Good evening.

Apologies.

I always I cut a commissioner off every single time I gabble the meeting in.

Thank you for joining us this evening.

We'll call this meeting of the Bozeman City Commission to order.

This is our May 5th, 2026 Bozeman City Commission meeting.

A few things I want to highlight and so folks know how to be able to follow along.

Of course, those that are in the room, you can participate by being here in the room with us.

Folks that are wanting to participate remotely on there's a few different options.

There's either streaming from our meetings video page as well as uh just through the video conference feature.

If you do the video conference feature, you will not be able to provide public comment.

Or you can watch on cable channel one ninety, and you can also listen by just dialing from your phone the phone number that's on our agendas near the top.

As we're going throughout the meeting this evening, there will be a few different opportunities to provide public comment.

Those will be well identified and telegraphed each step of the way so that folks know they have that opportunity.

We'll start with public comment in the room and then bring public comment that is online.

And of course, anyone who submitted written public comment prior to noon today was distributed to the city commission.

We got to read those comments in advance of the meeting.

So without further ado, we will get this meeting started with our Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you.

I'd like to specify somewhere.

Moving on through our agenda to our changes to the agenda.

So as uh those in the room and those that online might notice, there's only four of us up here this evening, and so we need to authorize the absence of Commissioner Emma Bodie.

Is that correct?

That's correct, and that's our only change tonight, Mayor.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Magic should be able to help us out.

So moved.

Second.

So moved and so seconded, Mr.

Moss.

Commissioner Magic.

Aye.

Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

All right.

Commissioner Bodie's absence is approved.

Um moving on to Commission FYI.

Do we have any FYI from the Commission this evening?

Yep, Deputy Mayor.

Just uh maybe uh two one and a half, let's say.

Uh the downtown post office is uh you know announced that it's going to be moving.

I um it's hard to imagine downtown without a post office.

Uh the post office and the federal government have its own gravitational pull.

But and and our ability to influence either of those is uh uh uh um small.

But but uh to the extent that we can exert some influence and you know making sure we keep a downtown post office downtown would be I I just think it's we have we have a role to play here personally.

The second thing is that um Friday was was Tour de Francia.

And um I have no idea how that gets organized, how people find out about it, where the route goes.

Perhaps it's better that your city commissioner doesn't know these things.

And perhaps even me mentioning it here at Thaias dooms that event to um to change.

But I I gotta say, um I am glad to live in Bozeman, a town where that kind of event springs organically.

I know at some point, you know, there's there there are some some issues with that.

Somebody's gonna get hurt.

It's at some point we may have to step in and and that event will change.

But but I gotta say for now it's um it's it's it's fun to see the event, the the streets getting taken over by thousands of bicycles at a time.

And yes, you know, rules are broken, and and yes, students are having fun, or people are having fun, but it's it's just kind of I think it's just kind of a uh a fun thing to just to witness.

Any further FYI?

Yep, Commissioner Magic.

Um the mother of the little boy um who was hit by a bicycle, wrote up a little statement that I thought I'd read.

I just thought it was applicable to us all and kind of a good reminder.

She said, we all must do better as drivers.

Please look up.

Please pay attention, please watch for children, animals, pedestrians, and bikers.

A vehicle is not a place to go into autopilot mode.

Gallatin Valley.

Let's not have any more accidents.

Summer is coming.

Let's slow down.

Let's stop rushing, let's pay attention, let's do better.

Thank you.

Any FYI from staff this evening.

Thank you, Mayor.

I have three things that I want to mention.

The first one is for the 33rd year in a row, Bozeman has been named a Tree City USA.

And that is very intentional.

It takes a lot of effort.

There are four criteria.

One is maintaining a tree board or department.

Second is having a community tree ordinance.

Third is spending at least two dollars per capita on our urban forestry.

And the fourth is participating in the Arbor Day celebration.

So I would just like to thank our forestry department, Alex and Mitch particularly for the amazing work they do to protect and grow our urban forest.

Second thing is we had two retirements in the Bozeman police department last Friday.

And one was uh Sergeant Ben Green.

And Ben was is a pretty amazing guy.

He served this city for 20 years.

He was in patrol for 12 years.

He responded to every kind of call imaginable, as you can imagine or not imagine.

He served as an honor guard member.

He was an operator on the SWAT team.

He was a field training officer, and he was a tactical medical instructor, as well as very a bunch of other ancillary duties.

He also served in the U.S.

Army prior to his time as a police officer.

I so personally, on behalf of the city boson, I'd like to thank Ben for his 20 years here and you know doing the most difficult but most important jobs in uh our municipal government.

Also, umfficer um Lesby retired after 15 years serving the city.

Uh he James was a uh patrol officer's entire time, and he also um had many ancillary duties and roles, and he was also an officer or an operator on the SWAT team.

Mountain bike officer and instructor, and uh tactical medical instructor and a Montana physical abilities test proctor.

So uh we wish both of them the best in their retirement.

And I'm on behalf of the city boseman.

Thank you for your service.

Mayor, thank you.

If I may, it's worth noting, I think that Sergeant Green spent all 20 years on the night shift.

It's uh that's a tough beat.

Um thank you for those city manager.

Um moving on to disclosures.

Are there any disclosures from any members of the commission related to any items tonight?

Okay.

Seeing none, um, we don't have any minutes to approve, so we'll move on to our consent agenda.

City manager, are there any items on consent you'd like to highlight before public comment?

Thank you.

Um mayor, briefly, uh, two things item I-4 and item I-9 are both related to traffic safety.

They are um grants.

The first one is the uh 2027 state highway traffic safety grant, and that's also known as the STEP program, special traffic enforcement program.

So it would, if we're successful, it will provide us an officer dedicated solely for traffic enforcement or dangerous driving enforcement uh for a year, and then we can reapply after that.

So I'm excited about that one.

Appreciate uh what the the um Chief Feltkamp and uh Jamie in grants.

We are um successful in grants in a way that we haven't been in my tenure here, and that's that is um a commission direction to uh staff, and we hired an amazing grant coordinator uh who works out of our finance department.

The second item is also related to traffic uh safety, and it is a software as a service agreement with City and with that is going to provide three years of crash reduction data so that we can make important decisions.

So it's gonna analyze all of our traffic patterns, all of our uh crash um information, and then going to provide us with specific recommendations that we can use to make important traffic uh safety improvements, but also plan uh in the future.

So we're really excited about that, and I'd like to thank Director Nick Ross and his team in the Transportation Department.

Thank you, City Manager.

Um now we will open it up for public comment on consent.

Um we'll do consent one and consent two all in one opportunity.

Um so anyone wanting to offer public comment specifically on consent on our consent items in the room this evening.

And similar to you know, this uh this will be true for all public comment for the rest of the evening.

Um you'll have three minutes.

Uh it'll start with a green light, it'll go to yellow when you've got one minute left, and just begin um with an introduction and uh your relationship to the city.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Hi, my name is Jeff Poole, and I'm a resident of South Bozeman.

Um thank you for granting my request to continue your vote until today.

Um today I submitted uh another written comment on the proposed findings of fact.

I'll highlight one item from that comment.

Um proposed finding of fact number five asserts that Little Horse Drive is the only frontage on the site subject to block frontage standards.

While there is only one street frontage as defined in the block frontage standards, there are also two trail frontages and internal frontages.

The city's position on the trail frontages has shifted over time.

In 2022, during concept review, staff identified two trail frontages on the site.

Oh, sorry, in 2020.

In 2022, the applicant requested departure from the code governing multiple block frontages.

In 2023, staff analyzed that departure request against code governing multiple frontages.

In 2024, this body's ruling on the prior appeal cited code governing multiple block frontages.

Starting in 2025 and through today, the city claims the code governing multiple block frontages and trail frontages does not apply.

As a result, the approved site plan puts a parking lot within four feet of our public trail system.

The current municipal code would require a 20-foot setback.

This is now the sixth time I've raised this issue to the city.

I've raised it previously to the planner of record during public comment in a face-to-face meeting with City Manager Wynn.

Thank you, Chuck, for that.

Um in my written basis for appeal and during the appeal hearing.

In each case, I described the city's past position and cited the applicable code, and I've never received an explanation on this issue or three others in my written comment.

In a nutshell, the errors in the proposed findings of fact present a dilemma.

What are the legal, ethical, and practical implications of Mayor Morrison signing the proposed findings of fact if there is compelling evidence that they're not factual?

You're empowered to compel compliance with the unified development code even after a site plan has been approved.

Doing so would restore the due protections provided by the municipal code to city residents and to our public trail system.

This issue is complex and it's weighty.

It deserves measured and public contemplation by the full commission.

Thank you for your time.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Any further requests for comment in the room on our consent agenda.

Hi, I'm Cindy Miller.

I'm since you were talking about traffic safety.

Um week and a half ago, my daughter was driving eastbound on Huffine Lane.

