Test.

Thanks, guys.

We're good to go.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the April 20th meeting of the Bozeman Community Development Board.

The community development board is a seven-member citizen advisory board comprised of volunteers appointed by the city commission that fulfills the requirements of state law.

We meet twice per month to make recommendations regarding land use regulations to the Bozeman City Commission.

Final decisions are typically not made here tonight.

Thanks for joining us.

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

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.net, click on departments, then on city commission, then on live stream and videos, find this meeting under upcoming events, um under the upcoming events list, and click 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 are 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 us via video conference, there are three other ways you can follow this meeting.

Anything from the board.

Aye.

Chair Lloyd.

Aye.

Member Bonnet.

Aye.

Okay.

That um item passes 7-0.

Thank you.

Next up, consent items.

Tonight's agenda.

I don't think we have any consent items tonight.

No.

Okay.

Item F on the agenda, special presentations, an overview of the economic development strategy issue plan.

Mr.

Fontenau.

Good evening.

Chairman Lloyd, good to see you.

Good evening.

Good evening, community development board and city staff.

Mayor Morrison, my name is Britt Fontenau.

It's a pleasure to be here tonight.

Thank you for allowing me a few minutes to talk a little bit about our economic development department, the work that we do, and the intersection of our work with yours.

Let's see, if you give me just a moment, I'll cue up the presentation here.

All right.

So this is uh our uh my run of show for tonight, my my the order of operations, if you will, how we're gonna go through our my work this evening.

We'll start with a little bit about the intersection that I mentioned earlier, some of our priorities, how we are structured in our department, who our staff are and our experience, our duties and responsibilities, what plans, uh adopted plans and guiding documents we we refer to, our boards, um, finally the economic vitality uh work plan for the next two years, the board work plan, and then the strategy.

So those are the areas that I'll be uh touching on this evening.

Please feel free to interrupt if you have questions.

Uh otherwise I'll be happy to take them at the end.

All right.

So I wanted to start, and I I did I put a few bits of information on your on your dais, and uh, Mr.

Saunders forwarded you uh some other documents earlier uh today or yet or last week.

The documents that you have uh should have in your possession are our economic vitality strategy and our yearly market report that we uh produce each year.

Um and so on your on the dais, I also passed out essentially a copy of a pages from the community um the 2025 community plan and then a uh an update on where we are in our implementation of the 2023 economic vitality strategy.

I also place copies of all these documents in the rear of the room for the for the public.

But the first thing I wanted to talk a little bit about was some of the intersections between the work that we do and um and the work that you do.

And so up on the screen, just for illustrative purposes, I have the page from the community plan that talks about that.

It's titled It's theme number six, a city powered by its creative, innovative, and entrepreneurial economy.

So sorry about that.

Uh so the things I wanted to touch on are some of the uh some of the areas of intersection.

Like for example, you know, when we go through those goals, uh goal EE number one, supporting the goals and objectives outlined in the boson's economic development strategy.

So that's very clear, there that clear intersection between the two guiding documents.

When we produce the economic vitality strategy, we also looked at the community plan to make sure that we uh that we were aligned with the thinking that that uh is a part of that plan.

Also, um EE 1.2 investing in infrastructure.

That's a very important part of our uh one of our pillars of work is the infrastructure investment.

Uh we do that through our urban renewal district.

Um facilitating live work opportunities and supporting small businesses.

We do that through our effort at working uh working on local sector business development, which is separate from work than uh local sector workforce development.

We'll get into that in a in a few minutes.

But we do that by supporting business growth in those uh local and traded sectors.

Um the other thing that we that that we uh support is um your your business park mixed use zoning.

So we uh I'm happy to report that our department brought forth the very first PDZ in the city um a couple of years ago when the Mimeshu Innovation Campus was transitioning from a business park, uh I think it was residential suburban to uh to what it is today, which is a planned development zone with um uh energy efficiency as the uh novel community contribution.

So as you can see, there are several intersections between the work that the community development board does through the implementation of the community plan and the work that we do through through the implementation of our of our plan.

Sorry, wrong mouse.

So our three priorities include infrastructure, education and workforce development, and then supporting local business.

And we do that in a variety of ways, and we're gonna touch on on all of those ways shortly.

In terms of how we're organized, so I'm the director of the department, I report to the city manager.

I've got uh a few reports to me, our economic development coordinator and our urban renewal program manager, those report uh and the community housing manager for that matter, those report directly to the to the director.

In the staffing plan for this year, we've proposed another staff member yet to be determined, um, an urban renewal coordinator that, if approved, would report to the urban renewal manager.

And then finally, we've proposed an intern, uh, which we feel like would would really help us in our engagement uh on a lot of the issues that we that we deal with that have a high high touch in the community.

So this slide was just to demonstrate that our team, while small, has a lot of experience working in this area.

So I personally have 20 years of experience working in in this uh space, 20 at the city.

Uh my colleague Jesse has five years of experience.

David Fine has been working in urban renewal for 12 years, and then Brian Geyer, our newest ad to our to our office, has 20 years of experience working in community housing.

So, all told as much as uh almost 60 years of combined experience working in this in these areas.

So, in our general economic development work, um, the list, and I'm not going to read every bullet point to you, but uh but the list there demonstrates sort of sort of what we would consider general economic development.

So that's supporting the traded sector job growth.

And I want to distinguish between traded sector workforce development and traded sector job in uh excuse me local sector workforce um I'm getting ahead of myself here.

I want to I just want to distinguish between our local and traded sectors.

So our traded sector jobs are jobs that bring new money into the community from outside, okay?

And I have some examples of what that looks like.

Our local sectors are small businesses that turn money around inside the community.

And so we are very supportive of entrepreneurial local sector business development.

So if you were wanting to start a coffee shop, for example, or you wanted to start a uh some other type of local small business, we would be uh more than happy to support you in that entrepreneurial effort.

But where we where we talk about job growth, where we try to support uh creating new jobs in sectors, we talk about photonics and optics, we talk about manufacturing, we talk about bioscience, quantum computing, um, clean, uh the new green tech has some interesting new um technologies emerging.

So those types of sectors that bring new money into our community, those are the areas where we support um the job growth the most.

The on the local sector stuff, it's really more about supporting entrepreneurism.

We couldn't do anything without the partners, and I listed many of our partners up on the on the right of the screen there because we can't do all this alone.

We need our community partners in a variety of different areas at at almost every level in order to support the work that we do.

In our urban renewal program, I just simply have listed the urban renewal districts in the city.

There's one district that our department does not manage, that's the downtown urban renewal district that has its own um the downtown Bozeman Partnership manages the the uh that urban renewal district.

But in addition to that, we do support the executive director of the downtown Bozeman Partnership in TIFF-related matters.

Um we also use our TIFF program to support our housing program because where we have the opportunity to build community housing or affordable housing inside of a TIFF district, then we're able to leverage more than one incentive in order to achieve that goal.

Um and then, of course, we advocate for the use of TIFF and urban renewal uh at the state legislature each year or every two years.

In our community housing program, these are some of the uh some of the incentives that we that we use to try to facilitate the construction of community housing.

We have uh, of course, the low-income housing tax credits, many projects uh in the in the area using that incentive.

We have our affordable housing ordinance.

We have uh we uh uh Brian Geyer, the staff member responsible for this program, also manages our community development book block grant, and we have a community impact fund.

Um in addition to that, we also steward the units that are created through this through this um through this department through this uh program, and we also are stand ready to um to potentially discuss a mill levy for our more permanent funding at some point in the future.

Uh and of course, uh as I mentioned, the facility, the um community partnerships are critical.

Uh we have a project now where we're trying to leverage city-owned land for uh for a housing project uh that would that would uh result in um affordable home ownership.

Uh we've done a lot of rentals over the past several years, and we're really trying to create some ownership opportunities using a land trust model.

Um then finally, we're a member of the regional housing coalition.

We also manage the legislative program, and I know that's a hot topic here uh with the passage of MLUPA.

Uh, just I just wanted the body to know that we uh we spend a lot of time working on legislative issues on a variety of different areas depending on uh on on what um on what's the hot topic is today.

We talked about water, for example, in our in our meeting.

We manage our lobbyists and we manage uh the information flow uh both in the interim and during the session.

These are some of our plans in the dot uh guiding documents, of course, the uh adopted economic vitality strategy.

All these urban renewal plans that you see guide the work in the urban renewal districts, and these housing plans uh also guide our work in um in our housing program.

Uh we do feel like our 2019 housing needs assessment is uh really ripe for an update, and we think that's gonna be coming in uh in the next um year or so of our of our programming.

We also support the economic vitality board whose purpose is there on the screen.

The economic vitality board, um, like yourselves is uh is an advisory board appointed by the city commission.

They're not um they are not statutorily required like this body is, uh but they do provide insight to the city commission on variety of topics, including general economic development, housing, our belonging and boseman effort, and then less less so these days, but public art.

The other board that we liaise with is the TIFF Advisory Board, which is a new board established uh after last year's um last sessions, after last legislative session, they required uh communities to establish TIFF advisory boards which uh which have on the board seated members from the school district and from the county.

So for the first time we have representation from the those agencies who also um are impacted by urban renewal and tax increment financing.

What you have before you is our two-year work plan for economic development and our housing program.

Belonging in Bozeman and Art are not managed in economic development, so I don't have those two-year work plans for you tonight, but we're very intimately involved in the ones you see uh at on the screen now.

So now I want to take a moment to talk about our economic vitality strategy.

Um what I placed on the on the dais for you is a document that looks like this.

And the reason I I reason I put that on the on the dais is because it it is a comprehensive evaluation of where we are in the implementation of this of this plan.

Generally, these plans are three to five years.

As you can see, we're now in year three uh of that plan, and it's likely we'll be um making a request to update this strategy in the next one to two years.

The purpose of that strategy is to align and implement our actions across a variety of different uh different sectors at in the city.

And so um the matrix in the back of the plan, those are our action steps, and so we use that matrix to kind of push against the work that we're doing to determine whether or not we're working in the right areas.

Sometimes these plans are as much about saying what you're not gonna do as are what you are going to do.

And so if there is uh an activity um uh or a request that doesn't fit into this plan framework, we just simply don't have the resources uh to spend much time working on those.

So we we stick to what's in this document.

So a little bit about traded versus local local, and I I feel like I I sort of I gave a little bit of a um not a very clear explanation earlier.

So I wanted to I put this slide up to give you some examples uh of why we focus on traded sector employment.

You can see some of the businesses on the right as examples of trade of traded sector businesses.

Um these are the ones in our high growth areas, high growth sectors, tech, uh photonics and optics, construction is a very big part of our um of our local economy.

Um so these are the these are the typically the businesses that pay the salary ranges that allow the employees to buy into the local economy.

It's really hard to save for a home, for example, uh on a salary of a of a of a barista or so or some other sort of more local sector type type job.

So we support these types of jobs because they are the ones that allow the individuals to uh actually buy into the local economy.

So these are the sectors that I was referred to earlier, photonics and optics, outdoor manufacturing.

We do a lot of technology here.

Bioscience is uh had um is having a bit of a resurgence, and then some of the new ones that we that we we talk about and want to continue to support our clean technology.

A lot of that innovation is coming out of MSU.

Uh the tech transfer commercializes that intellectual property, and then it becomes marketable for the um for the market.

And so in quantum is uh is on a lot of people's lips these days.

You know, there is a um uh renewed interest in um in investing in quantum technology.

It has a lot of potential benefits, uh, not just be beyond the national security discussion that we hear about quite often.

There are lots of other benefits to quantum technology in the financial services sector, in the bioscience sector.

A lot of um a lot of this um research can be sped up and conclusions can be reached a lot faster using quantum computing technology um beyond just the sort of the military applications.

So we spend a lot of time on that.

And healthcare.

Local sector businesses are typically business uh typically goods and services consumed locally.

There are a couple of examples of some of the local sector businesses that are in our community.

They are critically important to our community.

I I I wouldn't uh I want to make sure that I'm clear one isn't better than the other.

They they are symbiotic, they work together.

Um our effort at the city of Bozeman with our with our limited resources means we we can only so we can only do so much.

And so we have chosen to support the the uh low the traded sector because th that's where the the job growth and the wage growth really lives.

I put this chart up uh just as an example of the local versus traded sector, uh the differences in those in those uh industries, and I'll just I'll just it's hard to read, but I I did want to point this out.

Maybe I can read it from my screen.

