement standpoint on updating our water, our integrated water resources plan.

We've taken a multi-plot pronged approach here.

First of all, we we we're still using the technical advisory committee that we use back in 2013.

And uh the technical advisory committee is is made up of uh pretty diverse group of members here.

We've got Aggie Group members in the committee, we have the Gallatin Water Shed Council representative, we have a member of the public, uh, we've got a member of the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, uh, the Montana DNRC and Montana Trout Unlimited, all as uh members of the technical advisory committee feeding into this work.

And this time we did something a little bit different.

We added a public advisory committee to really capture more of that layperson perspective.

And so the members on that board represent Bozeman Health.

We've got a developer builder on that board, I mean the committee, uh the inner neighborhood council representative, a member of the public uh representative from MSU, and a representative from the sustainability board.

And then lastly, there's a there's a heavy community engagement element of this integrated water resources plan.

So that's things like in-person engagement.

We've got our engage boseman webpage built for this.

We're gonna be doing one-on-one interviews with key stakeholders in the community, and then uh community survey surveys that we're doing as part of this work.

So for project scope, um, you know, basically a big part of this really was to convene this water advisory committee, which is made up of those two subcommittees, the technical committee and the public committee.

And they've been meeting for oh gosh, almost nine months now.

Um fairly heavy uh technical and and complex concepts.

Um and so we've brought them together and we had a meeting today.

Um, and I think that was our fifth meeting, if I'm not mistaken.

So it's uh there's been a heavy investment in those committees to date.

Um basically uh what they've done is uh to date is well I'll I'll get into more of the details, but their scope is to update the water supply alternative screening criteria, and I'll talk about those criteria that they've developed uh in a in a uh future slide here.

Um and then they're gonna discuss and rank water supply alternatives.

Finally, um they'll they'll also take a look at our water conservation measures and make a recommendation on uh the measures that we're doing, but also measures going forward, and then lastly, provide a recommendation uh to the CD board as well as to the city commission.

So the uh project scope, uh engaging with the public.

Um a big part of this, of course, is our engage boseman web page, which is which is already up.

Um but following all this work coming out of the water advisory committee, um, there's gonna be a heavy investment in community events and basically open house type events uh as well as surveys just to get that community input.

So the we've done our first survey, and I'll talk about that in a little bit more detail.

Um work to date by the water advisory committee.

Uh so they established the criteria used to screen water supply alternatives, and I'll talk about those criteria.

Um the water advisory committee has reviewed and revised the concept alternatives the project team screened.

Uh the TAC or the technical advisory committee shared additional priorities to consider, and the project team conducted a community survey.

And then lastly, um this group defined growth rate assumptions to basically look out 50 years into the future.

Um, and then base, you know, then you have to look at water supply alternatives to get to that point.

So, what did they come up with for screening criteria?

So the third the first thing that you'll see that stands out here, and this is the technical uh committee screening criteria weights, they weighted environmental considerations as the the heaviest weight for screening criteria.

Uh their second uh basis was technical, and the third was actually getting water supply out of an alternative.

When we looked at the laypersons committee, they were very similar in their scoring.

Again, they they scored environmental criteria as the highest um uh criteria, followed again by the technical.

So uh the two were in very good alignment.

Uh, some minor differences there, but otherwise very good alignment.

Um, if you look at the technical committee priorities, and if you look at some of the details of the sub criteria that they rank.

So if you look at um the highest priority ranking, they pick watershed resiliency and in ecosystem considerations.

Uh the second one was relative operations and maintenance costs.

Uh there were, and then if you take another step down at a level four in terms of of uh ranked criteria, they ranked climate resiliency as a high priority, preserve preservation of our ag heritage, overall public support, clean water act compliance, um, you know, and again, uh just getting you know farther down to the details of the sub criteria.

So I won't go through every one of those.

Uh, but it's some of the the things to highlight are what didn't make the list as well.

Uh water treatment regulations, basically any any project that we do, it's going to have to meet the EPA and state requirements.

So, you know, the we can set that on the table because we're we're gonna do that regardless of which which project goes forward.

Uh land acquisition and easements, level of service, public health and safety.

A lot of these we we would just have to do as part of any project that we move forward as a water supply project.

So um we did a free first community survey, and the goal of that first community survey was really to gauge um you know more of you know, highest priorities uh from the community.

And we found uh several uh key things that kind of stood out from the survey.

And one thing I'll highlight is we had almost 700 respondents for the survey.

And if you talk to our community uh engagement folks, that's a really high number uh for most surveys that we push out.

So I got a pretty good sample.

Um more than 90 percent uh rated reliable water services, very important or important.

So that was that was a key thing that stood out as part of the survey.

Another thing that they said was there was quite a bit of concern about the strain that development and growth place on existing water resources.

So we had about 83% uh rated responsible growth management as important or very important.

Uh we had about uh 70% rated irrigation, water efficiency is very important, and 90 19% rated as important.

So it really kind of feeds into the water conservation program discussion.

There's a heavy focus on our water conservation program on the irrigation component, because you know, between 40 and 50 percent of our annual water goes to irrigation.

Uh we had uh respondents indicate that new recreate recreational opportunities tied to water supply alternatives should receive less emphasis.

So um half ranked new recreation as not important and 29% rated as somewhat important.

So uh that would be you know, imply something like you know, build a new reservoir so you can fish in it, kind of a thing.

Uh said that's not a high priority for this work.

So they're saying you know, focus more on the water supply elements.

Um and then 30% of 36% of the respondents said the city should pursue regional collaboration if it ensures water reliability and available availability across the region, even at additional cost or reduce efficiency.