It was early in the morning when it was snowy and wet, and a car or truck came at her spinning, hit her car in a wreck.

And I would like to thank the officers that came and helped her, and they got her by ER to the hospital.

Um she's in had some pain, of course.

But the person driving the truck was a young woman with a young child in the car.

Thankfully, they were not hurt.

The person, I don't know if they were the citizen here or not, they did not speak English.

They did not have insurance.

She was driving on a suspended license.

So within your traffic study, somehow, some way, if you're gonna be here, you need to have the proper if you're gonna drive.

How do you approach that?

I don't know as a city.

But when she got to the ER, the nurses and doctors said the same thing.

Every day they get people taken to the ER, hit by people who do not know how to drive in Bozeman.

Bad weather, yes, accidents do happen.

We all know they do.

But somehow within your study, you've got to get, I mean, no, thankfully, my daughter has good insurance, but you know, now they've got to get a brand new car, which costs twice as much as when they got it a few years ago.

So somehow, when you're studying, how do you approach people who are driving without insurance?

They're driving with a suspended license.

And I know as our city has grown, that's very difficult to do.

But anyway, I would like to also just thank the officers for helping that day.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further requests in the room on our consent agenda.

Second request in the room.

And one final request for comment in the room.

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any requests online?

First up, we have Mary Frances McHugh.

Ms.

McHugh, are you here?

Yes, I'm here.

How are you?

I uh am hoping that uh item I 14 can be removed from the uh consent agenda for a report from staff and explanation on what a date is.

Uh there's a date in the uh scope of services that uh I have a question about.

I'd like to have that explained.

Okay.

Um I don't know if we're gonna be able to get quite that answer to you right now.

Um, but appreciate your comment if there's anything else that you're wanting to comment on that item in particular.

Okay.

Is are there any other requests online?

I'm showing no additional requests for comment.

Okay.

Um then we will close the public comment portion of our consent agenda.

Um, and perhaps we'll get an answer to that question in the in the meantime.

Um so we'll bring it up here for a um commission motion and vote.

Believe it's our deputy mayor.

Sure.

I move um agenda items I one through I 14 as presented.

Second.

All right.

Our first consent is moved and seconded.

Mr.

Moss.

Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Aye.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Aye.

Commissioner Magic.

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Our consent I 1 through 14 is approved.

Now we have a consent to.

Deputy Mayor.

I move to present, I move to approve consent item J1 as uh presented.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

Mr.

Moss.

Could I just speak briefly, please to this just briefly again, given that it's a consent agenda.

I just want to recognize that you know, I've read and I believe we all have read the two letters um from the appellants.

Um I agree this issue is complex, it's weighty, it deserves measured consideration.

I've given this a lot of thought over several meetings.

I do find that the findings of facts as presented as here for approval tonight, accurately reflect what we did.

Um there are lots of interpretations that I'm sure will be, you know, there's more adjudication to come here, but but that as far as as the record that we're approving here, I believe accurately reflects what we did across those two meetings uh last month.

Yep, Commissioner Sweeney.

Thank you.

I also wanted to just speak briefly to this.

Um as the dissenting vote in the appeal.

Um I'm going to approve these findings of fact, not, and that does not mean that I have changed my position.

It just means that the findings of fact put together are an accurate record of what this commission decided on that day.

And I was able to give Mr.

Poole's comments um a lot of attention, and I appreciate the opportunity for having been able to do that.

Um but yeah, I I the findings of fact, I believe, are an accurate representation of what this body decided.

So thank you.

Any other comments on consent to?

Okay, Mr.

Moss.

Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Aye.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Aye.

Commissioner Magic?

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Consent to is approved.

And now we are moving on to general public comment on non-agenda items.

Um so this is for anyone that's wanting to give public comment on anything that's not on our agenda this evening.

Um same as before, you'll have three minutes and just um cue up and um introduce yourself with your first and last name and your relationship to the city.

And we will start um as as we did before with public comment in the room this evening.

Mr.

Ball, good evening.

Oh he recognizes me.

I don't know if that's good or not.

Thank you.

Um appreciate it.

I wanted to thank the Commissioner Magic and Commissioner Sweeney and others that organized a walk on Bozeman Creek.

Uh it was very informative.

And um I'm here to kind of follow up on that.

Um I really want to thank Commissioner Sweeney.

We had a we we learned a lot and basically came from this office up to the pretty footbridge in the upper the southerly end of Bogart Park, and then that's kind of when we dissipated.

But a few of us continued on to look at Story Mill Ditch, the original headgate, and the new replacement pump station headgate and that infrastructure.

And then we actually walked up to a continuation of the linear park that where it expands and widens out where Matthew Byrd Creek kind of comes in an L configuration.

And the point of taking anybody up there that was interested was really to view the riparian urban forest in that parkland setting, much of which is on private ground, much of which is on city ground.

It's kind of an ownership inconsistent ownership along there.

The consistent thing is most of the tree species are weak riparian trees that really are very messy.

And it circles back to what I came to the commission about last August or September in trying to maybe figure out a way to expand the tree district and the street district to stop using a square footage basis, but to shift to a per unit basis.

And it may be that I had I had proposed it as a revenue neutral thing, but maybe this is going to be a source of funding to help get things cleaned up.

The plan that was submitted by the engineering group last year that is being studied hard, and you're going to make a decision on this year, really in most cases involves story mill ditch significantly.

One of the things was not simply cleaning out the ditch so that it could flow water and be kind of low-hanging fruit and perhaps a lower cost option than some of the very significant dollar amounts that were in the four main proposals in that engineering report.

So I just wanted to bring that up.

And I don't know how to get any of this on the agenda, but I think the timing is really key.

We've got this spring, summer, and fall.

We've got some proposals out there.

But I hope some of the things I've brought up can be integrated.

Sorry.

No, no problem.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi everyone.

Uh Mark Campanelli, Bogar Park neighbor.

I was also on the extended tour, so thanks to Jeff for really spearheading um how we can manage the uh deadfall of the creeks and hope not have such bad flooding if it were ever to unfortunately occur.

Um I had a college neighbor of mine or a friend of my college neighbors ask me for a bike helmet for the festivities, which I thought was awesome.

I was able to uh help her out.

Um first I want to I get a lot of notes.

I'll try to get through them.

Uh thank you for the public discussion of the work plan.

Uh democracy feeds on this oxygen and transparency, I think it was great.

I'd much rather have this public unpolished discussion than some sort of like performative consensus.

It kind of made Chuck win uh squirm a little.

And Chuck, I do I do appreciate you playing ball with this new process.

So a note on the revenue bonds versus general obligation bonds.

Um I will uh bring up uh solar farms where you have an incentive tax credit or a production tax credit, and big banks like Wells Fargo with huge profits have all gone for the incentive tax credit as opposed to having to show you can produce solar for many, many years to come.

And it is a pretty perverse incentive.

I mean, they're offsetting all their profits, right?

With just building a solar farm that works for five years and then they can flip it and it the joke is I'll be gone, you'll be gone.

So I really would like to, I think reven my understanding is revenue bonds are a little bit more like the better incentive, but something I just a comment I wanted to make there.

Um people can have good intentions, right, with bad outcomes.

Um I think there have been some two broad generalizations being made about neighborhood associations.

Um not all of them maybe are inclusive, but they're way more inclusive than see trying to get on a city board.

So I just want to kind of point that out.

I've been hearing a lot of things with the study commission about this exclusiveness.

Also the NCOD.

Also the NCOD, um, it's not all about NIMBY, and I am concerned about like uh affordable housing drying up in the NCOD long term because of the expeditional costs incurred.

But I did want to read this publicly out loud.

In the current NCOD, it reads housing for all income levels should be encouraged by a variety of methods to support the continued economic vitality of downtown Bozeman business district, which is broadly recognized as one of Bozeman's strongest assets that is in the current NCOD.

Umly a note on the building safety month.

Um I'm about to graduate from a HVAC R program.

It's been two years.

Um super proud.

Um after listening to my instructors who work in the valley up at the Yellowstone Club, uh and now some fellow students who have started it, you know, often you start in the new construction.

Um we have a big deficit of quality of buildings getting built.

I mean, I heard a joke just last week.

You don't build you don't buy a house on the west side.

Like just very, very irregular.

Some, you know, if you have the money, you can get a good building.

But um I just want to us to appreciate like just getting up to current code.

I think don't build high performance buildings or solar panels.

Just focus on the code and measurement data to back up what we're doing with the code.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any further requests for public comment in the room this evening.

Second request for comment in the room.

And one final request.

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any public comment requests online?

I'm showing no request for comment, Mayor.

Okay.

We will close the um non-agenda public comment section of this meeting and move on to um uh a few items about uh aptly following on Mr.

Campanelli's comment on building safety.

Um first uh a mayoral proclamation that was requested by our our building staff and community development staff.

Gotta pull it up here.