So just as an example, the average wage in 2020 of a traded sector job was $68,200, whereas the average wage of a local local sector job at the same time was $51,500.

So the difference in wage is um is meaningful.

And so consequently that those are the jobs that we s that we're supporting.

This is simply a screenshot of the action matrix that's at the end of the economic vitality strategy.

These are the action steps and identifying the partners and sort of the outcomes that we are looking for as we as we continue to work through the strategy.

This matrix and the and the implementation document that I gave you, they go together.

You can look at those together.

So that's all I have in terms of the work that we do, how it intersects with your work and um the purpose of our strategy and and and why we do what we do.

I'm happy to take questions from the board if if there are any.

Thank you, Brett.

Members like to close questions.

Sure.

Yeah.

That's a question.

Um Britt, not that it necessarily would be um, you know, your job, but how does the city with its various um departments and boards coordinate for the topics that um are so related to each other?

Like you know, you're talking about uh economic vitality, I can think of like sustainability board and this board as all dealing in the sort of like jobs and housing and affordability.

Um also you know, how we choose to grow impacts, like how quickly or slightly less quickly we expand into the adjacent farm fields and that kind of thing.

So how does all how do those topics get um coordinated between like your department and the related?

Well, I think uh the great thank you for asking that question.

The the there's uh a lot of interrelated work that goes on amongst the departments, as as you can tell.

And um, you know, it really starts with the relationships that have been forged uh by the city staff.

You know, for example, when um community development was working on the code update, they invited us in economic development in to the table to offer up our our opinion on what we were seeing and how what what we were discussing would impact the work that we're doing.

Um we're working on a I'll just give you another quick example that I'm really proud of.

We're working on a family promise waterline project that if we're successful using CDBG dollars, we will um in empower Family Promise to open up more units to support um emergency and transitional housing for for family members in our community.

Um that that effort, while maybe um originating in our economic development department, because we manage the C D BG funds, couldn't couldn't work, couldn't would not happen without the support of Nick Ross, who I know is here tonight, Chris Saunders, uh the legal department, um, Sean Coates, right?

This this um these these overlaps that that you're talking about uh are really critical.

We and we we are very intentional about working together when we see a project that requires um a multidisciplinary approach.

And that's that's my responsibility.

That's um that's actually that's all of our responsibility to make sure that we are we are um acknowledging and and informing our colleagues when something kind of crosses over.

Yeah, thank you.

Chair.

Thank you.

If I could add to Britt's very good response, um one of the reasons that we asked him to come and visit with you this evening is because under the Montana Land Use Planning Act, economic activity and development is a key piece of the land use plan.

And then underneath that is uh something called an issue plan, basically special topic, more limited focus.

We've got literally dozens of those in the community uh under the city umbrella.

And so when Britt does his work and he coordinates with us, part of what happens, he mentioned they'll be working on an update to their economic vitality strategy.

Part of the state required process is to bring that back through this body in order to receive a recommendation prior to going to the city commission.

So those kinds of connections at the staff level, um, from staff to boards, from boards to commission, um, and all the way back around are something that are continuous and ongoing, both at the plan level, and then also um all of the staff uh departments coordinate through what's called the development review committee.

So if there's a site application, um the engineers, the planners, the forestry department, economic development, we all get a chance to look at it from our individual responsibility lens and make sure that things are staying um connected between the the different responsibilities.

Thanks, Chris.

Thank you.

Eric Um I had a kind of more focused question about relationships.

Um you may or may not be aware that our next agenda item is about the handsome lane annexation and kind of reading through some of the public public comments, which I imagine some folks in the room may have written.

Um they were asking, curious about if there's any relationship uh, you know, in terms of housing and and the community housing program between the Fowler project and the Hansen Lane uh annexation.

I was just wondering, you know, from your area of scope in the city if you could speak better.

I think there's a relationship because my if if I'm thinking about the piece of property that you just referenced, and I haven't looked at the packet material for that item, but uh if I'm not mistaken, the annexation of that property is is a important part of the fouler uh of the Fowler project.

And so if um uh so you they are related and they are near connected, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you for the uh presentation as well.

Oh thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

I'll I'll I'll jump in and ask a couple.

All right, thanks, Brett.

Um so as we consider new companies um coming to Bozo, obviously we want to um grab additional, I guess you call them trade sector companies.

They have the higher wages, it seems like.

Um I was actually surprised to see that 68,000 was the average, which again isn't actually like doesn't seem to be necessarily livable in Bozeman if you consider cost of housing and and everything else.

Um but that means that trade sector jobs are what we want to bring in.

Uh when we're going out in talking to our new companies or coming to Bozeman, considering Bozeman, what are um maybe some of the biggest hurdles that those companies have where they choose City B instead of City A, which is those uh what what what are you hearing?

What are some of those tunnels that you for that question?

That that's a dated slide, and my point wasn't to illustrate the the real number, it was more to illustrate the the difference between the two sectors, um just as a food for illustration illustrative purposes.

Um the city of Bozeman, at least my department does not recruit companies.

We have no recruiting program.

I don't travel around the country, I don't travel around the state for that matter, recruiting companies.

We we never have, and I don't see that ever being a part of our of our um of our strategy.

And there's a reason for that.

You know, um recruiting is a big part of a of a lot of state strategies, even the state of Montana for that matter.

Um, but uh but here at Bozeman, there's a couple reasons why we don't do that.

Number one, we don't have money to give away for recruitment purposes.

Um the only strategy we have, the only um incentive we have for a company coming here really would be a tax abatement program that's that a uh a business would have to address the Bozeman City Commission, the school district, and the county if they were going to get a full tax abatement for their purposes.

But I don't believe I'm not a personally professionally, I'm not a believer in tax abatements.

I don't believe that um uh that uh removing the financial obligations of a company to support the rest of the community really um ends well.

It doesn't often doesn't end well for communities once those abate once those tax breaks are are gone or have subsided, then the companies don't they don't always stay, and then you don't have a lot to show for that.

Uh and so we don't uh we don't do so we don't do that.

Uh what we what we talk about are are the people.

Because economic development is about people.

It's not about money, it's about people.

And so what we talk about with companies who are interested in growing here mostly, although there are some that look around to the ecosystem, particularly photonics and optics companies.

There's some that are from out come from out of state, but we don't but we don't recruit them.

They just they're just looking here.

We talk about the university and what it brings to the vibrancy of our community.

We talk about the students who they graduate who are at, who are some of the best in the country.

Um we talk about um how how when you recruit and retain employees, that's really good for your bottom line as a company, right?

When you're not having to train employees over and over again because they continue to leave for other jobs and other opportunities, um that costs a lot of money and it can slow production and um it can have a big impact on morale.

But when you have people employees in our community who want to be here and can practice their trade in the town that they want to be in, now you've got now you've got something.

You've got stability that can transcend any tax break.

And so that's what I use when I talk about um uh when I when I am talking to companies who are choosing to come here.

Quality employees, quality work ethic, quality of life.

How do we navigate the tension that's out there?

And I hear it from everybody.

How do we navigate detention?

Which is uh the cost of living in Bozeman and the wages that are in the different areas, sectors of our economy.

Um in that tension is it's this is a relatively expensive city to live in.

The quality of living is high.

It's great, but it's relatively expensive.

And so, you know, what I am seeing and hearing is that student and uh coming out of MSU, as talented as they are, um they can't afford to live here, and unfortunately they have to go to somewhere else.

Um, how do we navigate that tension?

Yeah, that happens.

Um, you know, sadly that's that's true.

Housing is the biggest challenge that we face.

Um but so is um so is talent and access to talent.

Uh MSU is great as it is and as great as the engineering school is, they only graduate so many engineers per year.

Um and and then there's a long bit of a runway that an engineer has to pursue before they ever become um a professional engineer.

So um so access to to the type of talent and the number of talented um staff employees is a challenge.

Uh and of course, housing is a challenge.

And so um uh there's no there's no running away from that.

There's no and and I I am very upfront with with my the companies that ask um, hey, what's you know where are we gonna struggle?

And I'll tell them housing, you're gonna struggle in housing.

Now keep in mind over the last the challenge is less difficult today than it was four years ago.

Um and so I'm proud of that.

We put thousands of units on the ground, and and those some of those companies uh are you know are putting their employees in those in those units, and and so things are changing for the better slowly.

Um our next effort is gonna be for sale units on the land trust model.

There'll be a lot that missing middle.

There'll be a lot more employees of the type that I'm talking about.

That would um that would really jump at the chance to be uh to have an opportunity to get into a home like that.

So, you know, these things are um they're they're monumental in terms of of like how big of a challenge these things are, and and they take a long time to m to turn to shift.

Um and some of many of the conditions that that will result in those shifts, we have no control over.

You gotta keep that in mind too.

Cost of land, cost of labor, cost of materials, ta uh interest rates.

We have control over none of those inputs.

So our ability to push against them is pretty limited.

Uh and so I'm I'm in fact I I'm I'm actually quite impressed with um the the policymaking and then the um implementation of that policy over the last several years because uh we've gotten lots of units uh and people are moving into them uh on a daily basis.

Thank you, Chris.

Anything else for Britt?

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Great to see you all.

You too.

I'd just like to toss out one other thing.

Um Mr.

Fontenau mentioned that he manages the um city's legislative process during the session in the 2025 session, thinking about the intersection between the work his department does and my department and this board.

There were uh 40 different land use bills that were introduced in 2025, 18 of them passed.

That was a decrease from the session before.

So when the legislature meets, it is a lot of work for all the different staff departments to keep up to date and participate in those processes to try and steer things as best we can for Bozeman.

Um that definitely affects the the work that ultimately ends up with this board and in front of the city commission.

Thank you, Chris.

Very much appreciate the hard work of you and this team.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on on the agenda item G, which is our first and only action item, the Hanson Lane Annexation zone map amendment, R3 residential medium density district, RB residential mixed use low medium initial zoning, located north of Durston Road and east of Hanson Street, application 2575.

And that kicks off a public hearing for this item.

Um we wear several hats uh as part of this board, and we are acting tonight um in the capacity of the Bozeman Zoning Commission, Planning Commission.

I knew that.

Thank you.

We will kick off the item with a staff presentation.

I miss that.

Yeah, go for it.

Yeah.

My apologies.

All right.

So, Chair, board members, uh, tonight I'm bringing forward an application for annexation and establishment of municipal zoning.

Uh the application is 25775, also referred to as the Hanson Lane Annexation.

Uh so the Hansen Lane property is currently part of an unannexed in holding of property, uh, just north of Durston, west of Hanson Street, and east of New Holland Drive.

Uh the property is adjacent to current city boundaries on three sides, uh, to the south, to the east, as well as to the northwest.

Uh the property is 9.979 acres in size, and the applicant is requesting the establishment of RB zoning.

Uh, the application was deemed complete before the effective date of the update to chapter 38, the unified development code.

Uh, therefore, review is being completed under the prior documents and the prior criteria.

This will be the last application that is reviewed under the old uh standards and criteria.

Um, any zone manpa amendments from here on out will be reviewed against the new uh zoning criteria of evaluation.

And then just as a point of order, um, this project is separate from that follower housing project.

Um, the housing project is located on the adjacent property to the north northeast, um, and that property is owned by the city.

This property is privately held and separate from that project.

So here's a general vicinity map, just to give you more context of the area surrounding the Hanson Lane property.

Uh as you can see, the property is currently part of that unannexed island or in holding um and is completely surrounded by city limits.

Um so that island is highlighted there in white.

Uh the unannexed in holding or island consists of almost 45 acres, this property being just under 10 acres of that 45 acres.

Um, and then directly to the east is the Harvest Creek neighborhood, and then directly to the west of the property is Parthridge Down subdivision, as well as the existing cottage part condo complex.

Uh so here's a snip from our future land use map, uh, which shows the land use designations of both the Hanson Lane property as well as the uh properties within the general vicinity.

Uh so the Hanson Lane property uh as well as much of the surrounding area has a designation of urban neighborhood.

Um that's that light yellow color.

So the intent of the urban neighborhood designation is to provide urban density homes in a variety of types, shapes, sizes, and intensities.

Uh the designation also discourages large areas of any single type of housing.

Um the implementing zoning districts for the urban neighborhood designation include RA through RD.

Uh so the proposed zoning of RB aligns with that future land use designation of urban neighborhood.

Uh so here's the current municipal zoning uh for the properties surrounding the Hanson Lane annexation.