So, you know, one of the questions basically asked, you know, hey, if if even if it comes at a higher cost, are we willing to do this this more collaborative work?

And it sounds like yes, there's some willingness to do that.

30% said to pursue collaboration only if it reduces cost or improves efficiency, and 22% supported collaboration regardless of the cost.

And then only 5% indicated Bozeman should not pursue collaboration.

So next steps.

So the concepts alternative review by the water advisory committee.

Basically, what they're doing is looking at you know a list of 40 uh potential water supply projects.

And those includes uh projects like groundwater sources, um, optimizing the highlight uh reservoir and and uh dam, uh import water concepts, non-potable water concepts, resiliency work, uh sourdough storage concepts, water rights, and water reuse concepts, and then a miscellaneous category.

So they're basically looking at you know, again, a list of uh 40 projects that fall into these categories.

And what they're doing is they're basically using this great the screening criteria that they developed and said, okay, here are our highest priorities, environmental being the top one, and uh, and then weighting those accordingly.

So this is the list of the projects, and right now they we literally just presented that this to them today.

Um so our technical folks uh you know took all their screening criteria, ranked them and placed them in this kind of a format.

Um so they're basically taking this home as homework, and then in another month we're gonna meet again with with the water advisory committee, and they're gonna say, yeah, we agree with it here, we don't agree with it here, and then they'll make some tweaks.

Um so they're really getting down in the nitty-gritty of water supply projects at this point.

Uh next steps.

Um, you know, of course, that's more of a focus on the water supply alternatives.

There will also be a review by the water advisory committee of our water conservation program and the details of that program.

And then there will be a second round of community engagement once the water advisory committee gets through all these alternatives and makes recommendations, then we'll take those recommendations to the larger community with through engagement program.

So again, that engagement program will be uh through surveys, it'll be through one-on-one interviews as well as open house type formats.

So quite a bit of community engagement left to come.

And that's a highlight of where we're at today.

Uh, mostly just wanted to give an update on the IWERP work and um you know, knowing that some point down the road, I would say probably in the next six to nine months, we'll be bringing this to the community development board with all the gory detail and looking for um blessing, but we'll be looking to provide updates along the way.

Thank you for that.

Members, do you have any questions?

All right.

Thanks.

Yeah, go ahead.

Did you start this work before you knew what type of spring we were gonna have?

Or very kindly considered what I think we're all gonna be up against this summer.

Yeah, we um we started planning this work, gosh, um about three years ago, roughly, I would say, because we had to basically when we do a program of this scale, we have to build it into our capital plan.

And uh so we make this into the capital plan uh several years back.

Well, yeah, it comes at a great time.

This is gonna be an exceptional year, I think.

Yeah, so it's really simple.

I do have actually one real question.

Um in the list of 42 different things, like all the different priority projects.

Um I didn't see anything on uh maybe incentivizing um uh low flow fixtures, dual flush fixtures, things like that in residences.

Is that something that uh that was considered at all?

It is.

Um in fact, we already do that as part of our water conservation programming.

So we've got a significant rebate program uh for anybody that that wants to install low-flow fixtures, and it's heavily used.

Um we're actually pretty proud of that program.

So developers can come in, and I'm just thinking, like an R5 building, right?

They're they're incentivized to use some of those fixtures.

Oh, yeah.

Okay, yeah, so that's a little bit different than our um than our rebate program.

So the on the development side, um basically when the developer comes in, of course, they have to offset their water impact, right?

And so they can either do that by bringing the water to the city or they can pay the city cash and loo of water rights uh to offset that impact.

Now they can reduce that the cash and move water rights payment significantly if they're doing that that conservation work.

So we give them credit for that at that point.

So yeah, quite a few developers that are using that tool.

Yeah, go for it.

I just wanted to piggyback on that.

I looked up the 2013 report and kind of read through that.

And um, I'd love to hear maybe next time you come back a little bit more about the programs that you are doing.

Yeah, several were just mentioned, as well as you know, of those 2013, you know, you kind of mentioned some of them, like raising highlights that that came up, then maybe you're still thinking about it.

Kind of like you mentioned some of what you've done.

Um, just so we can have that that piece of the context to understand the the committee's current work better.

Yeah, yeah, happy to do that.

Any other questions from the board?

All right.

Um, I think that's it.

I believe it's not customary that we would take public comment on the special presentation.

Is that that's correct, right?

That is correct.

Yeah.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Coates.

Um, thank you.

Our next agenda item is another special presentation.

This is on the uh status update on the landmark program and the design guidelines update on uh looks like our uh liaison saunters will present this to us.

Yes, um, this is another one of those projects that's been ongoing for a while, and we wanted to bring an update to you.

Um it's actually two projects.

The first one is the local landmark project started in fall of 2023, and uh that went through a first phase that concluded in uh early 25 and brought a series of recommendations to the city commission, and they're now working on phase two of that, uh, working on the uh framework for a local landmark program.

How does that fit into the municipal code?

What are the parameters uh that go along with that?

Um there was a presentation to the historic preservation advisory board on March 31st relating to that.

So folks who are interested in a more in-depth uh evaluation and presentation on that subject can uh review the recording from that meeting of March 31st.

Uh kinds of questions are looking at um the issues that are distinct between looking at an individual site versus a group of sites.

Um, how do you manage that?

Um, how do you is it somebody if something's voluntary versus a group of people are bringing others along with them who may or may not be enthusiastic about it?

Uh very different sets of complications and process that needs to be uh revised and resolved on that.

And so they're gonna continue to be working with the preservation board to um refine that later this spring.