This is a uh a real demonstration that uh we don't have we don't have printed copies to give to our staff this evening as a as an example of when our clerks um are at a conference and then come back.

They're the ones that uh really make City Hall function and operate.

And so when they're when they're gone, um it feels like peril is on is uh underway.

So for uh Building Safety Month 2026, whereas the City of Bozeman is committed to safeguarding the safety, resilience, and sustainability of our residences, structures, and infrastructure, which are vital to the daily life and to the well-being of our community during emergencies, and whereas our confidence in these community buildings relies on vigilant guardians, building safety, fire prevention officials, designers, constructors, tradespeople, and industry practitioners who work year-round to ensure safety.

And whereas these guardians are members of the International Code Council, a nonprofit that unites officials to develop standards that protect the buildings where we live, learn, work and play.

Whereas these modern building codes and standards include safeguards to protect the public from hazards such as snowstorms, tornadoes, wildland fires, floods, and earthquakes.

And whereas the citizens the city of Bozeman in partnership with the ICC, the International Code Council, recognizes building safety month to highlight the vital role of our often unnoticed protectors, our code officials, who ensure the safety and integrity of the buildings we depend on and that are crucial to our well-being.

Whereas built to last is the theme for Building Safety Month 2026.

It encourages engagement in the community to promote awareness by building safety on personal, local, and global levels.

The City of Bozeman Building Division within the community development department aims to foster a collaborative environment with local construction professionals, promoting partnerships to address the city's needs.

And every year during Building Safety Month, people worldwide are encouraged to focus on improving building safety, resilience, and economic development within their communities.

The month also honors the essential work of local, state, and federal agencies in the in fire prevention and building safety, which are vital for protecting lives and property.

Now, therefore, I, Joey Morrison, mayor of Bozeman, do hereby proclaim the month of May 2026 as Building Safety Month.

And accordingly, I encourage our citizens to join us in building safety month activities.

Thank you to our um amazing building staff that we're about to hear from here in just a few minutes.

Okay, moving on to we've got a special presentation.

City manager, would you like to tee us up?

I sure would.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh it is um I am so proud of our uh community development department, particularly our building department, and particularly our chief building official Ben Abbey.

Um true professional in every sense of the word.

And uh he um as a former Bozeman fire marshal and as a former Bozeman chief building official, I've seen the effects of um the building code when properly enforced on the safety of our community.

The best the it's best to prevent an emergency from happening, then responding to it.

And the building department is our first line of defense in public safety.

And Ben takes that seriously, he serves on national um committees, and he is um a true expert that people call to ask how to do building enforcement in a positive way.

So I'd like to welcome our chief building official Ben Abbey.

Thank you.

I I I noticed a stumble.

Are you do you do you need a minute?

Do we we could take a recess?

My leg fell asleep, I apologize.

Oh no.

Then you did you rock it up to the podium with such gusto.

I was like, what is going on?

This is not working.

Okay, well, I'll defer to you to take care of yourself how how you see fit.

Appreciate that, Mayor.

Uh thank you for the kind words there, uh, Mr.

City Manager Chuck Wynne.

And uh good evening, Mayor Morrison and Commissioners, thank you for this opportunity to take this time and focus in on uh what building safety month means to Bozeman.

Okay.

Um this year's Building Safety Month theme, as mentioned, is built to last where we will explore ways to better build safer and Bozeman together in partnership.

Um building codes tell a story of how they were developed from lessons that we've learned in the past, uh, how we interpret and use those for the present, um, and ensuring uh to minimize the risk for the future.

By recognizing Building Safety Month, we will help educate our citizens to play their part in making Bozeman's structures safe where we all work, live, and play.

Um Building Safety Month has been celebrated across the country uh in many jurisdictions for many, many years.

Bozeman has participated over the last few years, and each year we ex we gradually expand uh our activities and what we do and our involvement.

Building safety month obviously uh raises awareness and the importance of safety, planning and building maintenance, maintenance in the community.

So each week we will highlight different areas and preparing to keep Bozeman as safe as possible, not only for our citizens, but also for our first responders, and how those buildings should react in an emergency.

Uh building codes serve as the first line of defense, our first preventions, right?

Uh ensuring that buildings respond effectively, allowing our police and our fire services to operate in safe conditions, and they can focus on their mission at that time.

So in our first week, uh safe home strong communities, we're going to focus in on the actions that homeowners can take.

Identifying common household hazards, storage of flammable items, uh, aging equipment, damaged electrical systems or components, etc.

Routine maintenance of those systems where hazards are greater.

Things to ask yourself.

Does your home have safety features, such as smoke detectors, fire detectors, carbon monoxide?

How often have you checked the batteries?

Um we all burnt toast, right?

Usually go off.

Some people use that as their yearly test.

Um it's important to understand when building, it's also important to understand when building permits are required to ensure safety in your next project as well.

Familiarize yourself with how building codes interact with structures and their existing conditions.

These codes are designed to regulate the interaction between old and new construction, aiming to establish the safest possible level of compliance with fire and life safety in mind.

A slogan that we use a lot is the minimum standard for the maximum life safety.

And that's what your building codes are.

So in this slide, we have a few items of photos I've taken.

Uh we have a couple smoke detectors here where one is in a great location, and I pushed the button and it didn't go off.

Um it turned out it didn't have a battery supply, or it didn't have a power supply, but a battery, and the batteries were dead.

So those are good things to be checking yearly.

Um the other one is in a commercial building where it was too close to a return uh supply air uh register, which if that happens, it blows the smoke away from the detector and doesn't serve its purpose.

In these other photos, these are some electrical issues where we found live wires in a concealed ceiling space that could pose a very dangerous fire condition.

And the other one is a commercial building where we had a three-phase panel service that we opened up, and as you can see, there's some scoring and some furry little friends made our their home in there because it was probably nice and warm in the winter time.

Also, each week, as I mentioned, with the different uh focused in categories, the International Code Council has provided us resources for us to use in our community and also countrywide.

These guides include checklists for the average citizen so that they are able to help develop a plan, and these will be available on our department website for download.

I might add that they're also been gracious enough to translate those into Spanish for us.

So we have both those up there, English and Spanish.

And also, there's also some simulation for maintaining improving energy efficiency in your home as well.

Week two, we're gonna voices of the built environment.

So this kind of spotlights uh what who are our building safety professionals?

Um obviously in the building department within community development, our city staff, our permit techs, our technicians, building inspectors, plans examiners, and building officials, but also includes our communities registered design professionals such as architects and engineers, and it also are general contractors.

It's a community partnership to build in step and ensure the highest level of compliance with education and then enforcement when needed.

When considering when and why to work with a professional, it's important to recognize that most people genuinely want to do the right thing.

However, the building codes can be complex and confusing, and a building safety professional can serve as a valuable guide in any project aiming to create a safer environment for Bozeman.

There are significant demands for building professionals, particularly in the code enforcement.

The industry is experience what we have termed as the silver wave.

That projection is the retirement rate over the next five to ten years at 50 to 75 percent.

So it's important that we try to retain some of that institutional knowledge and train the next generation of inspectors, code officials, architects, and contractors alike.

We prioritize, we also prioritize our education and outreach opportunities, such as tonight to be able to talk to you good folks about building safety and tell our story.

Additionally, we engage with students in Gullaton College trade programs, and then also uh working with our fire department to collaborate or to go to elementary schools and talk with younger students about building safety as well.

This is a slide of all the staff that we have within community development and our fire partners.

Um these are your safety code professionals.

These folks uh take pride in their work, and it's more than a paycheck, it's a calling.

So here's some fun stuff.

So, this poor builder, he didn't realize that five city vehicles were going to show up, and inspectors were gonna do some training, uh, but he was in good sport, and uh our folks somebody took that photo and sends it to me, and I thought it was a good one to share.

We also have a weekly staff meeting uh with everybody, including our admin staff and permit techs and our fire partners.

So sometimes the highlight room gets to be uh standing room only.

Some of our awareness and outreach and collaboration, Mrs.

Abbey's first grade highlight elementary school.

We go and we sit and talk about building safety and color with the kids, and yes, Mrs.

Abby is my wife, and she's in the audience tonight.

Um partnering with industry organizations like Swimbia a couple years ago.

I was able to present to them the new code adoptions that the state was present proposing, and also the new fee schedule that the building department was implementing the same year.

And then collaboration between our neighboring cities.

Uh, this is important because this builds consistency across the line within Gallatin County.

Uh, Belgrade invited us out to tour the Amazon facility, and we our building department and our fire inspectors went out, and it was a great event to participate in.

So in week three, we're going to talk about to prepare prepare to protect.

So when disaster strikes, having a plan is crucial.

Bozeman faces a high seismic risk as one of those examples.

The community also plays a role by planning as simply as having family meetup points and keeping emergency kits on hand.

These actions will help restore normalcy quicker.

Having a safety plan gets the community involved and minimizes the risk when disaster strikes.