Uh so all the surrounding area excepting the parks and open space properties uh is residentially zoned immediately adjacent to the property on the northwest, the east, and the south uh is the RA zoning district.

Just to the west of that RA and the Hanson Lane property, there's existing RB zoning, as well as up to the northeast across uh Oak Street.

And then there's also a pocket of RC just to the southeast uh on that southern uh side of Durston Road.

So the the proposed zoning of RB is generally consistent with the surrounding area.

Uh zoning of RB allows for increased density, greater housing diversity within a developed area, uh, while keeping that residential nature.

Uh so going into a little more detail on what RB zoning uh consists of.

Uh so RB zoning is primarily intended for residential uses uh and allows for a variety of housing options.

Uh these options range from single unit dwellings up to multi-unit dwellings with up to eight units, including townhomes and row houses.

Uh the RB zoning district also allows for compatible uses such as group residential, parks and open space, as well as daycare uses.

Um the RB zoning largely does not allow for commercial uses as a primary use, um, and only allows for you know limited personal or general services uh subject to special use standards in our code.

Uh so going into the lot and building standards for the RB zoning district.

Uh so the maximum height in the RB zoning district is 45 feet.

Uh there is also a maximum wall plate height of 33 feet.

Uh so the max wall plate height restricts that number of stories that can fit within a 45-foot max height.

Um, you know, so uh the 33-foot wall plate height really restricts the stories to about a three-story building, roughly um within that 45-foot max height.

And then there's also a minimum net density in the RB zoning district of eight dwelling units per acre.

Uh so eight dwelling units per acre is easily achievable through single unit uh detached housing uh at roughly 5,000 square feet a lot, um, or it can also be achieved through the other forms of housing that we went through on the previous slide.

Uh there is also a maximum building coverage of 40% uh and a maximum building count or maximum unit count within a building of eight units per building.

Uh so both of these measurements, along with the setbacks for the district that I didn't list here, um, help to limit the intensity of development within the RB district and keeps it consistent with that medium to low medium uh residential development.

Uh so here's the zoning criteria for uh evaluation to consider uh a zone and map amendment.

Uh the commission must find that criteria A through D have been met in order to approve approve a zone map amendment.

And then the commission must also consider criteria E through K and determine if the positive outcomes of the amendment outweigh any negative outcomes uh in regards to these criteria.

Uh so as detailed in the staff report uh and provided in the packet, uh staff has determined that criteria A through D have been met, um, and then that there are positive outcomes for the remaining criteria.

Um then I'll be available after the presentation if there's any questions or any further clarification needed uh regarding those findings.

The application followed the city's normal noticing procedures for annexation and zoning.

Uh notices were mailed to the adjacent property owners, uh, newspaper ads were run on March 28th as well as April 4th.

Uh the site was posted in two locations.

One sign on the south uh side of the property along Durston Road, uh, and then another sign on the northeast portion of the property uh near the dead end for Annie Street.

Uh to date the city has received uh 63 public comments regarding this application.

Um then my following slide details some of the common themes that have come out of those public comments that we've received.

Um our development review committee has reviewed the application and they found no restrictions uh on approval that cannot be addressed with future review processes such as platding, site plan, um, those processes that come after annexation and zoning.

And uh the application will be moving forward to the city commission in two weeks on May 5th.

Uh so as I mentioned on the last slide, uh the city has received just over 60 public comments uh regarding the application.

Uh after reading through the public comments, there's two central themes from these uh comments.

The first theme is concerns over zoning of RB uh being pursued instead of RA.

Um analysis of how RB meets the required criteria for establishment of zoning, as well as how that zoning is consistent with the surrounding area is detailed in the staff report.

Um and then the second theme of concern was safety for the proposed future Annie Street as well as follower lane rights away.

Uh so the design phase for the follower avenue and anti-street rights away is currently nearing completion, and it's happening as a separate project from this annexation and zoning.

Um it is being headed by our engineering department.

They've had uh extensive public outreach for the design of these rights away and have incorporated safety measures in their design and have also used public comment to help uh shape the design of those roadways.

Uh but ultimately this brings me to the recommended motion for the planning commission tonight.

Um and then I'm also available for any questions that the board has or any further clarification as needed.

Thank you, Colin.

Any questions on the staff report.

Seeing none?

Yeah, I don't necessarily have questions on the staff report, but uh I will want to ask uh staff questions uh before we deliberate and probably be for public comment.

Okay.

Okay.

So we move on to applicant presentation if there's no comments.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Lloyd and Commissioners.

I'm Chris Nauman.

I'm a senior planner with Sandbell, which is a multidisciplinary community design firm here in town.

Um joining this evening is my colleague from Sandbell, Tom Hanson, not related to the name of the street, and Kevin Anderson as property owner representative.

Uh the landowner has requested annexation to the city as a condition of a right-of-way purchase agreement for the Fowler Avenue Connection Project.

And Sam Bell is working on behalf of the landowner in regards to this application.

And again, just to reiterate, uh the subject property is related to the Fowler Road Project, but is not related to the Fowler Housing Project, which is um to the north, which has been uh been mentioned, but just wanted to reiterate that.

Um as supported by the findings in the staff report, we believe that R B zoning and the corresponding development standards are suitable for the property.

Um RB zoning would allow for potential future development ranging from single family homes to sort of the lower end of the missing middle um housing spectrum on the screen is a definition of missing middle housing from our uh community plan.

And at the the lower graphic is a very um common and and well used illustration of missing middle.

And I've taken the liberty to sort of highlight what I think is allowed generally within the R B uh zoning code.

So it would be the sort of the less dense um part of the the missing middle spectrum.

Again, staff um did touch on this, but just to do a more direct comparison between RA and RB and as it relates to mass and scale, um as as shown here from um clips from the code, the maximum building height um is five feet different from one another, uh, with RA being at 40 and RB being at 45.

Um and as staff did point out, really the the the functional um code standard is the the wall plate height, and those are 11 feet different between RA and RB and generally translate to and and actually quite honestly dictate the number of of uh full floors of any of those buildings at two floors in RA and three floors in RB.

And again, you can see sort of the the mass and scale uh renderings, which I think are extremely helpful to see that then illustrated.

Um likewise uh RB does allow a gentle increase in density at um eight dwelling units per acre compared to the minimum requirement for RA of six.

And um that's both both zoning designations fit nicely within the the current density of the area, which is shown here from a city report, uh, is generally between five and ten dwelling units per acre.

So again, RB at eight um fits within the the existing built environment um in the area that we're we're looking at this evening.

And zooming out just a bit further, uh the other thing that's very interesting in this this part of town, and and this graphic um shows dozens of different neighborhoods and and subdivisions, is there's the the built pattern is an alternating mix between RA and RB and it's almost uncanny that it alternates on either side of Durston Road between the two with a a pocket of of RC as mentioned, not not too far from the subject property.

So again, I think this is consistent with the the mix of zoning in in the larger context, and um for all these reasons again we we believe that that RB is an appropriate designation.

And um for all these reasons, again, we we believe that that RB is an appropriate designation.

And that's all I have for my presentation.

Happy to answer any any questions from the commission.

Any questions from Mr.

Norman?

Mr.

Eggnat's.

Yeah, I'll I'll get things started here.

Um it seems like a large portion of this site is going to be then dedicated to right-of-ways.

Can you speak a little bit to that?

If I remember correctly, uh the rest of the property will still be owned by the landowner, and they can do what they want to do when the time comes to do something.

Yes, that yes, that is correct.

So I I should have the acreages right in front of me, but um it is a significant portion of the the nearly 10 acres would be um part of the dedicated right-of-ways uh for both Fowler running north-south and then Annie Street um coming in from the west.

And then the remainder tracks uh that will still be owned by the Anderson family will be north and south of the and the Annie Street extension, which is entirely west of the Fowler corridor.

And I've seen the Fowler extension in front of us before on different um transportation plans.

Um it's always been for some time it's been in interest of the city to extend that through, knowing that there's kind of a maybe a weakness um when it comes to our master transportation plan of vehicles traveling north to south, and and this is one of the ways to remember kind of alleviate some of that.

Um was um the Annie Street extension part of that as well, or is that kind of just naturally uh an add-on?

Um it's curious that they're both named Annie Street, but it's this is the first time I've seen the Annie Street um portion of it.

Yeah, as part of the the larger Fowler Road Connection project, which extends all the way from Huffine to the south to Oak, and this is just this part is a piece of that, maybe maybe only an eighth, I'm guessing, of the total length.

Um in every piece of the Fowler extension, um, to have a good transportation network, you need cross streets um to intersect to allow people to travel in both directions.

Um Annie Street as and I I worked on some of the early Fowler road project um concepts and community engagement and Annie Street was was one of those cross-street connections that was in my recollection considered from from nearly the very you know the very beginning.

It provides a an important east-west connection from the Fowler corridor.

Did that answer your question?

Yeah, it did.

Thank you.

Just trying to kind of understand again the the overall approach here and in respects to the roads and what I'm seeing in the report.

Um last question, then I'll I'll turn it over.

Um I have a feeling there's gonna be uh quite a bit of uh public comp and around uh criteria, what is G and H, which is um compatibility with um the you know existing structures that are in place, existing communities, um, and then I guess like uh character of the district.

Um I think you did a pretty good job at speaking to that, knowing that there is kind of a little bit of an incremental growth with R B.

Um but I don't know if you you wanted to um maybe just discuss a little bit about what is there and then um how RB can kind of maybe merge seamlessly with that, simply to respond to what I think is some of the public comp quite a few of the public comments we've seen.

Yeah, um again, happy to I mean I think again on more of a macro scale um there's definitely a a mixture of of zoning.

Um it's in the community plan, and it talks specifically about um having having those mixes of housing typologies.

Um it creates a diversity in architecture in the built environment, um having a variety of of housing options also creates um social and cultural um diversity and and really not just having um sort of a very homogenous sort of built environment or or neighborhood makeup.

And again, I think this is one of the best improvements of the the new UDC.

Um all of it's great, Chris.

Thank you for all your hard work.

But I think these graphics really help even us in the the professional sector um visualize what all the charts and numbers you know mean.

And so um I mean you can see just from the two images in the middle on on the right of the of the homes, the housing units, that there are some small differences, but I mean I think if you sat there with one on a screen and toggled back and forth, um it is very incremental.

Um and and again, uh a new regulation was not just the maximum building height, but the wall plate height.

Jason, yeah, I have uh two questions for the applicant.

Um this is an interesting uh slide.

The existing built zoning pattern.

Um what data is that um taken from what is it denoting?

Is it just the density per acre?

Is it the buildings like duplexes versus detached single household residences?

Or what in determining how to characterize some blocks as RA versus RB in this graphic, what what was the criteria?

This is the city zoning map from their GIS.

Just straight up current zoning today.

Oh, so it's not the built zoning pattern, it's the it's it's the zoning pattern.

Yeah.

I did say built.

Most of it is built.

Yeah.

I mean, most of everything on that screen exists and is current.

Um, but yeah, no, that's purely Jason, purely those the zoning zoning map.

Oh maybe the word built is it would was a word I could have left out of there.

Okay.

Yeah, nope, just the zoning map, current pattern.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

I was surprised because um, like looking at some of the RB spots and being fairly familiar with the area, um I would say my impression or understanding is that like a lot of parts of the town, what is built is less than what is zoned.

And in that sense, a lot of these blocks um that are zoned RB or were zoned R mostly exist in a as built as if they were an R1.

Yeah, it might not be eight units per acre, correct.

Um and then just to make sure it's clear, um, this was in the staff report, but it wasn't mentioned in the presentation.

Um this is my understanding, so tell me if this is right.

It's basically it's 10 acres.

The idea here is to annex uh and get an initial zoning.

And then this owner will subdivide to create the road right-of-way portion for Fowler, which the city will purchase.

Is that right?

Yes.

So the next step would be to do um subdivision exemption to create the road tract, and then that creates the land parcel that can be purchased by the city for the for the rights of way and the the streets and utilities.

Okay, and then um what is left will be owned by the applicant under I mean, assuming this goes through.

Yes.

Um or the application gets what it wants, then what is left will be owned by an applicant, it'll be zoned RB.

And how many acres would that be?

Is that or even if it's not exactly known, but roughly?

I mean it's maybe five.

Okay.

The remainder.

Is that right?

Yeah, between four and five acres of the almost ten.

So it's rough numbers, it's half.