And um there will eventually be uh associated code amendments that uh move through, some of which will likely uh interact with the responsibilities of this board.

So we wanted to remind you of the work that's ongoing and let you know that that's still moving.

There is not a current schedule for that work to be concluded at this point.

But if you're looking for some further information, another location, the engaged Bozeman website has a dedicated web page for the landmark project.

And so encourage folks to visit that website, and that'll be a great place to stay up to date.

The second project, which is also related, is an update to the NCOD design guidelines.

The city has had uh formally adopted design guidelines since 2006.

Um, so that was 20 years ago.

Um, the federal guidelines are modified, the community has changed over time, and uh the update to the design guidelines was something that was recommended in phase one of landmark project, and it's also been something that's been a matter of uh discussion in the community since at least 2015.

So it's it's been a while in formation.

So looking at the update for the design standards, design guidelines, um, best practice in any field uh modifies over time, so bringing up to date with best practice for historic preservation, also considering uh community goals and priorities, um, addressing uh clarity.

Uh, one of the things we heard with the UDC update is folks want documents uh that are easy to use, clear uh and predictable.

So working on that, some of the language if you look at the original design guidelines that were in place when the city first created the NCOD, they were very, very difficult to use.

Um, and that's why we ended up creating the ones in 2006 was to help us try and interpret them into more everyday person language.

So we're continuing to work on that process.

Um, we are gonna be hosting a series of engagement events next week for the design guidelines project.

So certainly encourage members of the board and any other members of the public to participate in that.

Um there'll be an open house on Monday uh the 13th from 6 to 8 at the Bozeman Event Space on South Tracy.

There'll be short presentation and then a variety of interactive displays.

Uh the Lakota group, who's the project consultants will be there in person, and we'll also be meeting with the preservation board on the 15th at 6 o'clock.

So uh things happening there for folks to be engaged with, and we encourage folks to be aware of and participate in those activities likewise.

Uh, there's also a design guidelines update page on Engage Bozeman.

So that's also an activity that's another good way to keep track of what's happening with this particular project.

And so I just wanted to let you know that that's what's happening on those two projects.

Uh thank you for that.

Um yeah, I would uh echo the uh engage Bozeman page, both for the water resources plan and for this program.

And it's uh handy to subscribe.

You can subscribe to the different uh projects on Engage Bozeman, and then you'll be on the uh email list for updates and announcements.

Uh any questions from members of the board regarding the uh landmark program and/or the design guidelines update.

Mr.

Chair, yeah, go ahead, Mr.

Umsonders.

I'm just uh curious, as it seems like there's two separate projects, they're kind of moving in a parallel track.

Um, and I know that there's been some discussion around you know, the general approach to historic preservation preservation being around like strengthening protections for truly contributing structures, protections, providing resources, etc.

Um, while simultaneously, you know, not having like a blanket approach that just like smothers you know everything and in additional layers of uh of those like same mechanisms that are intended to protect contributing structures.

So I guess I'm just curious why there's whether the city is going down this track of uh developing and having projects on two separate historic preservation projects based on whether or not a home was built prior to 1954.

Um not built, but part of city letters.

There's several different answers to that question, so we'll try to get them in the right order.

Um partly there are two different projects because they work on two different but clearly related elements.

The landmark project is not limited only to the conservation overlay district, which is a defined geography on the zoning map.

So the local landmark project is a broader question, and it reaches out to more at what do we want to do, how do we want to honor things at the local level?

Our prior, our current uh work that was established previously was based largely on the federal standards for establishing historic districts, other kinds of things.

And certainly there's value there as a resource, but there's also been evolution in the historic preservation field that working at something that shows national significance doesn't necessarily reflect what's important locally for the community.

So looking at a little bit more of a distinction between that federal level work and what we might want to identify as locally important, not to be conflicting between the two, but just recognize that there's there's a difference.

So that's one part of it.

Um part of it is also the local landmark project reaches outside or can reach outside of the NCOD.

And so a landmark can have a variety of different alternatives.

This building's important for our community because here's what's going on.

Um that isn't necessarily limited just to the older part of town.

So that's one element is expanding that question.

Um community has um become 30 plus years older than when the NCOD was first written and put into place, and so there's a lot of buildings now outside of the NCOD, which might pass at least that first 50-year age screen.

And um, so looking at the community continuing to evolve, the program continuing to evolve.

So that's one part.

The design guidelines are looking more at um both uh finer green detail.

One of the comments that we've heard is there's significant differences between the character along Main Street, north of Main Street, south of Main Street, as well as arguably in other smaller portions, and so our design guidelines tend to be very broad.

All residential areas are treated largely the same, which is not reflective of the reality on the ground.

And so there's a desire, like I mentioned, best practice improvements, clarity improvements, but also looking at um how and where do you start looking at something where this is an area of the community that maybe we should consider a different set of standards than some other portion and dividing things up a little bit more?

So that's where these two things fit together.

And there's been a strong uh request from the preservation board to see how those are fitting back and forth with each other.

They are distinct, they may get adopted at different times or in a different method depending on what the final outcome is.

But um seeing how they fit together, they feel strongly that that would benefit both projects.

So working on trying to sequence those a little bit.

Thank you.

Uh, any other questions from members?

Members Ignant.

Yeah, a quick one.

Um would an adjustment of the boundaries of the NCOD be considered as part of this project.

Um knowing that again that the city has changed over 30 years and that has been set in stone as long as I can remember.

Um it would take a zone map amendment to do that, but that's certainly a process that the city can initiate.

I think that's a key question in both of these about should the boundary stay the same, should it be expanded, should it be reduced in some cases?