This is essential to protecting not only the lives and investments in Bozeman, but also giving our first responders that level of safety when they're performing their duties during a disaster.

So again, our city department's website has all these downloadable checklists to help everyone get that, and they're more than welcome to contact the building department with that.

So I didn't want to blast anyone's personal property with local pictures.

So I did some online Google searches, and you can tell some of these are probably not Bozeman for sure.

But we have a fire structure that was actually a palisades fire of a house, and you can see the car, it just melted in the driveway.

Also we have a Bay Area earthquake where the mountain slid down and caused that house to collapse on its first floor.

And then we also have hail and wind damage.

These are three uh areas where we could experience something like that.

So to be prepared is important.

And lastly, for week four, gotta make sure I get the right slide here.

Um we're gonna focus in on uh accessibilities into buildings.

So removing obstacles and considering sensory needs for individuals that have a disability.

We want to ensure that in the new construction and the existing, when we have a building with an existing building with permits for remodels and things like that, that the building code addresses those, um, bringing the building up to a level of code, maybe not bringing the whole building up to code.

Um, but we will focus in on making sure that the accessibilities and the basics for those buildings fall in place.

Um in this slide, we have some examples of what the building department regulates, and and a lot of folks forget that within on the private property, we regulate the parking.

So having a smooth transition onto the sidewalk, proper signage, clear identification of the parking spaces, um, making sure that you know the automatic doors for individuals work properly and as installed in accordance to its listing, and then also ensuring egress from the building is just as important as getting into the building, right?

So making sure that those folks can escape danger.

So in conclusion, we've covered several ways that we can all get involved from identifying hazards and known risks to develop and acting on a plan.

We also emphasize the importance of good maintenance in our buildings and protecting our families, neighbors, and first responders.

The building department rises to this challenge with pride, working to make Bozeman the safest community possible.

So I encourage all to join and participating in this year's themed 2026 Building Safety Month built to last, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you for that presentation and uh thanks for also bringing your your family into this conversation as well.

Really appreciate um putting your personal touch on this meeting this evening.

Now moving on to our um one action item this evening.

Um our annexation zone map amendment request for Hanson Lane City Manager.

Would you like to tee us up here?

Sure, I'd like to welcome uh planner two, uh Colin Mir is up to present this item.

Perfect.

Thank you, Mr.

City Manager.

All right.

Uh so mayor, commissioners, uh, tonight is my pleasure to be for you for the first time.

Uh my name is Colin Mearis.

I'm a new planner with the long-range planning division here in the community development department.

And so tonight I'm bringing forward an application for the annexation and establishment of municipal zoning.

Uh so this project is application 2575, which is also referred to as the Hanson Lane Annexation.

So the Hanson Lane property is currently part of an unannexed inholding of property just north of Durston, west of Hanson Street, and east of New Holland Drive.

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

The property is just under 10 acres in size at 9.979 acres.

And the applicant is currently currently requesting establishment of RV zoning.

So this application was deemed complete before the effective date of the update to chapter 38, the Unified Development Code.

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

This will be the last application, knock on wood, that is reviewed under the old code and the old criteria.

So any zone map amendments from here on out will be reviewed with that new zoning criteria for evaluation.

And then just as a quick reminder, this project is separate from the follower housing project, which is on the property to the north northeast of the Hansen property.

That property is owned by the city.

This property is privately held by a private landowner.

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

So as you can see, the property is currently part of that unannexed island, completely surrounded by city limits.

So that island is shaded in on shaded in with white on the map.

The unannexed in holy in our island consists of almost 45 acres, of which this property encompasses about 10 acres.

And so directly to the east of the Hanson Lane property is the existing Harvest Creek subdivision.

And then directly to the west is the Parthridge Down subdivision, as well as the cottage parks condo complex.

And then just to the west of both of those is the Oak Springs subdivision.

So here's the future land use map showing the land use designations for the Hanson Lane property as well as the area in the general vicinity of this property.

So the Hanson Lane property, as well as much of that surrounding area outside the parks and open space.

So the proposed zoning of RB aligns with that future land use designation.

So here's the current municipal zoning for the properties surrounding the Hanson Lane annexation.

All the surrounding area, excepting those parks and open space properties, are residentially zoned.

Immediately adjacent to the property, to the northwest, east, and south is the RA zoning district.

And then just to the west of the Hanson Lane property, there's existing RB zoning as well as to the northeast across Oak Street.

And then there's also a pocket of RC just to the southeast of the property across Durston Road.

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

Zoning of RB allows for that increased density and greater housing diversity within a developed area while still remaining residential in nature.

So here's the zoning criteria for evaluation for considering a zone map amendment.

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

And then the commission must also consider criteria E through K and determine that the positive outcomes from those criteria outweigh any negative outcomes in regards to those criteria.

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

And then I'm also available after the presentation if there's any questions or further clarification needed regarding those findings.

So the application followed our normal uh noticing procedures uh for annexation and zoning.

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

The site was also posted in two locations, one signed on the south of the property along Durston Road, and then another sign on the northeast portion of the property near the Anne Street dead end.

Uh to date, the city has received 105 public comments uh regarding this application.

Uh my following slide details the common themes uh that were derived out of these public comments.

Um our development review committee reviewed the application and found no restrictions on approval that cannot be addressed with further or future review processes.

Um so these include you know, preliminary and final plat, site plan, um those further steps in the development process.

Uh the planning commission or community development board also voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed RB zoning uh after conducting a public hearing at their April 20th meeting.

Uh so as I mentioned on the last slide, uh we have received just over 100 written public comments regarding this application.

Uh we also had 14 people who provided public comment at the community development board meeting on April 20th.

Uh the written comments as well as the public comment provided at the board meeting uh revolve around two central themes.

Uh the first theme is the concern of the R B zoning being pursued instead of R A zoning.

Um so R B zoning was the applicant's requested zoning.

Uh therefore staff completed analysis on how RB meets our required criteria uh for establishment of zoning, um, as well as uh how the zoning is consistent with the community plan uh and how the zoning is consistent with the surrounding area.

Um so the staff report provided in the packet contains that analysis.

Um and then the lot and building standards that control the size, scale, and intensity of development uh within the RB zoning district can be found in Article 2 of the Bozeman Municipal Code.

And then I also have an extra slide with those criteria if the commission wants to go into that further uh when we're in discussion.

Uh the second theme of concern that came out of the public comment uh was the safety on the proposed Annie Street and Fowler Avenue rights away.

Um so the design phase of the follower and annie streets uh right rights away are currently nearing completion, um and that's happening as a separate project from this annexation and zoning of this property and is being headed by the engineering department.

Um so they've done extensive public outreach for the design of those rights away, um, and they've used that public comment um throughout the process to help shape the design of those roadways.

Uh so with that, this brings us to the two recommended motions for the city commission tonight.

Uh the first motion is to approve the annexation and direct staff to prepare the annexation agreement with the applicant.

And then that second motion is to approve the zoning ordinance, subject to contingencies of approval, uh, with one of those contingencies being the execution and the formal approval of the annexation agreement.

And then I'm available for any questions that the board may have or the commission may have, um, as well as any further clarification that's needed.

And the applicant's representatives here as well, and they were presentation prepared.

Great.

Thank you.

And welcome to City Commission meeting.

Um glad to have you uh given your your first presentation.

It'll be simple easier here on out.

Um bring it up here.

So just so everybody in the room knows where we're going.

Uh this is uh now there's questions for city staff, then there will be a presentation from the applicant and then questions for the applicant and then public comment.

And then we'll then there will be commission discussion and deliberation and a vote just so everybody's aware of kind of the run of show this evening.

Um so for staff, any questions from the commission for staff?

Okay, yeah, Commissioner Sweeney.

Thank you.

Excuse me, thank you, Mayor.

Um Thank you for being here this evening.

Um as I understand it, most or a significant portion of this um parcel is likely going to be obtained by the city for right-of-way for the Fowler and Annie Street connections.

Um do you know the acreage that is left over that would be considered for development at a future time?

I don't know the exact acreage, but I believe we approximated it to be about four to five acres, if that's correct, Chris.

2.65.

2.65 uh 2.65 acres.

Okay, thank you.

Um and then RB is allows some mixed use.

And um going through the use tables in the new UDC and um reading the definitions.

I had a few questions about what might be allowed there.

Um could there, for example, be like a sandwich shop or an ice cream store or something.

So RB is primarily a residential zoning district.

Any commercial or business would be as an accessory or a home-based business.

And so I don't think a sandwich business would meet that criteria given the traffic volume that that would entail.

Okay.

So churches, daycare, maybe like an acupuncture studio, a small gym, something like that.

Can you give me some more examples of what might be allowed to occur there?

Yeah.

So I've got a couple up here.

Daycares, yeah, group residential homes, um any kind of cultural facilities, so church.

Um I don't think a small gym would meet that criteria either.