Half will be remaining that could be developed as RB, and the other half will become public public ownership and streets, water, sewer, storm utilities.

Okay.

I think um I guess all this I wasn't gonna ask staff for this question, but since you prepared a slide and it's gone through the analysis of what it takes.

Um a lot of the public comment ref referenced five-story buildings, and you just kind of showed uh you know, 33 foot high wall plate with a max height of 45 feet.

Um I mean, my understanding from RB was that it was effectively three stories allowance.

Um I guess in your understanding, is there any way you could get four or five stories out of an RB structure?

Um looking at the architect, oh, retired architect, um, Mr.

Mr.

Lloyd.

My my understanding, I mean, typical um floor to floor heights.

10 is tight, 11 feels a little better.

We'd all naturally feel more comfortable in 12.

So at 33 at 11s, um you're at three.

Now, in that 12 feet, and I'm not again not the architect, I'll call it dormer space.

That you there could be some livable space or programming up there, other than just the attic, like in grandma's house.

Um, but again, it'll be pretty constrained by the pitched roof requirements.

So technically, I guess it would be four floors, three full plate floors, and a much smaller amount of space, um, which again is is the same with with RA.

So yeah, you're you're adding you can have two floors plus a third between your 22 and your 40 in RA.

You can have three floors uh to meet your 33 foot um wall plate height and a smaller fourth floor, if you will, of usable space.

But at the end of the day, the maximum height um right, right.

I'm less than six feet tall.

Okay.

I think those are the only questions for that I have for the applicant.

And then I will have some questions back for staff after everyone goes through.

Any more questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Seeing none, we're gonna recall Colin for some questions from Jason.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Cool.

Yeah, first one might be for uh manager Saunders.

Um so I remember, or at least I think I remember that um under MLUPA, which we've incorporated in our UDC update.

Um there's some new language to the effect of addressing public comment.

Are we operating under that?

Or because I guess what I'm asking is our code has been enacted, so even though this project is under the former standards, we are we operating under the new process from a practical standpoint, there's not much of a difference.

Um the updated law is more explicit about how to do it, but it's always been the practice of the city.

Uh, you do not have to go through uh an item by item discussion.

You should identify the the topics that you're hearing, uh, any concerns that have identified your analysis of that.

Okay, we've heard this comment about height.

What do we think about that?

Um, and then uh discuss that, and then you can make your findings in relationship to the proposal overall.

Okay.

Um and then I'll just preface mostly this is for the folks in attendance.

Some of my questions are somewhat rhetorical, but it's for two reasons.

One is to make sure that I'm understanding correctly, but it's also to give you all the opportunity to hear some of the things at least that I'm thinking.

Um, and you know, others could choose to do it this way if they want to, um, so that you at least will hear that before you make your own public comment.

Um so anyway, and this is just a straight question, not uh not a rhetorical one, but how why don't Annie and Rose happen to line up on either sides of this unbuilt space?

Sorry, would you repeat that?

I missed part of the.

Yeah, like if you're sort of looking across this unbuilt space, Annie and Rose both don't line up like to the east there, like far farther south.

Uh, when we're doing land use planning and city development, we often inherit decisions made by others long ago.

And um, so uh we ended up seeing development coming from the east and from the west with different sets of expectations.

Um we've got a number of places like that throughout the community.

And so uh with Fowler coming in, it's a uh we have a design standard specified in the code that says you will connect streets to streets, and so uh becomes a responsibility of the engineering division to figure out how to do that safely.

Okay, and that'll be an important part of the Fowler design for the project itself.

Okay.

And then um, you know, so we're at the part we're not dealing with annexation, that's only for the commission, but we're we're passing upon this request for initial zoning of RB.

Yes.

Um, and just so everyone knows before anything could get built here, what additional process would have to happen.

I'm thinking like subdivision, site plan, master site plan, PDZ.

Um there's at least two alternatives.

Uh a subdivision would be necessary if they wished to further break down the larger parcels into smaller parcels.

Or there's an opportunity for a site plan, so they bring in a design for the parcel as a whole.

They can do multiple uh structures either way.

Um either way, those are administrative decisions to review, uh subject to the laws that are in place at the time that those applications come in.

There's no time limit.

Um we've had property that's annexed and then stayed exactly as it was for decades and decades, and others that annex and begin developing shortly there shortly thereafter.

Okay.

Um I just wanted to confirm.

Uh I saw uh the helpful chart about the various objective allowances in RB.

Um I think I also read it as showing that no building site can exceed 120 feet wide.

So, sort of regardless of the parcel size or whatever.

Um, so we the things you already laid out, the height, the wall plate, no more than eight units in a building, and also a building can't be any, no side of a building could be or at least facing a street, either a front primary street or a side street could be wider than 120 feet.

Is that is that a correct understanding?

Yes, that is correct.

Um would uh a traffic impact study be something that would be required at this stage in the uh process.

Um not with the zone map amendment.

Um in this case, uh the stud city has completed uh a regular transportation master plan that looks broadly at transportation demand, and so when we're designing at a systems level, uh the transportation master plan and then the individual project design handles that uh we would look for a transportation impact study as part of uh potential future development.

There's some thresholds in the code where a formal study is uh required.

Okay.

Uh same question.

Is it with something like an environmental impact study?

Um, is that something that would be done either at this stage of the process or if at any stage for a parcel of this size?

Um that's a yes-no question.

Uh the yes is that there are specific standards depending on proximity to say a water course or uh verification of wetlands, those have to happen everywhere uh regardless of whether it's a subdivision or site plan.

Other kinds of analysis are done typically at the time of the land use plan, and there's a lot of data in there where we looked at it, uh, there's various policies that the city has formally adopted through the land use plan to encourage uh in field development consistent with those other standards about watching out for the the water courses and things like that.

So there's a deliberate balance built into the code and any future uh application.

Uh there's a long long list of materials that have to be submitted for evaluation, uh, and then we staff would be responsible to evaluate that data and uh determine what, if any impacts needed to be mitigated.

Okay.

Um similar or basically same question for uh parking, when and how is parking addressed in the development process?

Parking is um addressed during the uh either site plan process for a larger project or at a building permit.

Uh one point I would note is that the state has limited our ability to regulate parking, and so we do have parking regulations for the design, how big of a of a parking space where it can go on the site, those kinds of things.

Uh depending on the nature of the housing construction, we have sometimes ability to require a minimum quantity and sometimes not.

Okay.

Um let's see.

If anyone else wants to jump in, I have few more questions, but I don't want to.

Um let's see a few more.

So my understanding is that it's not the role of this body to debate and enact policy, but instead we're to follow the enacted code, which requires us to evaluate the application against the required factors, uh, one of one of which the criteria includes reference to the community plan.

Is that basically right?

Yes.

Um then relatedly, does this body or the city commission have a if have among its options with respect to this application to choose or oppose RA zoning instead of the requested RB?

Um this body does not.

Uh if you do not believe that um the R the requested zoning is appropriate, rather than speculating on alternatives, it would be better to recommend not approval and uh then advance that recommendation on to the city commission.

Okay.

This is a quote.

I think this might be my last question.

It has to do with the tax burden or how I guess like property taxes work.

My understanding is that the higher density development tends to create a better property tax value proposition for the city and its residents.

There'd be a like a worse tax burden by denser development, or maybe possibly by like the infrastructure implications of what's being asked for.

I guess in this case, the contention was like RB versus RA.

And my general thinking was kind of the more there are valuable buildings in an area, kind of the more the property tax density is like higher for that given amount of land.

Is that basically right?

Um fortunately, I am not the tax assessor, or else I would never be able to go anywhere in public.

There is a direct correlation to uh the development of property and the installation of infrastructure.

And it is a responsibility as specified in the code that any new development is responsible for what is needed to serve their development.

So a local street, local water sewer services, those kinds of things, park dedication uh where appropriate.

So those kinds of things, uh, whether it's RA, RB, or RPDQ, will all stay uh the same.

So that that's going to be uh awash.

We do see that uh being able to utilize uh existing capacity and existing infrastructure is less costly, both for city maintenance and operations, so that affects everyone, as well as typically initial construction because you're having to build less length of infrastructure.

Uh when it comes to the the actual taxation component to that, um the land gets taxed at a given value as set by the state, the buildings get taxed at a certain value set by the state.

So if the state identifies the proposed um or the existing development once it's actually done as uh being a more valuable building, then there will be a corresponding increase in the tax.

Difficult to speculate at this point on how the state would choose to do that.

Um yeah.

Okay, thank you.

I think that's all I had.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Yes, Eric.

I have a question, thank you.

Um I guess maybe I'd start with a similar kind of clarifying question for you, Chris.

Um there are a number of public comments that that kind of dealt with the road safety.

Um, and it's my understanding that that our charge today is related to the uh the zone and and uh beyond the fact that you know a zone may change the number of people living in an area.

Uh, we're not not really reviewing the design of the roadway.

That's correct.

Um, also uh, as Colin's report mentioned, when the staff does the analysis for the criteria, we're looking at the municipal code as a whole.

We're looking at our various plans and standards that the city's adopted.

So the city has a complete streets policy, we have a minimum standard for inclusion of sidewalks.

Uh those kinds of elements are just simply baked into the code for all development, so there is a safe space for people to go.

Um beyond that, you know, individual road design, things like that.

That is outside the scope of this individual application.

It is something that uh the city engineering division um is very very conscious of and uh takes great care for.

Can we solve uh every possible situation?

No, that's we're all humans when we get in our car and drive or walk or do whatever we do, but we strive very hard to minimize the risk.

Okay, thank you.

And then kind of follow up question uh for you.

You mentioned some about the um the process that the the transportation department is in and kind of public comment.

Um at least from reading the public comments.

Um it seemed perhaps they have those authors have participated in that public comment, or perhaps they have not.

So I'm just curious if you could speak to opportunities for that kind of road design process if if people you know would like to submit additional public comment, not happy with it, missed it, would like to weigh in now.

Um just so um so the public's aware of how they can contribute to that design process.

Yeah, I'll actually uh welcome up Director Ross.

Um he's heading that project, um, and so I'll let him discuss whether with the uh the design phasing and then opportunity for public comment.

Thank you so much.

Hello, for the record.

Nick Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering.

We began public engagement for the Fowler Avenue connection in the fall of 2021.

So we are going on uh five years of public engagement on this section of roadway.

Uh we have gotten through the 60 percent design and now have completed 90 percent.

We will have one final public meeting.

Um, the Annie Street Connection has been uh a centerpiece of this project from the very beginning.

Um the roundabout you see right in the middle of this section of Fowler, that is Annie Street, and so it's quite conspicuous.

Uh and we have taken care with the inclusion of that neighborhood roundabout to make sure that connection is done as safely as possible so that we reduce any uh um uh speeding and cut through traffic both on the Fowler corridor or adjacent into the neighborhoods east and west.

Thank you.

Um and so you said there's gonna be an additional opportunity for public comment at the 90 percent uh phase and be when that is available or sure.

So uh the last public engagement opportunity for the Fowler Avenue section from Oak down to Durston is contingent upon the annexation, uh subdivision exemption, contract bidding, and it will be more of a public plans display of the years of public engagement that have gone into vital design and then what construction impacts are to come.

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Anything else for Colin, Chris.

Moving on.

Okay.

Well it open up, we'll open up the public hearing for public comment at this point.

Um please come up to the podium, state your name, and limit your comments to um three minutes if at all possible, there will be a timer to help you with that.

Um, sure.

Mr.

Lloyd, do you mind um since I'm representing 525 homes just a little bit longer?

Sure, a little bit.

Thank you so much.

Good evening.

My name is Heather Higgs.

I'm here on behalf of the Harvest Creek Homeowners Association.

I want to make a few corrections to the staff report based upon my own understanding.

Although the UDC went into effect February of this year, Harvest Creek is actually an R1 zoned subdivision comprising of 525 homes.

There is no compatible zoning in the current UDC.

We were the last single family subdivision approved in 1999.

Currently, 24% of the homes within Harvest Creek are renters.

So I would say that there's nothing homogenous about the owners or the people who live within Harvest Creek, as previously stated.

This is one of the first annexation proceedings under the newly enacted uniform development code, chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code.

Make the decision in favor of gradual intensification of development and use the RA zoning designation, or in this case, do not improve the application.

Please consider the following points when evaluating the annexation application for Hanson Lane.