Um what is actually on the ground now, um, reevaluating it's been 30 plus years.

What are we thinking as a community?

What are the the circumstances we need to address might result in some adjustments to the boundary, but no decision to that effect has been made at this point.

Uh any other questions.

Um I have a few.

Um regarding the NCOD, the staff member said that over a report on recommendations was accepted by the commission.

Um does that mean that the that the report was accepted with various recommendations still to be discussed by the commission, or instead was that that a lift a list of recommendations was accepted by the commission.

The report as a block was accepted by the commission.

It included some action steps that are continuing to be evaluated with this second phase.

And the design guidelines update was one of those recommendations as well.

Okay.

And so the landmark program sounds like it's at least as it's currently being conceived it's on the track to be essentially an opt-in slash voluntary program by which landowners would seek to avail of whatever that program becomes is that right maybe that's one of the key questions is do you have a purely voluntary program, a regulatory program or something that has tiers where there's some things that are available at a voluntary basis, some things that are available at a regulatory basis.

Okay.

And so that's where a lot of consideration is being held right now is to figure out what are those nuances, what are the parameters for one versus the other.

Okay and is that mostly with respect to like multi property areas like for example like I mean not to say would be a historic district but I heard some discussion at the HPAB meeting along the lines of perhaps the percentage of owners needing to express agreement or sign on you know might be higher than 51% that strikes me as kind of dealing with more of like an area as opposed to like a single property.

That it is more complicated when you're dealing with groups of properties versus an individual especially if you're talking about a group of properties where not everyone wants to be part of the program if you're doing something involuntary and imposing additional standards then that has some very real legal and uh parameters that we have to meet for that.

The city's land use authority comes out of Montana Land Use Planning Act and so there's very specific procedures we have to follow for adopting regulations and so figuring out how that interfaces with this particular proposal does it have to be a zone map amendment is there some sort of other mechanism where a review can be conducted those kinds of questions are being investigated.

Let's see as far as the NCOD goes it seems like there's been a fair bit or I should say maybe a lot of discussion or maybe nuance or complexity regarding you know what's regulatory versus what is guideline.

And I know that part of this process is to make that clear going forward like what's what I guess the regulatory part seems um very akin to like zoning or you know land use requirements so when I looked at the community engagement plan it seemed to indicate that HPAB was the primary advisory board on the NCOD update just based on like how many times it was listed or how many meetings or working sessions so I guess the question is is that an accurate reading I think it is for now we may choose to supplement that once there's further completion of the work and we identify what needs to happen we may want to go back and make some revisions the engagement plans that are provided with any city project are minimums.

We can always go above and beyond what they require.

Okay.

I yeah I guess my um my concern is that there's kind of like a push and pull I guess it depends sort of how it all takes shape substantively but there seems like there's kind of a push and pull between um some aspects of the NCOD or at least maybe what some of the community are advocating it should be like a more it should impose more of a substantive limit or a review criteria on development at least in certain areas or in certain contexts seems like there's this kind of push and pull between what's allowed as for like buyride zoning or what does the code allow um and so anyway I guess I would think that that aspect is like squarely within this board's purview.

Anyway, I guess I would think that aspect is like squarely within this board's purview.

It is, and um, that's one of the reasons we're making this presentation to keep you up to date because you will eventually be asked to look at a formal set of code amendments that uh are gonna head to the commission after your uh review and you make a recommendation on those.

Okay.

Here's a little back kind of a background question and context.

Um the community engagement plan referred to the NCOD as having been created to stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures.

Um just based on your extensive uh experience in the community um and for such a long time.

Did um did it seem to do that?

Do you have do you have a sense of there's certainly been a variety of ways, I think, in which the answer would be yes.

Um it has uh supported uh some projects which used uh tax credits that might not otherwise have tried it.

Um there are some where it did give folks some guidance, they may have not been thinking towards the the realm of restoration, and it it gave some direction to this is a way you can do this uh work that you want to do, but sensitively to the existing fabric of the building.

Um like the the national building is probably the most notable recent example, uh significant reinvestment rehabilitation of uh a lovely building uh to bring it back to what it was and uh also bring it up to current standards with you know heating and ventilation elevators and all the good things that you need to make a functional modern building.

Can you think of some like code language that like would help to achieve that?

And uh you also mentioned tax credits.

Do those do those still exist, like whatever those programs were?

There are there's uh federal and state.

Um the states are pretty small, but they do exist, and um they do help uh offset hopefully some of the costs of uh maybe extra work that you may be doing to preserve a building.

How about the federal?

They're still there.

Okay, um, and then as far as can you think of any code language that sort of pushed in things in that direction?

Like I had the impression that the national was um very much that developer's interest was in doing that, and I don't imagine they're they were required to do that, but that maybe there was something in the code that helped at least in that regard, even if it didn't require it.

Ultimately, anybody choosing to renovate a building is because they're choosing to do it.

Um Montana law says that somebody gets to keep their building and their use in their existing condition for as long as they choose to do it.

So our programs, whether it's new construction or renovation or anything else, only kick in when somebody's opting in.

Okay.

Um so we can uh and do regularly uh discuss projects with people, commercial, residential, all kinds of things, um, and encourage them to you know use good design practices.

Uh some of the code changes that have happened over the years that have helped a lot.

Um, for example, when I first started um the setbacks in what was then the R1 district were a bad match for most of the R1 zone in the NCOD.

The the front the yards were too big, so lots and lots of buildings were non-conforming.

So anytime you started doing anything to fix the or maintain those buildings, you were running into these regulatory barriers.