Um then um tonight we're just assigning the zoning.

Further development of the parcel you mentioned would go through additional steps of review.

Um as I understand it, those are all administratively done.

Is that correct?

Yeah, that is correct.

And so since no public participation is required from here on out, what are some of the opportunities or ways that residents can at least stay informed about what could potentially be coming?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Saunders.

Good evening, Commissioner Chris Saunders, uh community development manager.

Um good question.

Uh one of the issues that the city has been working uh with for the last several years, and expect to see further things coming out of legislature, has been changes in the methodology with which we can do public engagement.

At the moment, um the law would require uh notice for anything like a site plan, uh whether it's purely residential or a mixed-use kind of activity.

Um so there would be an opportunity, it would be written public comment as the opportunity mechanism uh versus a uh in-person public hearing.

In addition to those kinds of formal activities, the city does a variety of information distribution through uh weekly distributions of uh lists of projects which have come in that week, actions that have have taken been taken on individual applications, um things like the community development viewer, which shows the applications which have come in, provides uh access to uh application materials, uh notices when a notice is provided.

So those are not necessarily quote unquote public notices, but they are public information.

And we fully expect um to continue to do those things.

Hopefully, that question.

And um I do sign up for those weekly um community development emails.

Those are noticing or listing or letting people know which projects are up for public notice, right?

So that means the it's not like the initial application.

Is that correct?

Um it's been going through some evolution.

It's expanded its subject matter.

Uh for those who are interested in that, if you go up at the top of the city's webpage, Bozeman.net, you click on the e-notification link and then can fill out the things you want to get notices for, including the ones we're discussing.

Okay, so I could change my setting to get a notification when there's one that is initial application before it gains adequacy.

I wouldn't provide an individual application by application.

It would do a batch once a week.

We distribute those typically on a on a Friday.

Um, but there are many different topics related to city operations that folks uh can select.

So if they have interest, uh they can choose as many or as few as they prefer.

Okay.

Thank you.

And you can unsubscribe whenever you want.

Right.

So it's not you're not signing up forever and ever.

Thank you very much.

That's all my questions, Mayor.

Thank you.

Commissioner Magic.

Yeah.

Thanks.

Um Mayor, did you suggest we were easy on planners?

I'm just I uh you know, would just imagine that the first one is stressful.

And here on out, you know, you've gotten one under your belt.

We're not gonna be gentler.

Um just setting the record straight there.

Umks very much and welcome.

Um my first question relates to some of the comment that we've received regarding this possibly being spot zoning.

Could you please talk about what spot zoning is and if you can give an opinion as to whether or not this would constitute spot zoning?

Sounds like city attorney is gonna take a.

Yeah, thank you.

I'd like to have Greg answer that question.

There's a lot of nuance in legal.

Um I have not read the public comment that came in that would suggest this is spot zoning.

So I can't give a direct response to what the public had said.

But I do think it's important a few concepts about spot zoning.

Spot zoning is not a criteria that's embedded in the city's unified development code, nor is it a criteria that's statutory.

So when you see the review from the planners, they were putting up the statutory criteria and analyzing the zoning under the UDC.

So spot zoning is a judicially created concept, so it's a legal call.

And so that's why I'm gonna talk to you about it.

So it is very difficult to um have spot zoning found within a municipality if the decision on what the zoning is comports with the growth policy.

So that is your challenge.

The staff has given you a recommendation on the findings related to the growth growth policy.

Generally, spot zoning, I'm not gonna go into the specific legal test.

What it looks like it looks at is the compatibility of neighboring land uses.

And so generally what the Supreme Court has said when spot zoning exists is that there may be an industrial or residential area with an industrial use.

There may be uh an agricultural area with an industrial use.

That incompatibility of land uses is something that is closer to spot zoning than residential next to residential.

So again, the growth policy is your guide if you really analyze the the growth policy in relation to the application, um, and then you think about compatibility between adjacent land uses.

Uh the Supreme Court has been clear that high density residential next to lower density residential does not on its own establish spot zoning.

And thanks for that.

Quick follow-up.

You have been working in kind of the planning field for some time.

Have you seen any many successful challenges to spot zoning?

Um not within a municipality.

And we've actually litigated spot zoning, very similar nature to what this is.

In fact, it may have been higher density residential next to a lower density residential, and that spot zoning challenge was not successful.

Okay.

So especially like the closer the zoning districts get to each other, the less likelihood it would ever be spot zone.

Okay, thanks.

Helpful.

Um second question has to do with RB zoning.

There were comments in the letters we received saying that buildings up to five stories would be allowed.

And that was repeated in a number of letters.

Would you be able to please kind of explain?

You know, some of the specifics of RB above what you're showing in this is perfect.

But what stories might mean compared to building I.

Yeah, no, certainly.

Um so the max height in RB is 45 feet, but that wall plate max height is 33 feet.

And what that that max wall plate height does is restricts the amount of stories um within the RB zoning.

Um so with a 33-foot max wall plate height, you realistically can only get three stories out of that.

Um you're not gonna I I don't believe you'll be able to get four, certainly not five.

I don't believe you'll be able to get four stories out of that either.

Um, you're really restricted to three stories and below.

Because what that wall plate does is make it that you have to have a pretty steep roof pitch because the roof's got to meet the wall plate and that limits stories.

Is that right?

Um so the wall plate just you know dictates how tall that wall can be.

And then that, you know, once you hit because each story is roughly probably 10 to 12 feet.

Um so you know, you stack three of those and your your wall is running out, and then you have to have the the roof kind of finish off that top story.

Um if that makes sense.

Yeah.

I'm also I'm I apologize, I'm not an architect, so uh please take that with a grain of salt.

That that works for me.

Um there were this may have been one comment about this annexation being needed to accommodate the Fowler Avenue project.

And is that true?

Can this property remain in the county and still have that right away created and dedicated to the city?

Sounds like city attorney is gonna take that on.

So if the city, so I I agree with Colin, the the city's discussion with the landowner are separate from the landowner's request to annex.

And so your analysis needs to be based on the state criteria.

Um it is possible for the city to acquire right of way if that street will not be that location is not annexed.

However, at some point the city would then annex just the right-of-way.

So those remainder parcels that may occur as a result of creating the Annie Street and the Fowler right away, in order for those to develop in the city at some point, or to really even develop.

At some point, those would need to be annexed.

But yes, we can uh acquire right-of-way and control that as a city street without the annexation of the whole property.

So one last point.

In order to enforce city traffic regulations to give jurisdiction to the Bozeman Police Department to respond and issue traffic citations on Fowler, that right-of-way will need to be in the city.

Okay.

Okay, last question for now.

Uh this might be a question for um Mr.

Saunders, who haven't seen for a while.

Nice to see you.

Thank you.

So you talked about state law changing now, subdivision review and the process has changed.

That doesn't come before us for a public hearing.

Uh but notice is provided.

The public gets to see the site plan.

If what is the public's recourse if they don't agree that staff has reviewed this and they don't like the subdivision layout.

Um with any administrative decision, there's an opportunity for an appeal, uh, whether that's a zoning-based or subdivision-based appeal.

Uh that appeal would go first to the community development board, then there's an opportunity for a second appeal to yourselves, and after that it's appealed to the courts.

And at each stage, uh somebody who is making the appeal would need to be able to show a factual basis for why there was an error made.

And there's a pretty extensive uh write-up in state law and municipal code about the mechanics of how all that works and the findings that have to be made.

So it's certainly an option, and it's there.

It's not an easy option, has not been an easy option ever, really, but um the state has um put more direct controls around it than uh existed previously.

Okay, so really the assurance to the public is the zoning, and that a subdivision would meet all the standards of zoning, as well as building code and street standards and so forth.

Yes.

Um the subdivision or site plan process is essentially a three-step process.

The first is opportunity for uh concept or pre-application, depending on which one you're in.

It's an opportunity for initial consultation, identification of red flag issues, uh, so that when a formal application comes in, the very, very extensive information that the city requires can be provided to demonstrate how compliance has been met.

If you look in chapter 38, division 710, there is many, many, many pages of data that are required to be turned in with each subdivision type application or site plan application.

And um that is specifically to show how each standard identified throughout the municipal code or other laws uh that apply have been satisfied.

So there's an opportunity to see that.

Staff has to analyze that, and then our staff report or project report for that presents that analysis and gives folks a chance to say they submitted this, here was a standard, this was the outcome of the review.

So you can track down through all of that.

Okay.

And would uh a traffic impact study be required as part of that process.

It can be.

There are some specific parameters that say it will automatically trigger a certain at a certain density or or intensity of development.

And then sometimes it can be required as a unique individual circumstance if we know there's an existing issue.

So there's uh parameters for that, and uh the list of content is extensive and rigorous and recently updated.

Okay.

Great.

That also answered some questions that were in public comment to the need for traffic study.

So thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Magic.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you.

Oh Mirr.