The application seeks a zoning of RB, but a zoning designation of RA is consistent with the city's growth policy, future land use map, and the development pattern of the surrounding areas.

The Harvest Creek subdivision is immediately adjacent to the property, which is the subject of the annexation application.

The neighboring properties to this area are in fact single household residential.

This is the dominant use of land in 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 RB is not consistent with the development planning, excuse me, pattern of the surrounding area, and it will allow development of density greater than six units per acre and buildings with height greater than 40 feet.

Currently, Harvest Creek is six units per acre.

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

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

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

Traffic calming is needed as previously discussed.

And without it, there will be an unobstructed raceway along Annie Street to Emily Dickinson Emily Elementary School, as well as through our neighborhood, which serves and Emily Dickinson School serves the neighborhoods to the east and the west of the subject property.

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

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

Again, I ask that you not approve the application this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Steve Holland.

I live in the Harvest Creek neighborhood.

If I understand correctly, this is one of the first annexation proceedings under the newly enacted Uniform Development Code, Chapter 38, Bozeman Municipal Code.

Please make the decision in favor of gradual intensification development and use the RA designation.

Please consider the following two points when evaluating the annexation application for Hansen Lane.

Under the newly adopted UDC 2025, an RA zone combines all of the attributes of the former R1 and R2 zones.

It allows a range of buildings from single-family residences to two family residences, both one and two stories tall, and it caps building heights to 40 feet.

As requested by the applicant, the RB zoning will allow five-story buildings, eight dwellings per unit per acre, and be built with the issuance of a building permit.

Second, public comments made on this application show disruptions that are anticipated will not be a gradual introduction of a greater density as claimed by the applicant, nor is it required in the Bozeman community plan.

The BCP established the criteria for the gradual introduction of densification by creating the RA zoning designation.

It was clearly made for this type of annexation and zoning map change.

Let's put it to use and the subject property as RA.

And I would like to thank each of you for serving on this board and for your time this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Cindy Miller, resident of Bozeman.

Well, I've let's say uh won't say how long I lived here.

But I lived in Harvest Creek for 15 years.

Wonderful neighborhood.

And my biggest concern of this is I I don't want three-story, four-story.

But is the safety of everybody in those neighborhoods?

Every day there is children riding their bikes and walking to Emily Dickinson.

Some with parents, some with not.

New Holland, there's not a stop sign on New Holland.

People speed down New Holland.

Hunters Way, people come from Huffine, cut through Meriwether, whatever, all the way to Oak Avenue.

They cut through Hunter's Way, speeding.

We hear it at night, Durston, speeding, speeding, speeding, back and forth.

27th Street between Oak and Davis.

The monstrosities are there that everybody's approved.

Three-quarters of those are empty.

And they haven't even finished the last ones that they've built.

Why do we need more affordable housing if they're sitting there empty?

Why not continue with there's so many young families that want a single family home with a doesn't have to be a huge yard but a yard for their dog.

And so I I just wish you'd consider that.

There are so many young people in this area that want homes.

They don't want to live in a three-story apartment or a four-story or five-story.

They want to be in a home.

And in our neighborhood and other neighborhoods in our community, they're wonderful.

We can walk, but just the safety of everybody in the neighborhoods.

We have a lot of elderly in our neighborhood and a lot of children.

And we already seen what's happened twice in the past couple of months.

One on Babcock, young boy hit on a bike, the other one on Oak Avenue, someone in their blind spot, didn't see it, whatever.

Unfortunately, a woman passed away.

We don't want that to happen in our neighborhood.

But it will happen if this all goes through.

I hope it doesn't, but we really need to have the safety.

It should be a big concern.

And I don't think we need any more four or five-story places that are sitting empty.

Thank you for your time.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you, Sandy.

Go ahead.

Hi, my name's Carol Pfeiffer, and I live in Harvest Crick like half the world and half of the city, I believe.

And I did want to thank each of you for coming here tonight because I know you don't get paid for this.

It's a volunteer service, and I sure as heck wouldn't do it every what is that every month or every week that you guys come here?

So I really appreciate you listening.

Um I wanted to point out before I get to my main point is that I'm concerned about the irrigation ditch which runs through that property.

Um it's my understanding that the city has to leave that irrigation ditch as is, along with the trees.

And if you put RB in, I don't know what the city is going to do about keeping those facilities there because that's part of the sale agreement that the city signed.

And you'll be when you go through cut through Annie, you'll be going right through or over that irrigation ditch.

So keep that in mind.

Um, because the city might have backed themselves into a corner on that.

It would take engineering to figure it out.

Um as the previous lady said, we need more single family housing.

We have what we call, we have a name for it.

We call it the Darth Vader Project, which is right behind Home Depot.

All the buildings are black and nobody lives there.

My husband goes through every day and counts the cars in the parking lot, maybe twice a day, and there's you know, maybe five cars there.

And those whoever is going to live there will probably be young singles.

They will most likely want to get married at some point, and they're not going to want to live in something that small.

They will want to live into remain in the community where their roots are, which is around Harvest Creek, that entire area, but they like something, a duplex would be perfect.

Not some high rise.

They don't want to go with little kids one high rise to another.

Kids are going to be going following down the stairs.

No family wants that.

People want their kids to be able to go outside and feel the sun on their face and their feet on the grass.

That's really I know I grew up before most of you.

I was very fortunate to have free rain, but think about what you would want for your children, really.

And from Darth Vader, where do you go?

Not to another high rise.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate your time.

Good evening.

I'm Mike Roser.

I live on uh New Holland over in uh Harvest Creek.

Uh I want to take say a couple things.

I want to read a statement.

First thing I want to get uh let you know is when we were looking at the Fowler Road development, and I was on some of those teams and we did a lot of walkthroughs.

I don't ever recall talking about a roundabout or a road on Annie.

I don't know if you can look through the documentation, but we never talked about it.

I would have remembered that.

The other thing is I learned something tonight about zoning.

Um when they opened up the neighborhoods around Harvest Creek, so there's RAs and RBs, and it's kind of uncanny, they're all over the place.

I think that has something to do with the neighborhoods they back up to.

I think if you look at what what kind of zoning you want to have behind Harvest Creek, it has to be for single-family homes.

It can't be for this this other zoning uh idea because it kind of doesn't fit.

I'm very concerned about this situation and the zoning is one issue.

Even more concerning is extending Annie in a roundabout to perform under Fowler's Road.

Annie is a street that many children use to get to Emily Dixon school.

Attach uh a road, Fowler to Annie creates a very dangerous situation with additional traffic and speeding cars.

We are seeing numerous accidents throughout the valley involving pedestrians' involvement.

Annie should remain a child protective neighborhood, not a dangerous freeway.

If Durston and Oak are busy, you can bet people will use Annie as a new as a new pass through at higher speeds.

And don't bother to comment on what the city will do about the speeds.

One of my biggest frustrations.

The situation is being ignored all over town, all over Bozeman.

I mentioned this to a police person, he responded, we just don't have enough staff to take care of that problem.

Many rather waste money, rather waste money on other unnecessary roads, spend the resources to have more police traffic enforcement.

Over the years, we have requested some help from the city.

Traffic calming.

Nothing.

No luck.

Just talk.

Thank you.

Well, I'm Mike Harris.

I live on New Holland next to Mike Roser.

So number one, how many of you can name the four uh thoroughfares that are currently taking you from 19th to Ferguson?

Baxter, Oak, Durston, and Babcock.

We don't need another thoroughfare that's going to extend Davis to Fowler.

The safest route is any of those four to one of those directions.

The second thing is you're going to devastate Oak Springs and Harvest Creek's housing prices by allowing this subdivision to go in.

Are you willing to buy everybody out in Harvest Creek?

Because you're going to totally destroy that whole neighborhood.

Totally.

Or 15th, or even uh before you get to Wilson.

Make them single family homes.

Does everybody understand this whole dilemma is you don't need another through road.

You have everything you need.

If I need to go to Huffine, I'm going to go down 19th, 11th, Ferguson or Cottonwood.

And I'm going to either do it on Baxter, Oak, Durston, or Rabcock.

One of the two.

This whole road thing is just ridiculous.

Why would the city even want to spend that money when that road is not going to do anything?

And on top of it, you're going to just destroy Oak Springs and Harvest Creek by building this stuff unless you keep it R1, original single family homes.

If you're willing to buy us out, then fine.

But it's ridiculous.

People that live in Oak Harvest Creek or Oak Springs.

I never would have thought when I bought the house in 2018 that I'd be here talking about what the city is going to do.

It's ridiculous.

Leave it, expand Gallatin County Regional Park.

Turn it into a park.

If there's anything we should be doing is green space.

110%.

Any questions.

We typically just receive public comment.

Thanks for that.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Meredith Senter, and I also live in the Harvest Creek neighborhood.

Thank you for your time and your service to the city and to your communities.

The presenters tonight have talked about how the RB can be compatible and how it could allow for better merging with the surrounding neighborhoods.

But it does not require that.

The point of the zones is to set limits.

It doesn't set what a developer should ideally do in the best interest of the city or the community.

So in some sense, the discussions that we have had tonight about how the RB would allow for potentially for a smooth transition feels irrelevant.

Because once the zone is set, the developer can do as they wish.

As was pointed out, I also think the map presented with the current zones in the context that it was used was a bit misleading.

Because indeed, many of the current builds in those areas are more aligned to the current RA, regardless of how they are zoned.

So in terms of making this annexation of RB and then trusting the individual or a developer to make good decisions about compatibility, just does not like does not seem like the most logical course of action when the point of the zoning is to set limits.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Claire Mack.

I live in Harvest Creek neighborhood on Lilly Drive.

First, I want to thank you for your service to the community.

Thank you for doing this and being here tonight.

I also am asking you to recommend a not approval of this project to the City Commission.

My frankly, my preference for the space would be green space.

But that aside, I think that I would ask you to rethink if if RA was recommended, perhaps consider that.

But at this time, because RB is recommended, I would ask you to advise the Commission to not approve the project.

I am my husband and I are one of the families raising young children in the Harvest Creek neighborhood.

In 2020, we were a newly married couple, new to Bozeman.

We were one of the ones looking for housing.

We are renters trying to find housing.

We are extraordinarily fortunate that we got shown our house the day before it went on the market and made the owners an offer that they could have probably gotten another 40K on top of if they had actually put it on the market.

So we got incredibly lucky.

We know I am fully aware of how hard it was, particularly in 2020 to get housing in this community.

I'm also aware that today is not 2020.

We're not at the point that we were then when we physically didn't have enough units for people to live.

We do now, as has been stated, there are open and available apartments in this town.

My friends in this community, people in their 30s who are looking for housing, aren't looking for apartments.

They're not looking for condos.

They're currently in apartments and condos and they're looking to get out of apartments and condos into single family homes.

My friends who live in Brooklyn in New York City are looking for apartments, but it's also mixed-use zoning.

They're living above really cool shops and they can walk down to a corner bodega.

We can't do that here.

And so instead, what we want is a backyard to hang out in if we can't hang out at a local community space.

My kids are young kids.

I'm very concerned about the safety of kids in Harvest Creek.

One of the benefits of living there is that we get to give our kids a 90s childhood, and they get to run up and down the street and they get to walk to Monkey Park on their own, and they get to go play.

My kids are a little too young to do any of that alone, but the older kids in the neighborhoods do.

And if there was a through street on Annie a block from my house, I wouldn't feel comfortable with that.

I'm already nervous about throwing my kids in the burley and biking down Durston because there are so many people coming in on the cross streets on 27th on Ferguson on Hunters.

Um we don't need another through street on Annie that's just as frightening.

Um I heard the comments about the roundabout.

We recently had a roundabout put in at uh Rose and Hunters, and it was there for a few short weeks before it was taken out and the stop sign was put back in because it was such a failure at controlling traffic.

I live on that corner and people were racing up and down the street.

Um my request would be that you recommend a no approval to the commission.

It seems like more people and more traffic in this area doesn't make sense for our community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Come on up.

Well, I was really hoping for applause, but I'm not gonna get it.

So that's fine.

No, no, don't.

I would like to applaud the efforts of this community development board to listen to the citizens of the Bozeman regarding new development.

I do like the city's idea of creating more affordable housing, especially for our public service workers like teachers, police, fire nurses, et cetera.

They need housing.

They need to be able to live in the communities that they serve.

However, I'm concerned about the city's approach to affordable housing in general and specific to the Hansen and Fowler developments.