So we updated the code over several iterations to match the reality of that area more so than we are now than than was uh originally.

Um so setbacks is certainly one of it.

Um, other kinds of projects uh were made available.

Um the deviations program became partially administrative.

Now under MLUPA, it's fully administrative to allow folks uh a little bit of latitude in uh doing renovation work that um you know might help a building maintain its continuing value.

It's not a guarantee.

Again, somebody still has to choose to design towards that standpoint, but it does uh provide some push in that direction.

Okay, thank you.

Um other questions from uh board members about the landmark program or the uh NCOD update?

Yeah, member Bonnet.

Thank you.

I just didn't get it, or maybe it's a follow-up question, which is uh, you know, the NCOD is geographically defined, the landmark program is being conceptualized right now.

But is the idea that it it could happen both inside and outside the NCOD?

That's one of the key pieces that's being discussed right now.

And if so, how is it different in those two areas?

We what we don't want to do is create a new program which turns around and duplicates something that we already do that's inefficient and frustrates everybody.

So, you know, does do do certain things that are currently under the NCOD move over to the landmark program, uh, or vice versa.

Do we conceptualize something with the landmark program that we can add to the NCOD?

Um so figuring out those boundaries, um, what goes in, what goes out, is an important part of this conversation.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

All right.

Thank you for that update.

And uh moving on to the next item on the agenda, it is a selection of one community development board member to represent the board on the planning coordinating committee.

You're listed as the uh handler of this one.

I I am um so the PCC is uh one of our cooperation tools that we have uh with our other planning jurisdictions that are nearby, uh Gallatin County and the city of Belcrate.

Um there's a member from this board, a member from staff, and a member from the city commission, and then the same from the other two jurisdictions.

And uh the purpose of the PCC is uh primarily communication, helping folks understand what everybody's working on.

They also periodically uh help convene meetings for data sharing.

Uh, sometimes they'll bring planning boards together, they'll bring in um different utility providers, uh, a variety of things.

Uh, they're also currently working on a project called Be Kind to Ag to provide some communications tools to reach out and help folks understand how to interact with our agricultural community to avoid conflict and um help things go smoothly.

So that's in development right now.

So they can do a variety of different kinds of things, and um Nicole Olmsted, who used to be on the board was our recommended uh our our member, and uh she's no longer on the board, and so we need you folks to um select a new person to participate, and you can't pick Mayor Morrison because he's already on it as the mayor.

So uh somebody else gets to gets to be the person.

So uh they generally meet uh hour and a half, two hours, about six times a year, um typically on a Tuesday afternoon.

Okay, and for the city, the uh professional planning staff design is yourselves, right?

I am currently, yes.

Okay.

Is there any questions from uh members of the board?

Yeah, go for it.

Uh member is the representative need to live within city limits.

Um you just need to be a member of this board.

Is that because our uh esteemed leader does not quite live within city limits?

Yeah, he's not here to defend himself.

I was gonna say, man, Ben is so he's got a lot of experience and he's so he's so charming and um good natured.

He would just be he would be great on this.

I was gonna say, isn't the individual who's not here usually the one who gets nominated?

Um I would open it up to if anybody is has an interest in doing this or is inclined uh to do it, please speak up.

Cask a question first, yeah.

For sure instead.

Um maybe um because you've been on it.

Um I think two things.

One, um, it was great having Nicole on it because every once in a while she'd come back and as part of the FYI so you know, honestly, just fill everybody in here, fill in the community.

Um, I know the PCC has a website, but uh not everybody goes to the website, reviews agendas and and meeting minutes and everything else.

So I think I think that's um I think that's one charge of this position.

The second charge, and this is the question I have.

Does this individual uh have an opportunity to set uh or I guess how is the agenda set?

And then if the agenda for this meeting is set, you know, how do you bring topics to it?

How does how does that play out?

Um periodically the the group discusses and says we have some upcoming meetings, where should we best spend our time?

And there's opportunities for individuals to bring forth an idea.

Sometimes we've had ideas brought forward by members of the public.

Um so it can be a variety of uh different outputs and inputs.

Would it be appropriate for the individual to query the board in a public meeting and ask, hey, we we have an agenda, we have a meeting coming up with the PCC.

Are there topics or or items that you know you want this individual that's the you know you want to bring to that meeting?

Is that appropriate?

It's something that we didn't do before, but I'm just curious.

That that would be fine.

We'd want to put it on the agenda, I think, probably FYI or discussion type uh category, but uh very much appropriate to discuss amongst the board and identify things that you're interested.

Okay, those are my questions.

Any other questions?

I have one.

Um can you explain the uh MPO and the CPP, or I mean the PCC, and how they are either similar or different, and including whether maybe they should sort of be like combined or sure.

So the PCC came first.

Um it was uh creation um coming out in the the early 2010s, and um was a desire to improve communication between the the various jurisdictions and um ultimately got formalized as the PCC.

They have a defined area of interest kind of between Bozeman Belgrade Four Corners, and um they are uh as I described an information um primary function.

They don't review individual projects, they don't have any regulatory authority, um and they represent the three jurisdictions.

The metropolitan planning organization is a federal mandate when we passed the 50,000 mark with the 2020 census, it became necessary to create a metropolitan planning organization.

We ended up um that is something that the state department of transportation comes and says you've won the lottery, guess what?

Um and so we worked with them.

There's a whole raft of federal law about creating those.

And that also is a joint Bozin Belgrade, Gallatin County, and others, the transit district and and some other folks are involved with that as well.

It covers a broader area, it also has a specific defined geography, but it's larger than the triangle area.