I would love Mr.

Mirais.

Yes.

Sounds great.

Thank you for being here.

Um I spent the afternoon uh deep, deep in those 105 uh public comments.

Um I noticed there's a lot of reference to um the exponential differences between uh RA and RB.

And I'm this is a great slide to have up because I'm wondering if I if you could help me check maybe check my math on on the difference between RA and RB.

Oh thank you.

Um so yeah, that was my question.

So the max height is 45 feet in RB, but at 40 feet, so it's only five feet difference in an RB.

Okay.

And then the wall plate height, there is that 10-foot difference.

Um then the one I was struggling with is there was there were a number of references to a with three 300% increase in density over R over, I guess what is there today over the surrounding RA zoning.

And that's where I was struggling with that math.

Um and perhaps maybe we can get some public comment on that too.

But but so I I see we have we have six uh uh dwelling units, homes per acre in RA and eight per acre in um can you can you translate that?

So most acres, most lots are uh a quarter of an acre, twenty a fifth of an acre these days.

Or I mean I guess historically like Yeah, it it depends.

Um I know the surrounding area um and I think included a density map in that staff report, um, you know, is roughly that four to six dual units to the acre.

Um so you know the RB would be a bump up from that.

Um, but you know, it's not a drastic bump from six to the eight.

Okay.

Um right.

Uh that um oh, and then you uh in the staff report in and uh your presentation you mentioned that the growth policy discourages large swaths large swaths of of kind of of um homogenous zoning.

Um I just would you uh if I mean would you mind flipping back to the one where you have the surrounding the slide with the surrounding zoning?

That's yeah.

So putting RB there for that um I mean that kind of that that breaks it up, but w if we made that R all RA, would that be considered would would I mean I I don't know what is considered a large swath of of homogenous zoning.

If we were to go to make that RA, would that be considered a large amount of uh it's contextual.

Um, you know, it one of the city policies is that we want to you know gradually increase that density and that diversity of housing.

Um so you know, RB allows for that that incremental um uh increase in in both of those density and and diversity, um, where you know RA would really restrict that to um single unit and two unit developments, um, which is similar to some of the surrounding area.

Um and then I know Chris um the applicant's representative has a great slide showing the checkerboard pattern of RARB um across this area, which I think really illustrates uh how that fits in contextually with the surrounding area.

Yeah, thank you.

Those are my only questions.

Great.

My questions were asked.

Um so we'll move on to unless there's any follow-up.

Uh Commissioner Magic.

This might be for you or possibly for Nick.

And the fact that 2.65 acres would be set aside for right-away.

Is that also true for Hanson Street?

Does additional right-of-way need to be added to the east side of Hanson?

Nick Ross is coming to answer that question.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Nick Ross, Director of Transportation Engineering.

So the overall parcel is roughly 10 acres.

So while there that does uh leave a little over four acres net to the parcel, when you remove the uh uh existing easement that there is for Hansen Lane, plus takeaway ditch easement from that area as well, and some other easements that are in play, the net buildable acreages you know in that three acre range.

Okay.

I got the numbers flipped.

Okay.

Thanks for that.

Great.

Okay.

Um now the applicant team will have 10 minutes to present.

I know.

Good evening, Mayor Morrison, Commissioners.

I'm Chris Nauman.

I'm a senior planner at Sandbell, which is a multidisciplinary community design firm located here in Bozeman.

And I think uh joining me this evening is um Kevin Anderson as a property owner representative, but he's asked me to um make this presentation.

Uh the property owner has requested annexation into the city as a condition of the right-of-way purchase agreement for the Fowler Avenue Connection project.

And so Sam Bell is working on behalf of the property owner to process this application that's before you.

Um as staff has pointed out, it's um it's an inholding, a county in holding, and the annexation is supported by the city strategic plan vision number four for a well-planned city and strategic infrastructure choices.

But I want to back up a little bit because we've had a lot of questions about this.

So hopefully this slide numerically and graphically explains in round numbers, the total property is approximately 10 acres.

Um the right-of-way, as uh Director Ross said, is five plus acres, but when you also add the setbacks required um for the the ditch and the other setbacks that would be um imposed upon the remainder parcels, the yellow area here in the graphic on the right um comes out to be about 2.66 acres.

So in all, um about 26 to 27 percent of the subject property would be available for for future development.

Um regards to um the RB zoning and housing types as supported by the findings of in the staff report.

Um we believe that RB and the corresponding development standards are suitable for the property.

Um the RB zoning would allow the potential for future development again on that small remainder portion, um, ranging from single family homes to missing middle, multifamily residential, such as duplexes, triplexes, and town homes.

Um shown here at the the bottom of the graphic is a is a popular illustration that is you'll see quite commonly about uh illustrating what missing middle housing typologies look like.

And I've taken the liberty to throw a red square around um the the types of housing that are allowed in the RB zoning, so you can see it's actually only a portion of the the missing middle spectrum.

Um again, lots of talk about um comparing the mass and scale between between RA and RB.

So here you can see that RB allows an incremental increase in mass and scale as already discussed.

The height limit difference between the two is um five feet, and the maximum wall plate, which um uh staff is has outlined really is what restricts the number of livable floors and in 33 feet um at an average wall uh floor to floor height of 11 feet, um you're can probably fit three floors versus the two floors in um in RA.

You're can probably fit three floors versus the two floors in RA.

So again, allowing one more livable level of of livable floor and additional five feet of height would result in the potential for a gentle increase in mass and scale.

Also the proposed RB zoning allows for a general increase in density, which again has been touched on already.

Eight dwelling units per acre is the minimum for RB versus six for units per acre for RA.

And this is a graphic that I I believe is in the staff report, but it it is from a city community development department source, and it shows the surrounding neighborhoods currently are between five and ten units per acre, again, according to this data here.

So again, zooming out a bit further, this has been touched on also, but just wanted to um reiterate and look even at a larger context.

Um the the proposed RB kind of fits this existing zoning pattern between North 15th and Ferguson, which is largely an alternating mix between between RA and RB.

So the proposed the requested zoning fits and continues that existing zoning pattern.

And lastly, I've just uh included up here the um the five purposes of zoning that are in um chapter 38 of the Unified Development Code.

Um so looking at each of those, um the proposed RB zoning of the subject property will contribute to a healthy and dynamic community.

The proposed RB zoning will allow uses that are compatible with the existing zoning and land use in the neighboring area.

The proposed RB zoning will provide predictability and reasonable expectation in the use of land for gentle infill and missing middle housing.

The proposed RB zoning will implement community goals and objectives that are contained within the city's adopted land use plan.

And lastly, the proposed RB zoning is consistent and compatible with the city's land use expectations as communicated by the existing zoning pattern in the area.

I'd be happy to answer any questions from the commission.

Great.

Thank you for that presentation.

Um questions for the applicant.

Okay.

Commissioner Smeedy.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um thank you for that presentation, Mr.

Naman.

Um I do have one question for the and maybe you can speak to this, but um what was it about the RB zoning that was attractive rather than the RA zoning?

Was it the higher density possibility?

Was it the mixed use possibility?

What informed that decision?

Yeah, I I think that's exactly it.

I think it's just the additional flexibility of um the variety of housing types.

Um I can't speak with certainty whether the the current owner would even do any development themselves, um, but whether it was for themselves or a future um a future owner, it it does just provide yeah, more opportunity for a variety of of housing types and what generally is you know the core of the community.

Okay.

And um could we go back to the missing middle slide that you had in your presentation?

Thank you so much.

So when I'm looking at the RB parameters in our new development code.

Those are yeah.

So everybody knows, I think, that I hate these images.

I've hated these images for three years.

They are disingenuous and do not show real or perceived mass and scale.

Going back to the missing middle one.

What is it about the buildings on the larger end of the missing middle that would be disallowed by RB?

Because I'm looking and I'm seeing a lot of these could potentially be built in RB because of the 33 feet and then a flat roof.

Um yeah, I think that's a good a good question.

I think the other uh parameters within the code that would come into play, and I think this is attempted to be at scale, but it's not dimensioned.

Um there's restrictions on the building length for each each structure that that may preclude um some of some of the typology shown here on the right.

Um certainly townhomes, I think are allowed, but those have a very broad definition and take all sorts of shapes and sizes can constitute that.

Um I can't speak to whether our code specifically addresses courtyard building or cottage court.

Um and some of these other definitions for multiplex medium um we might have defined differently in our code.

But I think I think you're correct.

The the variety shown here, some of them that could be allowed, but there are other um dimensional standards that would restrict massing, certainly in a horizontal perspective that's that's hard to quantify here.

Because yeah, 120 feet wide for a building is a pretty big building.

Um maybe some of these with like the 15-foot looks like maybe a taller first floor, maybe those would be pushing the limit of 33, but um yeah, and our our code does have um cottage housing in every zone.

I I would love to get someone to build cottage housing.

Okay.