I've spoken with dozens of public service workers, and every single one expressed a desire for more affordable homes, not housing, homes with outdoor space for their children, pets, gardens, etc.

As we've heard from others.

They do not want to live in multiple family dwelling units.

They do not want to live in high rises.

They do not want their children to have bedrooms on the third or fourth floor.

This creates a risk.

It creates insecurity.

My favorite economist, and yes, it's sad that I have a favorite economist, but renowned Harvard economist Thomas Sowell states in his book, Basic Economics that prices are crucial signals that convey information about supply and demand that no central authority can possess.

Key words here being supply and demand.

We saw this manifest itself during COVID when people were encouraged to work from home.

Many people saw this as an opportunity to move to Montana and improve their quality of life.

Myself among them.

During this time, Bozeman's desirability and limited housing supply drove our home prices to unprecedented levels.

Again, supply and demand.

According to the most recent information published by the Bozeman Real Estate Group, single-family homes have the highest price inflation and lowest vacancy rate due to high demand and limited supply.

This is largely due to the city's opposition to all single family home development over the past 20 plus years.

Conversely, multifamily housing vacancies are very high because demand is lower.

Current overall multifamily vacancy rates across Bozeman are above 12 percent, with newer units built since 2024 having a staggering vacancy rate of 44 percent.

Now the city of Bozeman is focusing on creating their own affordable housing projects, such as Hansen and Fowler.

Bozeman would be wiser to consider these two additional economic principles from Thomas Sewell.

Government intervention and price controls don't work and often create negative unintended consequences and create shortages.

Economic inequality is often misunderstood and typically reflects different stages of life.

It is not a fixed zero-sum scenario where rich prosper at the expense of the poor.

The City Commission has stated they oppose single family housing because it creates urban sprawl.

I would argue that the opposite is true.

The proposed three to five-story approach, yeah, I see it's blinking.

I'm I'll I'll speed it up.

Constructing buildings that rise above the trees impact our views of the mountains.

It amplifies congestion because you have more cars, more people, more pedestrians, more risk for vehicle pedestrian interactions.

Affordable RA single-family housing like Bridgerview would better integrate with the surrounding neighborhoods of Harvest Creek and others.

It would be more desirable, it would have less impact on our wildlife and natural beauty.

It would also likely drive market adjustments that will make all housing more affordable.

Again, supply and demand.

When you don't create any single-family housing, this and the demand goes up and the supply is stagnant, it inflates housing prices.

We need more single-family homes.

That is what the people want.

I implore this commission to consider these factors as you evaluate your plans for future city development.

Let's keep Bozeman beautiful and stop building high-rise housing before it's too late.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Could you provide your name for us, please?

Begard?

Could you provide your name for the record, please?

I'm sorry.

You were down to Billy and not getting applause.

Bill Valencourt, I live on Caterpillar Street in Harvest Creek.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name's Tom Gay, and I live in Harvest Creek also.

The only argument I've heard tonight for RB is so that the ultimate developer has more options to put more housing in.

It's the only argument you've heard everybody else talk about the dangers.

I live across from Monkey Park.

The number of children that are there crossing that street, it's enormous.

I just hope that you will take that into account and balance that.

I know this is a hard decision.

I appreciate your hard work, Edit.

Thanks for your work.

Thank you.

Hi, thank you so much for your volunteer work.

Um I'll try to keep this brief.

But I would encourage you, I live on New Holland, and why my son is one that's roaming around at the monkey park, which I love about living there.

Um, yeah, my name, I'm Kristen Tripp.

Thank you.

Um I would encourage you to vote no on um RB and keep it RA.

Um my main concern is actually as it relates to setting precedent for what will be the next development on the docket, which is my backyard, or what I perceive to be my backyard.

I understand the city owns it.

But um the other thing that I wanted to mention, just as thought, and perhaps this is part of the UDC, I don't know.

Is there any consideration for water use per unit that goes into calculations when thinking about zoning?

We've already got a wildfire that's raging outside of Red Lodge today.

Obviously, we're not we're not on the upswing as far as getting more water in our watershed.

So I just would encourage you to also consider water use and water use per unit when considering zoning.

We're already in a real bind, I would imagine.

Lastly, because part of I've lived in Bozeman since 1989, and um one of the reasons why I love it so much is because I get to see trees, the cottonwood trees, there's great horned owls, there's pheasants, there's Huns, there's hawks, there's eagles that nest in those trees, and if you're lucky enough, you'll get this.

This is a red fox who lives in this stretch, who has lived there for five or six years.

This is her on Tuesday night, looking for a mate.

Also causing problems for the neighbor neighborhood chickens, I hear.

But this is part of why we live here.

So I encourage you to, you know, just consider that aspect too.

Those critters, those birds, they don't have a voice, except on Tuesday nights.

Thank you.

Thank you.

More public comment.

Bill Valencourt again.

I'm sorry, she just provoked a thought.

When I look at the development layouts, like the ones for Fowler and the ones for here as a former fireman, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

You cannot get ladder trucks in there to rescue children whose bedrooms are on the upper floor as a school bus driver.

You can't get a school bus in there to pick up children.

They're gonna have to wait on the main streets.

So as you look at these developments, you need to look at the safety risks that are inherent with high-density housing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any more public comment.

Okay.

I'd like to provide public comment this evening.

Yes.

As a reminder, please use the raise your hand feature if you'd like to provide public comment online.

First up, we have Mary Francis McHugh.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I uh thank you.

Uh thank you very much for this opportunity to address you.

Um urge you to deny this application and to send a recommendation that it not be approved.

No one is confusing this property with the Fowler Housing Project.

Overwhelming public comment opposes the zoning on this annexation specifically because it will set a higher density than the surrounding neighborhoods.

This is why we have zoning laws.

The core function of zoning laws is protecting property values.

This application seeks a zone chain.

The existing area is zoned SRR, rural residential zone in the county.

It is two dwelling units per acre.

There are parcels to the north and south of the subject parcel, which are zoned SRR and have buildings on them.

People live there.

Harvest Creek to the east is six dwelling units per acre, which are all single family homes.

Contrary to the staff report, the actual dwelling units per acre, that's the built map, to the west of Hanson Lane is probably six units per acre, even though it carries an R2 zoning designation.

The properties to the west of the subject parcel are occupied by one and two-story homes.

That's west of the parcel.

How do you know that?

Look at map three of the staff report and count the driveways.

Buildings with one driveway are single family residences, even if they are R2 zoned.

It may be zoned one way, but it's built R1.

When a zone change is made, the law requires the requested land use be compared with the prevailing use in the area.

It is beyond doubt that R1 and R2 are the prevailing uses in the area.

The predominant actual use on the adjoining parcels to the east and west of the Hanson Lane area are one and two story single family homes.

None of these homes are near 40 feet high.

An RB designation will allow buildings.

Obviously 45 feet high.

This is not the prevailing use in the area.

The public comment received on this matter demonstrates the breadth of concern in the community for the disruption anticipated by the zoning designation.

There is only one reason for this an annexation and zoning anyway, to build Fowler Road.

A zoning designation of RA doesn't mean there can't be a project that fills in the missing middle or creates affordable housing or addresses any of the other aims of the Bozeman Community Plan.

It just allows for an easier transition from the existing zoning.

It's obviously consistent with urban neighborhood designation in the development plan and would match the future land use map.

A zoning designation of RA balances the interests of those who live in the adjacent neighborhoods with the interests of those who may eventually be their neighbors.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other online comments.

Yes.

Next we have Patty Dickerson.

Hello, Patty, when you're ready.

Okay.

Hi.

Um I'm Patty Vickerson and I live on uh Fowler Avenue.

In the first place, I don't think this road project ever should have been approved or gone through.

It's not really where we need a lot of traffic.

Traffic nowadays in this town is going east-west, not north-south.

Um, but uh since you're doing this project and insist on it, I just I I'm I'm so sad about it.

But it's the last wildlife corridor in town, uh, and that's between Oak and Durston.

There are deer, there's eagles, there's lots of songbirds there that are there, and even a fox.

This is a perfect place to have a park just to extend the park all the way up to the um the park behind the mall.

Um putting in high density dwellings is not what we need in Bozeman.

We have more than enough empty apartments.

Families, including low-income families, want to live in houses.

Children give growing up in this town, deserve to have a yard, even if it's a small one.

But living in a high rise, they don't have that option.

And it's too, it makes the place feel unsafe if you have that many people living in one area.

It's a it's a neighborhood, a neighborhood isn't high rise.

Um, and I did hear somebody mention that it would be better for taxes if you had higher density.

It's like, really?

It's like I don't think that should be our point.

We want quality over quantity here in Bolseman.

That's why we live here.

We love living here.

Um, the main um the more buildings and people, the less safe it will be for everyone, even just putting that road through is gonna make my neighborhood a lot less safe.

Um, they're cutting off part of the street and they're pushing our parking right out.

So it's like it's unsafe for everybody, you know, and consider the nurse that was killed on Oak Street and the little boy that was run over by a car on Babcock just recently.

Uh the more traffic we have, the less safe we are here.

So I want you to consider uh just saying putting it as our uh RA for zoning and not putting in that high density.

We don't need more apartment buildings.

We have enough if you drive around town, and it's a consistent with what exists in the area right now.

So I I'm gonna beg you to please um leave it at our move it to RA designation.

And um, yeah, you know, people deserve to live in homes.

They want to live in homes.

So uh thank you very much for considering this, and um I hope you will do the right thing and vote for that to be an RA zoning.

Thank you, Patty.

Additional online comment.

Yes, we have Diana Saros.

Diana, when you're ready.

Hello, thank you all for your time tonight.

Um I just want to represent the cottage park um homeowners association, cottage condo association.

Um this particle um directly involves our our neighborhood.

Um the speeds of traffic and people coming and doing burnouts and donuts and whatever you have it, it's already a busy place.

And you know, like many other homeowners, I would say, gosh, this is Montana, and we're all the open space screen spaces, the wildlife is abundant here, and that's what makes this area amazing.

But if you know have to, you know, zone it for RA, that would be better than the alternative.

We all want space.

We came to Montana to live in a place where we aren't looking in each other's houses and neighbors because we are so close to each other.

Life starts to begin to be like you're in a cell.

All these homeowners are asking for more space.

And by approving taller buildings, more density.

Encroaches on the space that makes us all feel happy.

So please take that into consideration and do your best.

More traffic.

We want a mellow easygoing life here.

And that's why we came to Montana.

If we wanted high density, we would be in a city.

But this place is turning into a city more rapidly than we can say city.

So thank you for hearing us out.

We appreciate your time.

Thank you.

That concludes online public comment.

Okay.

Seeing no more public comment, we will close that portion of today's public hearing.

And bring it back up for any uh staff comments or applicant comments on the testimony or other items that have been presented.

I'd like to answer a couple of questions or concerns that were raised.

Um the issue of water use.

Yes, the city does have specific standards that we use for planning purposes.

And we have processes that require new development to provide for water as it comes through the process.

For those who have concerns in this area, the city is actively going through uh what's called the integrated water resources plan at this point.

Um is the policy setting document for how the city addresses a wide range of water issues.

Uh, if you're interested in um seeing more about that project and looking for opportunities to participate, uh engage.bozman.net is the city's uh general engagement page, and there's a uh square there that will take you into that project.

So if you're interested in that area, we encourage you to engage with that project.

Uh ditch standards, yes, uh ditches are private property.

That's well established in Montana law.

So whenever a developer or the city or any other party is going to be affecting a ditch, there is a requirement that they engage with those owners, and there's a whole process for folks doing that.

And so that is something that will have to be resolved before anybody starts doing any kind of work.

Um I guess one other item I would mention.

Um the city commission has uh created is what's called transitions.

That's a requirement where if you have zones that are significantly dissimilar to each other, that uh there be a process uh in the design phase to address those building heights and uh streets uh as long as they're at least 60 feet wide are considered an adequate transition between dissimilar zones.

So that is something that is considered.

It has been addressed uh built into the code, and in this case, um the majority of any future development will either be adjacent to the Fowler Avenue right away or the Hanson Street right-of-way, and with future development, um, we would ensure that there's uh an adequate 60-foot right-of-way, which is our minimum standard for a local street, which would be Hanson Street or any street.

So those things um we we certainly are aware of that, those concerns from the public, and the commission has put rules in place to uh address those things uh in advance of any individual application.

Uh that's all I have to add, Colin.