And there is specific funding that comes from the federal government as well as specific responsibilities.

So one of the things that the MPO does is prepare a transportation plan that is underway right now.

Um again, if you're interested, we encourage folks to participate.

Uh they have their own website.

Uh the manager for that is hosted by the city of Ozman, um, Jeff Butts is his name.

And um so they have a much more formalized role, um, similar to what Mr.

Coates was describing.

Uh there are citizen advisories, there's technical advisories, there's policy advisory groups that um are set up as part of the MPO structure.

And um, so recommendations go forward, they get reviewed.

Um, they do formal minutes, formal meetings, uh, their public meetings, so folks can listen in and participate.

Um, and then uh they do help um prioritize expenditures of funds by uh Department of Montana Department of Transportation, Federal Highways, folks like that.

So much more um formalized in the role that they have.

Okay.

Um so they do talk to each other.

Um I sit on both amongst other things, but um they also do um periodically literally exchange, you know, hey, come give a presentation on what you're doing uh kind of thing to help uh keep folks apprised and aware.

I would I would also just add that the you know the MPO is obviously very focused on transportation, where the PCC um is really everything that overlaps with these jurisdictional boundaries.

So we've had discussions about water, um, stormwater, wastewater, um, groundwater that that Belgrade has versus surface water that the city of Houseman has, and those those distinctions.

We've had conversations about zoning and and building happening in these various communities.

So the PCC is is you know, sort of advisory, it's a convening space.

Um the the only thing that I think has been an action item in the last year was the be kind tag campaign, um, which is not as as it may sound, it's not about how to talk to farmers and ranchers the right way.

Um it's you know, things like how to why you why it's important to slow down when the roads are dusty, um, how to pass a tractor safely and things like that.

Um so the the scopes are quite quite different.

Okay.

All right.

Well, sure if I can continue on that.

So yeah, so the the MPO as uh as uh you know the Gallatin Valley MPO is uh has been formed to be focused primarily on transportation, and that is Planner's Hummers mentioned part of its federal mandate.

Um I would say that you know nationwide MPOs fill many different roles, and in other communities and other spaces, MPOs do have a broader planning uh and coordinating role that goes beyond just transportation, it can extend to to housing and to water and to other issues where coordination among the different member agencies is of regional benefit.

And I from from where I said, I think it would be very appropriate for the MPO to take on this convening role for other planning and coordination and communication topics that go beyond just transportation someday, you know.

It doesn't maybe maybe not this year, but at some point in the future, I think there could be an expanded role for the MPO to have a dedicated office with a dedicated staff whose purpose it is to align the planning efforts of the various jurisdictions that share this valley.

Yeah, I mean I'm reminded of the adage the good transportation plan starts with a good land use plan or something along those lines, and once you're talking about land use, everything that the uh we've kind of been talking about is implicated.

I mean, water, freshwater coming in, treating wastewater, solid waste removal, fire protection, all that kind of stuff.

Um, and then I guess returning it back to the more uh specific issue at hand as far as who from this uh body wants uh or should be the uh designee.

Is there anyone in the room that uh is excited about possibly doing this?

Yeah, I I would love to throw my hat in the ring, but my term is up in November, and I think for continuity, it would probably be better for somebody who's gonna be sticking around maybe a little bit longer.

Now that doesn't mean I might not re-up and continue on, but I um again my term is up in November.

Love to throw my hat in the ring.

But I thought you just re-upped.

No?

One year.

So one year extension.

Um else interested.

Next uh cousin, I guess would be is uh how do we feel about sticking this to Ben.

Like I said, I will I will take it on.

Um I don't I think they're just um I think yeah, I am interested in it.

And I think um there's an opportunity to make our job here a little bit more cohesive and help inform it or help you know set an agenda for this other body outside of the city.

Um but I think it's just you know, just knowing that if you do nominate me, um we're gonna have to adjust in November, possibly adjust in November again.

So that's yeah.

Chair seeing us how he's uh both willing and interested, I nominate member egg notes to the PCC.

Second, all right.

Um since this is uh an action item, we should probably ask for public comment on this um matter.

So if there's anyone in the room who has uh public comment they'd like to offer regarding um the designee from this board to the uh PCC, please come and uh let us hear it.

Seeing no movement in the room, Trent.

Do you see anybody with their uh virtual hand raised online?

If you'd like to provide public comment, please use the raise your hand feature.

No public comment.

Um bringing it back then uh for uh discussion anybody all right uh well then I think we could uh I guess I'll just offer that yeah I appreciate your willingness to do it in your interest and um I like your suggestion for possibly uh polling in advance as far as if if any of us has any ideas that uh might be worthy of uh bringing um but uh yeah I'll be in support of the motion uh if there's no other comments then uh I'll ask Trent to uh take the take the vote mover Eggie Secondary Morrison all right, member Mightrew.

Aye, member Eggnat's yes, member Delmu.

Aye, member Bonnet aye.

All right, yeah.

Um the next agenda item is uh public comments on non-agenda items falling within the purview and jurisdiction of this board.

And um, if when you come up, if you would please state your name and um if you have a connection to the city of Bozeman, um, whether that's a resident or a business owner, um, please mention it.

And um typically you'll have three minutes, but this board has not been super strict on that.

No race.

Good evening.

I'm Heather Higgs, City Resident.

Tonight is your first look at the Hanson annexation application that asks for zoning in the area between Oak and Durston along the area known as the Fowler Avenue connection.

The applicant seeks a zoning designation of RB.

A zoning designation of RB is not consistent with the city's growth policy, future land use map, and the development pattern of the surrounding area.