So and then as far as the roof pitch, um if you wanted to get creative and do like a gambrel roof, you could quite easily fit four stories in a 45-foot building with a 33-foot wall plate height, is that correct?

Um I I believe you could have usable space above the the 33 foot wall plate height.

Um depending on roof pitch, uh I can't say how how usable that would be or for potentially what uses, but even the renderings and your not favorite drawings um you know show dormers and even some small windows up in the the peaks of the peak roofs, and that's allowed in both zones, RA and RB.

Thank you.

Um then for the density of the district, the eight units, that is a minimum, correct?

We can has anybody done any sort of assessment of what a maximum could be if if we're really gonna go from max density, what could be fit in this two little areas?

Right.

Um we certainly haven't been asked to do any development scenarios like that, but um you may recall during the final revisions to the UDC, um the design community actually requested that the minimum be reduced in RB because in most situations, and I should say a lot of situations it on the design community felt it was gonna be challenging to even hit eight units per acre with yard setbacks, driveways, I mean all the the other um land uses that have to support housing development.

So I'm not sure with these size remainder parcels if there's much opportunity to go beyond much beyond the the eight unit per acre minimum.

But that's I'm just speculating live into a microphone, which probably shouldn't do.

Sorry.

I I think that's all my questions for now.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Num.

Commissioner Magic, any questions for the applicant?

Just one thanks, Mayor.

Thanks, Chris.

Can you go back to the missing middle diagram again?

Um limiting factor would be, and maybe you said this and I'm instead of too busy looking at the illustration here.

Um the limit of eight dwellings per building.

Per acre.

Per acre.

So is there a limit?

That's the minimum standard.

I don't know if there's a maximum.

And per building.

I believe you're referring to the maximum dwelling unit per building.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So we cap dwelling units per building at eight.

And then yeah, minimum density is separate from that, and that's eight units per acre.

Yeah.

So like a townhouse could be built, and then it would the max number of units would be eight.

Yes, that is correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

That's all.

Deputy Mayor, any questions?

I have no questions either.

So now we will open it up for public comment in the room this evening on uh the annexation and zoning application before us this evening.

Um same as public comment in the previous ones.

Uh you'll have three minutes.

Um introduce yourself and uh tell us about your relationship with the city and then you'll have your your time allotted.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Heather Higgs, and I am a city resident who is here on behalf of the Harvest Creek Owners Association.

To date, over 105 comments have been submitted in opposition to the Hanson Lean applic application, in addition to 12 public comments made at the April 20th Community Development Board meeting.

The HOA has filed an 11-page letter expressing the concerns of our neighborhood.

I hope each of you have had the opportunity to read this letter prior to making a vote on zoning.

I will read portions of it into the public record.

Well, Harvest Creek recognizes the need for additional infill housing.

Such housing should not be exponentially different than what exists in the area and should be supported by existing infrastructure and services.

It should not be to the detriment of the existing property owners.

Spot zoning is, quote, the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification is totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners.

Close quote.

As stated, in the Heart Hearts Horn v City of Whitefish, which was decided by the Montana Supreme Court in 2029.

The owner of the Hanson Lean property is applying for a zoning designation RB, which is exponentially different from that of the surrounding area, which is RA.

The RB higher density zoning designation would only benefit that owner to the detriment of the other owners in the surrounding area.

While a single owner benefiting does not automatically create spot zoning, the numbers of separate landowners affected by the rezoning directly relates to whether the zoning constitutes special legislation designed to benefit only one person.

Here there is one owner benefited with many more landowners who will be affected by this rezoning, including the whole of Harvest Creek, consisting of 525 homes.

The surrounding landowners will not benefit from RB zoning and will be subject to additional impacts resulting from the exponentially higher density that will affect Durston Road, which is already highly trafficked and dangerous.

Fowler Road expected to be continued through via this proposed Hanson lane development.

It is only two lanes with no turn lanes.

The extension of Fowler Road and a proposed roundabout at Annie Street will further impact public health and safety.

These roads cannot support the level of density resulting from the RB zoning designation, which could allow a 300% increase over the immediately adjacent RA zoning, as explained on page four of our letter.

This will exacerbate already unsafe road conditions, in particular, taking into consideration the use by Emily Dickinson elementary school children and Gallatin High School students.

For the reasons stated above and those in the 11-page letter, I respectfully request the city commission deny the Hanson Lane Zone Map Amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I'm Bill Valencourt.

I'm a Bozeman resident.

I live in Harvest Creek.

I would first like to state that Harvest Creek, my neighbors that I've talked to, they don't oppose the annexation of hand of the Hanson Lane property.

We do understand that Bozeman is growing and needs affordable housing options other than the predominantly single family homes that we have in this area, including the potential addition of townhomes and duplexes.

However, we strongly oppose the zone map amendment, which, if implemented, would create significantly higher density and substantially different property uses than those in place for the existing adjacent residential properties.

The proposed R8 zoning would permit construction of multiple multi-unit buildings with up to eight units each.

In addition, the now allowable 45-foot height, which is more than double the peak of my home, which has an upper room in it.

Uh over the over the other one and two-story buildings that would be adjacent.

It would infringe on the existing homeowners' privacy as well as obstruct airflow, light, and views, in addition to negatively impacting their home values.

The Hanson Lane Map Amendment is incompatible with the character of the surrounding area.

And with all due respect, the amendment sure seems like spot zoning because you would have RB completely surrounded by RA all around it, and it's a very small piece of property for development.

It also fails to promote public health and safety due to the additional vehicle, pedestrian, and cycling traffic that would occur as a result of putting higher density within the area.

As an alternative, Harvest Creek believes the information provided within our HOA's 11-page letter at the very least warrants the City Commission adopt a zoning designation different from that for which has been applied.

We advocate for the same zoning designation as that which is in place for the immediately surrounding properties, RA.

We implore the City Commission to continue hearing the schedule, uh, continue the hearing scheduled for the zone map meeting this evening.

Is our hope the commissioners will consider the impacts addressed in our HOA letter and the mitigation afforded by the alternatively proposed zoning designation of RA.

This ensures the consistency with the immediately surrounding homes in Harvest Creek and Cottage Park.

On behalf of our Harvard Creek, Harvest Creek neighbors, we ask that you be mindful of the purposes of the City Code, a section of which I'll read now, and I apologize.

This is a fantastic run-on sentence.

It states it's to protect the health, safety, and general welfare to recognize and balance the various rights and responsibilities relating to landownership, use and development, and other rights as identified in the United States and State of Montana constitutions and statutory and common law to comply with the Montana land use planning act, as may be amended from time to time to implement the city's adopted land use plan and to meet all requirements of the law.

As you consider your decision, we'd also like to call out that the City Code only provides minimum requirements for adopted for the promotion of health safety and the general welfare of the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Susan Francis.

I'm a Harvest Creek resident.

Have been there for 12 years.

We spent two years renting in Harvest Creek before we bought.

And we really love the neighborhood because of the quietness and the peacefulness of the streets.

This RB zoning is going to be butting up into Lilly, which is my road, Annie, Rose, and Oak.

Those streets are not built to accommodate traffic.

It gets crazy when the garbage truck comes through and you have to go around the garbage truck.

Or like my husband's big trucks parked on the street, the neighbors' trucks parked on the street.

It narrows it down.

If you're going to open those streets up to through traffic with this R B zoning, which means more cars, more people, more houses, it's not compatible with the neighborhood.

And RA zoning is okay because that's what we are, and we love it.

And we love our houses, we love our neighborhood, we love our streets.

We have kids running up and down the streets all the time when they're coming home from school.

I watch them from my window.

I watch them, I say hi to them when I'm out in my yard working.

I don't want to see those kids hurt, not like that little boy on Babcock Street, not like our friend's daughter on Oak Street.

I can see that happening in our neighborhood.

If those streets are opened up to heavy traffic, it's not going to be the way it was.

And I've lived in Bozeman long enough to see the changes.

And keep it RA if we have to.

And remember the people that live there, and those streets are not built for heavy traffic.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Hi, I'm Cindy Miller.

I live in Harvest Creek.

And first off, I want to address the gentleman back here.

These sketches don't show anything of what's already there.

You should have real pictures if you're going to show what's there.

And I encourage all of you to get on a city little bus or whatever and drive the area.

27th Street, they're five-story tall.

That's just right around the corner off of Oaken and Baxter.

19th gets backed up on Oak all the way to 27th every morning.

And on Durston, there's only one lane either way, west of Merriweather, where there are two-story condos, townhouses, right behind them.

They are building it's three stories with the pitched roof, right behind a row of single family homes.

So those homes that are already there now seen out their back windows, see nothing but a black building.

And those homes, and this is very close to where you're wanting to build on Durston, have been there for years.

And now all and it's really encroaching on Durston as well.

But you can't visualize that there.

You have to go see what you're voting on.