Do you have anything you'd like to add?

Sure.

Yeah, I just have one clarifying point as well.

Um the zoning of the property as RB does not exclude uh single unit development as well.

Um, RB allows for those single unit developments, it'll just be a slightly higher density than the RA would allow.

Um again, roughly you know, 5,000 square feet would meet that eight dwelling units to the acre minimum.

Um so it's not exclusively multifamily townhomes, row houses that would be developed with RB.

Um the opportunity is there for single family as well.

Okay.

Anything from the applicant?

No, thank you.

Thank you.

Um I guess I have a question for staff if they want to address it.

Um, impression was that Fowler is a much needed north-south connection.

Um Ferguson is quite a ways to the west.

It's like twice as far to 19th to the east.

And then my impression of 27th is that it is not sufficient.

And then my impression of 27th is that it is not sufficient and that it's a lesser north-south street than person or what Fowler will be.

So anyway.

Sure.

For the record, Nick Ross, Director of Transportation Engineering.

So you were not incorrect in that what we are seeing in practice is that people don't drive half a mile out of their way to use one of the other arterials.

They drive through our neighborhoods.

So since Ms.

Brown has been invoked, a lot of the conversations I've had with Oak Springs residents are eager to see Fowler come through because they recognize the traffic on their streets cutting through their neighborhoods right now.

It's because of the lack of connectivity that Fowler will bring.

Again, because people do not drive half a mile out of their way to use Ferguson or to use Dorth 27th or to use 19th.

Okay, yes, thank you.

And sorry to take the time because I realize that that's that's beyond the criteria that we're evaluating, but it's got a lot of discussion, so I figure we might as well get it out there.

Yeah, I mean I I've got a question in respect to it too.

Nick wants to come back up because I think there are there's a lot of moving pieces here.

Um I appreciate the public comment.

Um there are some comments in respect to um uh you know if this is RA or RB, does that mean the Ferguson happens or not?

Or is there um I guess is the zoning designation here uh dependent on whether Ferguson and A happens, or does do those roads happen whether it's RA or RB?

Sure.

Um so uh that in part depends on the applicant themselves.

Okay.

Um they've requested RB.

That's part of our uh the the thread between our um future purchase that right away.

I don't can't answer for them.

I don't represent the owner.

Um our interest would be to move ahead um by interest, sorry, as representing the transportation department and the execution of the need for Fowler to uh strongly encourage the applicant to move forward, um but I can't answer that for them.

Okay, thank you.

Chair, if I could just add a little bit to what Mr.

Ross mentioned.

Um Fowler Avenue as a continuous route from Valley Center down south, uh appears in the city's 20 uh 2001 transportation plan, so 25 years ago, and has consistently carried forward addition to addition.

So there's been a long-standing identification that that route plays an important role in the long-term development of our transportation system.

Eric.

I have a another question.

Thanks for sticking up there.

Um with regard to Annie, you kind of mentioned the roundabout that's planned at Fowler.

I noticed um, I think on a more recent transportation master plan that it's uh slated to become um a bike boulevard.

Um and that at least what's noted on GIS uh suggests that some um minor intersection treatments might be required for that.

Um and I I know one of the things that came up in public comment was the you know suspicion that there's two schools connected, right?

So do you have anything planned besides that round out roundabout?

You know, and other intersections, you know uh speed limits were mentioned, you know.

I I noticed there's no bulbouts, you know, or anything like that.

There's a median at the kind of west end, but you know, any other kind of traffic calming measures that you may have planned uh for Annie.

Sure.

So we evaluate the need for traffic calming based on speed and volume that's experienced on a street.

And so um if there were to be an expansion of either speed or volume to the point where traffic calming would help alleviate that concern, it's expressly within the the uh responsibility of our department to provide those improvements.

Um right now, um those conditions don't exist.

Um frankly, the minor difference in traffic, regardless of what zoning designation is agreed upon here, are highly unlikely to generate that uh either.

If the conditions did arise, though, that's exactly what our neighborhood traffic calming program is cre was created this year to address.

Uh and I'll also mention um our commission's um interest in greatly expanding those financial resources so our department could come and do more of those projects in the future.

So to answer that shortly, no current improvements are planned because the conditions don't exist right now that would require them.

Thank you.

So just to make sure I got that right.

So essentially, if this project comes to fruition, it would get built, and then periodically you come out and measure traffic counts.

And if you found them elevated, then that would kind of qualify that um street for neighborhood scale.

Um Travit call me.

That's exactly right.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for Nick before we let him sit down again?

Okay.

Thank you, Nick.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

We'll close the comment period of this public hearing and bring it up here for a motion on this item.

Anyone like to put forward a motion?

Mr.

Del Meal.

Uh 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 2575 and move to recommend approval of the Hanson Lane Zone app amendment with contingencies required to complete the application processing.

Second, second.

Any discussion.

Yeah, I mean, I'll just tell you some of the initial things I'm thinking.

Um I try to avoid saying this is this is how we'll vote because I always want to hear what people say.

Um I guess first I'd say um so trying to address just maybe a little more than we normally do public comment, because my impression was that something a little bit different language than there was before.

Um but um I thought most of the issues cited in public comment are not tied to the specific review criteria that we're supposed to be looking at right now.

And and and while those are all legitimate concerns, um they'll be taken up later in the development process.

Um let's see um mandatory criteria A.

I thought the staff report did a good job explaining why RP is appropriate.

Uh particularly applicable was the discussion here at the top of page 23.

Um, and then also continued to summarize uh the goals and policies that were proffered by the applicant and support.

Um I didn't really think that goal N2, which is simultaneous emergence of commercial nodes was very applicable here because it's such an established area already.

Um but I did think that goal N 2.2 um was quite applicable given that the uh school is only two-thirds of a mile from the center of the subject property.

Um I also agreed with staff's addition of goal and hyphen three to promote a diverse supply of quality housing units as well as the discussion that followed that um as being as supporting application.

Um mandatory criteria B, C and D as is always the case.

The tables of the staff report show how with Bozeman's many issue plans and its comprehensive code requirements, uh pretty much any development in the city to city standards is necessarily going to meet those criteria.

Um criteria E through K.

I agreed with the analysis that all were met.

Um and I thought particularly noteworthy was the fact that the future site will be bordered by two minor arterials, uh, Durston and Fowler.

Um I would note that the minimum density in our B is eight units per acre, and um looks judging based on that diagram or that map, the area is already between five and ten based on that color-coded uh map that we saw, which my understanding was for what's the actual as built condition, not just uh what's what's what's zoned.

Um I thought that staffs and applicants' tables and images of the building standards, uh, along with the fact that um the maximum building width on any street um could is 120 feet.

Um I thought that was um fairly compelling as to um the appropriateness of what's allowed in RB, I mean those different height and wall plate and number of units in a building standards.

Um a lot of the public comment pointed to the um the sameness of the surrounding area as being you know, like mostly uh or like quite mostly uh single household dwellings um as cutting against this request, but I sort of saw it as the opposite.

Um that you know, when you have such uh similarity, it's nice to get a little bit of variety in there.

Um let's see.

Oh yeah, spot zoning was referred to quite a bit of times, and I remember um the city attorney was in here and um you know talked to us about that.

And um uh one of the necessary elements of spot zoning is that it has to be primarily to benefit a specific landowner rather than the public good.

Um, but I think the analysis of the criteria A through K and especially criterion A establishes you know the public good that the community plan is is trying to achieve.

Um let's see.

Oh, and I just want to this is uh not part of the criteria, but it is part of the factual uh background of the current housing situation.

Um so I agree about the supply and demand um and the apartment demand is softening, and so it's probably likely that apartments are not gonna get big apartments are not gonna get built there because the price signal of the market is not saying build more apartments.

Um and I also agree that people might prefer a detached house.

Um but the latest figures we've been seeing are that um for what the loan that somebody could get that their monthly income could support at 120% area median income, it's like that loan is like $300,000 less than what the median house is selling for.

Um but what we have heard is that like a three-story townhouse townhome situation that's accessed with a like a two-car garage off the back.

This is an example of like what RB is like particularly suited to.

Um, and in fact, this kind of design was part of the reason that the draft UDC got updated in some aspects to make sure that this kind of structure was allowed.

But in the you know, like a two-car drawage you'd access from the back, the front would be an entrance, and then you'd have two stories of living above.

That is a relatively less lesser expensive but still expensive ownership type of dwelling that people might you know might balance the strike the balance between how expensive everything is and what people can actually afford.

So it's maybe not the perfect uh you know detached house in a with a big yard, but at least it's ownership and it has its own property underneath.

Um again, that's a little bit of a digression, but it's there was some discussion in the room and the public comments about um like we don't need no other big, we don't need more big apartment buildings, um, and what people want is you know more of like that traditional detached single household.

Um so I'm just trying to kind of tie the realities and how difficult it is financially to get ownership housing.

Um let's see.

Also, um my understanding too is that the use is residential, not zoning.

So like RA is a residential use and RB is a residential use.

And there's a section in the community plan to the effect that residential is generally compatible with adjacent residential.

Um so those are all I guess what uh my notes when I was reading the staff report and and reading through public comment.

So I'd love to hear what everybody else is is thinking or thought as they were analyzing this application.

Thank you, Jason.

Other comments.

I didn't know, and I sorry, I didn't want to defy if Commissioner Magic had set an expectation.

I think it's many times I I would sit in, I'd see her go towards the end, but I'm happy to go now if folks want.

Okay.

Um I think I I generally feel some uh similarities with what um Jason, you were sharing.

Uh I I think there's um some challenging pieces around what is actually possible to be built here um you know, with the the right-of-way that's gonna come through.

Um you're really looking at uh you know it at eight dwellings per acre, like 36 to 40 at the maximum um at the at the absolute maximum end of things with that amount of buildable net acreage.

Um just as a as a note, are the back of the room seems to be getting quite dark.

Uh are our lights not on for the back half of the room.

Right now.

Okay.

Is it anyone?

Great.

Each time I've looked up, it's been darker.

So it's shown that the lights aren't on and the sun is setting.

Wow.

Thank you.

The uh I think a few pieces that that um have been challenging, and the commission will have to we'll get to chew on this um at our our hearing on May 5th, is um comparisons that we're hearing and sort of dramatizations at times.

Uh five stories is not possible.

Um four stories is not possible.

Um I don't think anyone would say uh a single-story home with an attic that they would call that a two-story house.

Um that's effectively what is buildable here would be a 33-foot wall plate.

The commission through the UDC process, we intentionally walked those things back to uh eliminate the ability for an applicant to build 45 street 45 feet straight up and not have to build a pitched roof.

Um so with these types of of projects, if you if you know, as I have voted the last couple days, dropped down like a Google map viewer.

I've also drawn driven through the neighborhood and walked to the neighborhood, there are lots of structures that are not so dissimilar in height and uh form than what would be buildable in RB at its maximum threshold.

Um so I think that's one of the pieces that's been standing out to me.

Um nothing within the staff report I feel is contradictory.

I feel what maybe lukewarm on the conserved value of existing buildings, which uh just because there's nothing, there's no built structures on the property.

Um but it that that feels like it kind of comes out in the wash.

Um a few pieces just to kind of react to things we heard in in public comment.

Um is is uh an interesting new frontier for local government to uh experience getting AI generated public comment via a website intentionally designed to oppose a project.

Um is really just folks are allowed to do that, um, but more just an in an interesting frontier for local government to move into that we became uh familiar with last week.

Um as some have asked about water usage, um, water use per acre per dwelling is significantly less in in higher density um than single family detached homes.

We know those are the most water consumptive homes that uh that can be built.

Um and again, this is not proposed to be high density in in any, you know, I I think um reasonable stretch of of what our zoning or code allows.

Um and then I I think also a few folks, including the the Protect Bozeman Creek website, site Bridger View is sort of the gold standard.

Um Bridger View is RB.

Um this would be the same zoning that you would need to build a bridger view.

Um so just noting what uh what we're kind of seeing around the community.

Um but understand there's there's a lot of um tension and and concern both with that I think we've heard tonight and in public comment and that we at the commission have heard not only about Hanson, but about the Fowler Housing Project and Fowler as a street itself.

Um and just um there I I don't have a I'm not gonna you know mislead and say these things are not some of the things that I support, but I I understand that those those tensions and those frustrations, but um I don't think anything that this applicant has has requested um based on the staff report is unreasonable or incompatible with our with our existing statutes and growth policy.