The proper designation is RA.

The neighboring properties to this area are single household residential.

This is the dominant use of the land and the surrounding area, not multifamily residential.

The facts on the ground cannot be changed, and the facts on the ground should not be ignored.

A zone designation of R3 or RB is not consistent with the development pattern of the surrounding area, as it will allow development of density greater than six units per acre, and buildings with heights greater than 40 feet.

This area has neither good access to transit nor is it close to community services, such as shopping, medical, or other uses.

An R3 or RB zone is appropriate for areas with good access to parks, community services, and or transit.

The closing closest shopping area is over a mile east.

It is a 30-minute walk, both ways carrying groceries.

There is limited public transit.

It is very close to a park.

The total developable size of this parcel, once the right-of-way is developed, will be small, five acres or less.

Currently, the surrounding area, areas, excuse me, have a density of six units per acre or less, equivalent to a zoning classification of RA.

There is no area in the vicinity that would fit the description of an R3 use.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mike Roser, I'm a resident.

Overall, I'm just taking the uh overall approach to a high level, I guess you could say.

Um this parcel has been identified by the cities uh for the potential Fowler Road extension.

The road itself is under uh separate project.

Uh there are many, there are other parcels that are uh that are of concern within with or near the envelope of this entity, and they must be considered and evaluated.

After the suggested road is completed, there will be another remaining small partial, less than five acres, between Furrell, Farmall, and Oak.

This parcel is now being studied as potential housing development, you may be aware.

The city is currently working with a group of uh concerned citizens involving consensus engagement program, first of its kind, I believe.

There have been several meetings and process continues.

At the time that the uh road was being designed, there was no need to take into account that there is a housing development would always be considered as part of the overall impact on the existing land.

This is now uh piecemeal development, and there's no concise plan for the entire development.

Currently, the road is becoming a standalone design, regardless of other activities or zoning on or near the property.

What are the impacts of the future development of these separate parcels alone along with the road developed in a vacuum?

Zoned in a vacuum.

How would going forward without a common plan work with this scenario?

Would this annexation, the road as designed, affect the housing designs?

How will crossroads such as Annie that are suggested?

Work with the overall plan.

Not all spaces may be buildable.

What about the setback requirements?

Green space, interior road race, egress, exits, storm drainage.

These are a few considerations.

Prior notice and study would help to identify and address any impact other than this piecemeal zoning.

It is not generally accepted land, land use this practice as piecemeal zoning.

If the city followed standard land practices, the city would be pre-zoned as unincorporated area as part of the sphere of influence and prior to the annexation, signaling to the public and all continuous properties the probable use of this property.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

What an impressive group.

My goodness, you have a lot of work you work on.

My name is Lori Wallace.

I am also a member of the Harvest Creek HOA.

And these two members of the audience have been talking about it, but I just want to help you see it a little bit better.

So if this is Oak Street, and this is Durston out on the west side of the city.

Our Harvest Creek is here.

And on the other side of this green space that is being talked about for the development of the Fowler Creek connection between what's now called Davis, up to Fowler.

That connection is what's being decided what's going to happen.

It's like about 10 acres worth of open space.

And on this side of that green space is the Oak Springs neighborhood.

And it has the street Annie.

And on this side is the Harvest Creek neighborhood, and it has Annie.

So this connection is what's being proposed in this.

So I hope you don't mind.

I used to be a teacher, so there you go.

There's my show and tell.

Thank you for not thinking about the three-minute limitation here.

I want to read just a couple of things.

Urban neighborhood does not require R3 RB use.

The urban neighborhood designation is a policy statement.

It is not a regulation.

RA allows for enough diversity of housing options to satisfy the urban neighborhood designation.

This annexation is needed to install a right of way known as Fowler Avenue Avenue.

The Fowler Avenue connector will join Annie Street from the east in Harvest Creek to its dead end on the western boundary of the subject property.

The city's plan describes a roundabout at Fowler Avenue in Annie.

Traffic calming is needed, as without it, there will be an unobstructed raceway along Annie Street to Emily Dickinson Elementary School.

The safety of these students who will be using this right of way needs to be made secure.

No annexation should be approved without definitive conditions for speed limits and installed traffic calming measures.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Thanks for all your hard work.

My name's Tom Gay, and I also live in this neighborhood.

I happen to live across the street from the park on Farm Hall.

I will tell you that every day there are literally 20 to 50 kids playing in that park.

And the plan is I understand it right now is to run a road off of Fowler, straight through past the park and dead end to another street, Hunter's way.

Dead end.

I think you've got to look at this project to try to balance two things.

One, making housing available to everybody.

When I moved to Bozeman in 1976, I lived in a basement in which the windows were higher than my head.

So I know what it is to live in bad housing.

I also know people who've worked their whole lives to buy houses.

So I know you face a tough job, and I think everybody in this neighborhood is happy to work with you to try to find a balance of interests.

And I think the Annie Street problem is exactly right.

You're going to take people off Fowler.

They're not going to want to go down to Ferguson.

And Oak.

So you gotta.

So I think you need to look at fair housing, affordable housing, but in the whole context of Gallatin County.

So I'm glad that you're thinking of cooperating with Belgrade and other communities, because I think it's a bigger, a bigger issue, and I think we have to balance those things out.

So I appreciate the hard work you're doing to do that.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any other public comment in the room.

Seeing none, I'll ask uh Trent to see if anyone's got their virtual hands raised online.

Yes, we have uh Mary McHugh.

Go ahead, Mary.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Mary Francis McHugh, and I'm a property owner in the Harvest Creek subdivision, uh, which uh is adjacent to the uh uh Hansen Lane at annexation application number 25-775.