Thank you.

Additional thoughts.

Mr.

Vegas.

I'm sorry for calling up Mayor Morrison.

I I just figured he seconded it, and so I give him the second, but um, but thank you for jumping in.

Um yeah, this is this was really interesting for me.

Um, as most of them are.

Uh first of all, I want to applaud the public for coming out and commenting.

Um I love the fact that they're interested in all this.

Um this would probably put me to sleep if I was on the other side.

But um just the interest and and the fact that they want to have a voice and growing this community is awesome.

Um I do agree.

Um, you know, whenever I've listened to comment, there's there's some um there's some emotion in it, there's some embellishment, and you know, what we're doing is we're trying to um in a sense kind of stand back here and look at okay, what are the facts?

What is the city telling us?

Um what have we committed to?

Uh what is the report in front of us say.

Um I I think this is interesting because this is the first time we're gonna be looking, just like you said, looking at at um an annexation uh through the lens of the new kind of the new UDC in the new zone encoded.

I know it's previous, but what has happened is that um all of the properties, all the land around here has in a sense changed.

We don't have really R3, well, we have R3, which is now RC, kind of no R3 is no RB, right?

R1 and R2 got combined, and that's now RA, right?

And so now what we have is kind of this patchwork quilt that's happened in this area.

Um I appreciate the comments around homogenization because I do go and I've driven through this area.

Um RB is um it is a low density RB, right?

That may be more consistent with what is actually R A in the new code.

But that being said, R A in this area has actually our what was R1 has been built up to a standard that is like more consistent with RA.

So if you look at all of this, it's it's all just kind of homogenized.

It's all very similar.

Um and you could take you could build an RB here, like Bridge Review, and I'm glad you referenced that.

Um that is very compatible with this area.

Um you could also build an RB that might be slightly more dense.

But um when we did enact the new UDC or the new UDC is I remember RB, we were actually looking at 12 units uh at one point.

Um now that's come down to eight.

And so the scale of that building, uh we really kind of in a sense protected what I think the communities worried about happening here by already kind of reducing and creating that, okay.

We knew we we needed to kind of create a more gradual densification of those 12 units.

Um we're gonna force, uh not force, but we're gonna have the ability, we're gonna create the ability to make these buildings quite a bit larger.

Um so looking at kind of you know, again, where we're at, um I'm not gonna necessarily tip my hand yet.

Um I'm on the cuff and I could see this going each way, either way.

Um, but I could see some great examples of RB fitting in this neighborhood, gradually densifying it, creating kind of more stock uh that might be at a slightly better price point for some of the the jobs and the growth that we're seeing in town.

Um at the same time, um it's the uncertainty of okay, you know, do we suddenly maybe overdensify?

Um but I I just I don't think that's gonna happen with RB here.

Um I want to just pass the mic to others, but um, you know, I'm I'm you know, I want to listen in a little bit more comment, but but I'm definitely um definitely leaning towards uh an approval on this.

Thank you, Chris.

Other comments?

Eric?

Sure, thank you.

Um I guess I I do want to just take, although I know this is not what we're addressing, but the the kind of issue of the traffic homing, which I think the public is aware of that's a number of questions about.

I think I think it's a super valid concern.

Um and I would part of the reason I asked the questions I did is so hopefully the public is aware of opportunities you have to get them addressed since that's not in our purview tonight.

Um I guess I would just share a couple observations relative to that concern that um you know I I think I do think that uh one of one of the public commenters mentioned you're kind of like the four east-west corridors, which I think are great places to drive, but are pretty wretched places to walk or bike.

And I think this connection has the potential to be a really needed east-west uh bike uh connection.

Uh speaking as someone who commutes by bike um and is biked in that neighborhood on those other streets, I would love to have that.

Um and I think others who bike would.

And I think there's uh a design solution where the traffic vehicular traffic concerns can be ameliorated and the pedestrian and bicycle uh, you know, which would include people getting to school uh could be can be um facilitated.

So I hope hope for that in the future of um that kind of corridor.

Um with regard to the zoning, um I think uh I'm not gonna repeat what others have said, um, though I will add a few um other observations and thoughts.

Um I think um well I guess yeah, one thing I'll I'll say is that um I I I don't know this for a fact, but I think probably of anyone in this room I have the most experience trying to build buildings in R B uh zoning and also I've uh like many others work to kind of craft that um was saying too to be kind of compatible.

And um during the UDC uh kind of discussion, I met with some some uh community members um about that issue, and I would extend the invitation if um your uh HOA would like to meet um to at least you know I'm happy to share what what I know about from you know what uh what is and isn't possible and what's likely.

Um I think a lot's been talked about building size.

I think the other thing I would just note is that uh you know, as you lay out you know the maximum dwelling uh configuration is an eight plexus um it kind of needs to make some logical sense as a building.

So if you're gonna have uh something that's not row houses, you're gonna have some kind of stair.

Um and I would argue perhaps almost the only logical way to do that is to have four dwellings on the ground and four dwellings on the second level with a stair.

Um perhaps two stairs.

Um but I think it you know, if you go to three stories even, it's it's pretty awkward.

How do you divide eight by three?

It doesn't work.

So you know, maybe someone would create some some creative way to do that.

But I think the notion that it would be four or five stories, even if you could somehow cram that in to the plate height, um I would be you know incredibly surprised.

Um because also developers are going to be trying to build in a cost-effective way given the economic uh constraints that have been referenced already, just so they can stay in business.

So all that said, I and I guess the other thing I would note that I observed during the kind of UDC abduction debate, is it seemed like there's a strong preference from the community to have zone changes happening, not mid-block, but on a street.

Um, and that's what's proposed here.

So it seems like this is is kind of in line with what the community has requested in that regard.

And I think you know, if if we can't change a zone to the next increment up on a street, then we need to need to just zone the entire city the same zone.

It's like where where can you do that?

Um I guess the last thing I would say to that regard as well, too, that I think um you know, being close to regional park, the you know, both adjacent streets have the bus running down it.

Um it is a kind of frequent, and I think probably best practice to have a little bit higher density housing adjacent to arterial streets.

Um, you know, both to minimize traffic in the interior of a neighborhood, uh, also uh perhaps a little bit larger and um taller buildings reduce noise um and other impacts into the the core of the neighborhood.

So um to me, I think from you know, kind of broad scale uh planning approach, I think it it makes sense.

Uh even if yeah, and I think as has been noted, I I um think the staff's findings in terms of the alignment between what's proposed and the uh growth plan um does seem uh to be, you know, well, I understand the public's asking us to say um something else is possible, which is true.

What we're tasked with is saying is what is proposed in line with the the planning policies, and I I think in this case it is.

So thank you.

Thank you, Eric.

Thanks, Cher.

Um I want to start by saying that I very much appreciate and hear the concerns about road safety.

Uh it's an issue across the entire community.

Um there have been several very tragic reminders of that in the recent weeks.

Um none of us want to live next to busy roads on safe roads, yet we all use the roads in this community.

And completing the grid as planned, as Director Ross explained, it does improve the safety of our transportation system overall by funnel traffic onto our grid of higher higher capacity roadways.

It pulls drivers out of the neighborhoods, uh, and that that is ultimately beneficial.

Um it is possible to build safe streets.

The the solution is it's not to not build roads, it's to build streets that encourage safe speeds, to encourage attentive drivers to physically separate vulnerable road users from traffic.

And I think that we're lucky uh as residents of the city to have excellent city engineering staff who are very well equipped to build and design safe streets and a city commission who are equally committed to the safety of our streets and transportation in the city.

Um I hope you all can draw a measure of comfort from that.

Uh it's it is uh a pointed issue right now.

Um as has been pointed out, uh you know, Fowler and A Street's have been planning for connection for a very long time.

They need to be connected regardless of RA, RB, RC, um, as uh board member Burnett has pointed out.

Any street is designated in the current transportation master plan as a bicycle boulevard.

Um I assume that that means that it will uh receive additional safety features to limit traffic volumes and speed.

Um there's even a vision for Annie Street to eventually be a like a major east-west connector with possible underpass under 19th for bicycles and pedestrians and like eventual connection to Tamarak.

I don't know, you know, that that's what's written in the transformation blaster plan, and it would provide a really great east-west corridor.

And I would say that if concerns about speeds and volumes on Annie Street do materialize, there's a really good remedy in pushing the city to implement that bicycle boulevard concept, which is similar to what's being implemented on a Black Avenue right now, which is designed to limit volumes and speeds of through traffic.

So yeah, I hear that here the transportation concerns.

I think that the effect on transportation safety, that criteria is uh is met with this development and the proposed zone map amendment.

Uh I do think that many of the comments that we've heard tonight, um the concerns about building mass and scale and appropriateness would just have described buildings that really would be only buildable in RC or RD.

And I agree, those types of uh, you know, like large four or five uh structure, five-four-story structures that just go straight up, um, would not be compatible with the uh the neighborhood, but I think to uh board member Dunley's point, residential is compatible next residential.

I think three-story buildings are compatible next to one to two-story buildings.

Um I don't see any compatibility issues there.

Umidors have identified the lack of commercial services adjacent to the subject site.

Um I hope that the that the redevelopment of the corridor provides an opportunity for a gradual increase in density that would someday support uh a coffee shop or a bodega within walking creek of the walking distance of the Harvest Creek neighborhood.

Um I can certainly say the higher density along that corridor would support the future establishment of transit service.

Uh we've heard many comments um tonight, receive many written comments from uh neighbors who love their neighborhood, love their community.

Um I'm confident that the city will do everything it can to ensure the safety of the streets that are being built, um, and we'll be responsive you know if those needs change over time.

Uh and I hope that the developer has been been listening and paying attention to this as well, and that will consider um the comments that have been given.

Uh, as the city planner indicated or noted, you know, single-family housing is certainly a possible outcome here that is a permitted use in RB that can hit the uh the minimum densities.

Uh so uh in conclusion, I agree uh with Board Member Del Meuse detailed assessment of the review criteria, I believe that those are met, and on that basis, uh I will be um supporting the motion.

Thank you, Mark.

Lauren, your thoughts.

After all this, um but I I hold I fully agree with what the board has been saying tonight.

I think the concerns are all valid, but like everybody said, we are tasked to decide if this aligns with our current EDC and what is determining um our codes right now.

So with that being said, I believe that this is in accordance with our guidelines and our laws.

Thank you.

I too will support this motion for all the reasons stated.

I think that zoning is a planning mechanism that does many things, but that um more than anything it considers many factors and and that the RB zoning is an appropriate application of density um given the existing patterns across this part of the city, and it feels like the right intensity to me.

And again, um it'll be in support.

So without further comments, we'll send it to Trenton for a roll call.

Mover Delhi.

Second or Morrison.

All right, member Egggy.

Aye, member Mitro?

Aye, Chair Lloyd.

Aye.

Member Bonnet.

All right, member Eggnets.

Yes.

Motion passes 7-0.

Thanks to everyone who attended tonight and for the public comment.

Moving on on the agenda to public comment outside of our agenda.

Anybody want to speak on things that weren't on the agenda tonight from the public?

Republic commented out.

Okay.

Finally, FYI.

Yes, sir.

Oh, oh, yeah.

It's too dark back there.

I'm just curious.

Is Bozeman ever going to have any more single family home developments?

Or is everything going to be RB?

It's been more than 20 years since they built single family homes.

It's good for me because I own one and I'm part of that limited supply.

But all of the teachers that and fire and police and whatnot that I talk to, they're living in as far as you know, three forks, Manhattan, et cetera, because they can get single home family homes there.

And if we don't create them, the prices are not going to come down.

Just a thought.

Thank you, Chair.

If I could answer that, uh the short answer is yes.

Uh the commission approved a new subdivision two weeks ago, I think, the Grand CLO.

Um, which was all single home lots, Northwest Crossing, uh, Jarrett subdivision, and a number of others have all been approved in the last five years that primarily focus on single or in some cases allowed duplexes as well.

So the zoning allows for it.

We can approve what the applicants bring forward, and we have approved a number of single home developments.

Anything else from anyone?

I had the pleasure of listening to Mr.

Egggy give a presentation on his bike ride from Canada to Mexico tomorrow night.

Is it tomorrow night?

Presenting at Pachakcha.

At the Pachakcha event or Pechacucha, however you pronounce it, Mark will be there.

And it's pretty amazing trip that he took.

Okay.

Nothing further.

We are adjourned.