As you prepare uh for the April 20th, 2026 hearing on that annexation application.

Please bear these points in mind.

If this land is to be zoned for any use other than parkland or green space, then the most appropriate designation is RA.

A designation of RA is consistent with the city's growth policy, the future land use map and the development pattern of the surrounding areas.

The urban neighborhood designation in the community plan does not require high density zoning designations, and urban neighborhood designation is not inconsistent with a lower density zoning designation such as RA.

This will be a small parcel.

It is currently surrounded predominantly by one and two-story single-family residences.

There are no contiguous lands which have an R3 zoning designation or use.

RB designations will create greater demand for parking for cars, trucks, and other vehicles and equipment.

RB also has the distinction of the height differential.

RB is allowed up to 45 feet, which would tower over adjacent single family homes, causing a loss of privacy, light, and air.

These distinctions merit a denial of an RB zone designation in this case.

That forbade direction of a building blocking existing windows of a neighboring building.

Now in modern times, we rely on zoning laws.

Those laws should be applied reasonably.

Please consider these points and concerns as you evaluate the merits of the application for annexation.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

Trent, you see anybody else?

If anybody else would like to provide public comment online, please use the raise your hand feature.

No public comment.

Okay.

Um thank you for your public comment and uh thank you for seeing that this was coming up for us at our next meeting and being prepared.

Uh Ms.

McHugh sent in written public comment, and you should feel free, or I guess I'd encourage you to do the same.

Um even if it's just to email your notes.

Um because it'll uh even though we listened attentively, you know, we aren't taking notes to everything you said, but um, if you submit written public comment, we'll have something to look at and consider in prep for our our next meeting.

Um sure you have a question.

If I'm not techy enough to email them to you, can I hand them to somebody to wait?

For sure.

Yeah.

Um and uh I believe that it's comments at Bozeman.net is the email address in the Yes it is.

Um we know is that about to change to the new protocol?

I haven't heard a date yet, so as far as I know, it's still valid uh ongoing.

Anything that is sent in will be archived and made available to this board, the city commission, and any member of the public will be able to review those as well.

So that is um the best method for getting documents into the conversation.

Yeah.

Yeah, I meant to mention too that um you know that repository is updated regularly.

So we'll be able to access it in advance of uh of the meeting as we prepare.

Um Mayor Morrison, I I just wanted to clarify and and um Chris, I don't know if there's anything that you'd want to add just to make sure that the public knows the Falber housing project that the city is leading is not the same as this annexation.

Um just uh it felt hard to it yeah, it seemed like there were connections drawn at times, but we're just we're gonna make sure for everybody listening, these are separate.

Yeah, they they are distinct parcels.

Um the housing project is north adjacent to Oak Street, and uh this piece is owned by Mr.

Emo Landerson.

He's the applicant for this one and is uh yeah, that that's his property at this point.

Okay, thank you.

Um, since uh we've uh finished uh public comments on non-agenda items.

The next uh part of the agenda is FYI discussions.

Uh the first one being upcoming items for this body at our April 20th meeting in two weeks.

Yeah, we have two items.

Um uh Britt Funno, who's our uh department director for economic development, will be here to give you a presentation on our economic development strategy.

That's a piece of our uh documentation that supports the land use plan.

And uh they have um recently posted the updated um annual report that uh they put out on status of the economy, housing construction, various other areas of interest.

So if you want to browse that in advance, if you go to the city's website under economic development, uh it's right there uh on their page.

And then the other item uh that we'll be holding the public hearing for is the Hanson Lane Annexation zone map amendment.

So this body uh your responsibility is to consider the zone map amendment, not the annexation.

City commission will consider the annexation and the zone map amendment at their public hearing following the recommendation uh from yourselves.

And um the materials for the staff report and other things should be getting loaded if they're not already up on to the laser feature website that links to the community development map, and then the staff report itself will be um getting loaded there and to the agenda for the upcoming meeting here uh probably in about a week.

So uh items yet to come on that one.

So thank you.

And the uh next FYI discussion item is transmittal of city commission priorities for the calendar years 2026 and 2027.

Yes.

And uh some of those elements uh relate to the responsibilities of this board.

So we're simply sharing that information with you.

There's no schedule uh or specific tasks yet coming out uh that we're working on for this, uh, but uh it is relevant, and so we wanted to share it as it has become available now.

And then the last FYI that's not on the agenda is I'd like to introduce Colin Mears and have him come say hi.

He's uh new member of the long range planning staff, so I'd like to meet you folks.

Thank you, Chris.

Uh so board members, uh Chair.

Uh as Chris mentioned, my name is Colin Mirris.

I'm a new uh associate planner here with the long range planning division.

Uh been here for about three months now.

Uh I previously worked down in Colorado for about four and a half years uh doing current planning.

Uh so worked on anything from a site plan all the way up to annexation, zoning, uh comprehensive plan amendment.

Uh also have an experience uh working on Parks Open Space and Trails Master Plan for the town I was working for, um then also assisted with a land use code update.

Uh so excited to be here, excited to bring that experience and uh apply it here at the city and to work with you all here uh shortly.

Yeah, thank you and welcome.

Thank you three months ago.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right, I believe that's the uh end of the um agenda, unless uh does anybody from the board have any last-minute uh announcements or FYIs?

All right, then I believe it's uh okay to uh adjourn this meeting at uh 7 33 p.m.

Mountain Daylight Time.

Goodbye.

Well, it's all the space.

Oh, yeah.

What's that?

Oh, it's not yep, it's not