And I would encourage you not to make a vote until you drive by and see.

That section that they want to put a uh that connects to Durston is so narrow.

I don't know, I mean, and then you have to think about all the homes on New Holland that have been there for 20 years, and even the top portion of that property where the city had the meeting last year or where you guys were gonna do your own development.

You weren't even giving uh uh a yard space.

You were gonna have cars parked right next to these people's houses to their back fences.

And you were proposing three stories with a balcony.

Well, who in the heck has a balcony can afford a balcony house?

That isn't affordable housing.

You have so much affordable housing here that they're empty.

The ones on 27, three quarters are empty.

People would young families want single family homes.

They don't have to be.

I live in Harvard Street.

My house isn't as big as some of the others.

We have a small yard, but it's wonderful place to raise a family.

And some of those apartments are empty because families, they're renting to be in a home.

They don't want to be an apartment.

So the developments should be showing you real pictures.

Those pictures show nothing.

Get in a van, go see what you're supposed to be voting on, and then make a decision.

We all know that we need Fowler to go through.

But we also know that some of those people haven't sold.

You don't I mean, are you gonna imminent domain them, the ones that are close to Babcock?

So those are decisions that I think should be looked into before you even make a vote on this.

Because as we all said, children uh every morning, and even this morning I was going on Oak Avenue, two young boys pr going to Emily Dickinson, running across Oak Avenue, dodging cars.

So think about the children that are in those neighborhoods and the safety of them.

Because we don't want any more accidents that are what has happened.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name's uh Nigel Anselmi.

I'm a proud Bozeman native, born and raised.

Um I live in Harvest Creek, right on um the backside, uh backing up to all of this.

Uh I've lost a ton of friends moving because of house housing for affordability.

Um it's not for the higher density stuff.

Everyone can find an apartment.

Um my buddies are all trying to find like single family homes, start a family in, and that's what is really, really difficult.

Uh Bozeman's no longer a place where uh you can work hard and save and be able to get in a home.

You need some luck.

Um or something else.

So I think this is a really great opportunity to help get small single family homes in there.

Um I want to reference the URL priority priorities that you stated this year, um protecting the heritage, neighborhoods, and natural environment.

Um this is a beautiful natural environment.

Uh last night I was up for an hour because there was a fox chirping um in my backyard.

Um that's home that we're talking about as well.

Um protecting the neighborhood would be getting single family housing in there consistent with RA.

Uh and next, I think Commissioner Sweeney was uh alluding to it in her questions, so thank you.

Um but we talked a lot about minimums.

I think what we're all worried about is how dense this is going to be.

Developers and builders are incentivized to build more dense housing.

Uh RB allows for a range, and this is a very small plot of land, so it's gonna be more difficult to make a profit on single family or the smaller, less dense options, and we're all concerned about how dense that will look.

So thank you for considering my comments.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Well, Francis, I live in Harvest Creek, one of them.

Um I have to say running fallows through has been over needed for a hell of a long time.

Right.

When everybody, when the subdivision was developed, everybody bought their land, understanding that that road was gonna go through.

Understanding that it was most likely gonna be a four-lane road.

I have no problem with the road going through.

That's the way we need the traffic alleviation going through the area.

We do not need mixed housing brought into our neighborhood.

We are surrounded that whole entire area is surrounded with nothing but RA.

Nothing.

But RA surrounds these two properties, Fowler and this one, both.

Right.

Why don't you keep it consistent the way that it would meant to be?

We invested, we bought, we saved, we struggled to do that, and you're going to affect our net worth on our house by changing this to an RB to an RA.

So that's literally taking it from me.

What I got to give it to someone else who's going to sell it and develop it.

Okay.

So that's my first thing.

Um just continuity.

Let's keep it, right?

You got it on both sides, you got it to the south.

You made the division at Oak.

You put mixed juice on the uh north side of Oak, keep it on the north side of Oak.

North of Oak already you have a four-lane road that you developed.

And now you're changing the plan and turning it to two lanes on both sides.

Right?

Between Durston and Oak right now, or not Durson.

Baxter and Oak, right?

It's a four-lane road the way it was originally designed until we suddenly decided, oh, we want to change this.

Let's keep with the regular plan and don't rip us off.

Okay.

Thanks.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Hi.

Thank you, Mayor, Commissioners.

Kristen Tripp, I live in Harvest Creek as well.

I'm asking you to approve the annexation.

I like to put focus on some positives tonight.

And say no to the request for zoning for RB and instead consider R the RA.

I crunched some of the numbers based on the 2.65 acres and maximum dwelling per unit.

And if we zone RA, that has an impact of 16 units.

If we zone RB, it has an impact of 21 units, potentially, right.

I believe that retail price on a single unit is probably 700 grand or up, which indicates two vehicles.

So the real implication from a traffic perspective is the possibility of having either 32 new cars or 42 new cars.

And that is a very high density number of vehicles in a very small area.

So just wanted to play out some numbers as far as how the domino effect goes.

As other Harvest Creek homeowners have said, Harvest Creek is, you know, low density.

It's all RA.

RB, higher density, higher height, those that's a huge step up.

It's not gradual.

Our community plan references gradual and predictable density.

RA would be gradual.

RB is a pretty big step change.

Transition matters, you know.

This is a corridor.

And I think why, in part why so many people are here is this sets precedents for the neighboring parcels, including the inevitable city-owned property right next door.

So I think that's why a lot of you are hearing from us on this particular fire circle.

It's nothing against Sandbell or the individual who is trying to make the most out of his 2.65 acres, but we're setting precedent to what's going to come after in what I perceive to be literally behind my backyard.

So that's another concern, and why I would strongly urge you to consider um looking towards zoning RA instead of RB.

More units, more parking, bigger buildings, more traffic.

Those are built into zoning standards.

It's not theoretical, it's pretty predictable outcomes.

Um and it really just doesn't fit in this particular corridor.

There are other places as another resident mentioned that are all behind Home Depot.

Um it's a it's a thick mess in there, and I would encourage you to drive through the core of it, and it's shocking.

Every time I go back there, there's another huge building with another huge development.

I don't know who's living them on, and I don't know how much they are, but they are thick.

It is dense.

Um the safety issue is also of concern.

I have a 14-year-old son.

He currently stumbles his way to CJ and makes it home.

Um, but he's had incidents where he has felt in danger, trust trying to cross the the street.

So safety considerations are also um huge.

So thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you, uh, Commissioner, for your uh work that you do.

Um I'm uh Sam Knight, resident uh of Hobbes Creek, been in Bozeman for 11 years.

And note the picture that you have that beautiful view.

Beautiful view.

When I moved to uh to Bozeman 11 years ago, I was warned um that the comment uh about Bozeman is it's it is about um poverty with a view.

But it seems that the actions of this commission are now encouraging just the poverty.

And I say that for a number of reasons because I like the logic of understanding things so that we can work out what the end effect is going to be and the current end effect of the annexation plus the housing opportunities there with the changing of that zoning, seems to be illogical.

In as much as we've heard comment already this evening that uh there are those who have uh welcomed the idea of a of a street uh of Fowler being extended, but it is uh to alleviate traffic, and yet the logic that you're proposing in this particular rezoning will diminish that alleviation of uh that traffic with the increased traffic that would come.

So, where would we build the next road to alleviate the next piece of uh uh of understanding on that traffic?

The second thing is about the logic of the economics involved here.

It would seem that there is a fascination with zoning, particularly towards multifamily, and I believe that the city city mayor himself is a big fan of high density uh for whatever reason, but we are diminishing uh the availability of single home uh residential units.

And in so doing, we are causing a detrimental effect upon the economy of this particular community.

When you build multifamily, obviously there is a high density, there's a better um cost effectiveness for the infrastructure of the city.

Uh but long term the effect goes then is that you are reducing the opportunity for home ownership, you are reducing um uh the opportunities for those, and you have wealth on paper, but nobody can afford to move if they want to purchase a single family within the city.

So I ask you to think logically.

Think logically about the street, that if you use that to alleviate traffic, you should not then zone to cause further traffic.

And then I urge you to really look at the long-term effect of the economy when you are insisting on multifamily mixed use and avoiding and and also honestly, it would seem um persecuting against the idea of single family home for this community.

That is the pathway to wealth, unless we just don't want anybody to be wealthy, which I don't think is the American dream that I move to America to try to achieve.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further public comment requests in the room this evening.

The second call for a quest in the room and final request in the room.

Mr.

Moss, what are we seeing online?

First up, we have Mary Francis McHugh.

Ms.

McHugh, are you here?

I am here.

That was a wonderful presentation from uh Mr.

Knight.

Thank you very much.

I um want to just augment my uh comment that I had uh filed today uh and I gave you a schedule uh where I listed the differences of opinion that we have on this uh transaction.

Clearly, I do not oppose annexation.

I do oppose zoning.

I think that zoning needs to be uh consistent with the uh surrounding community, and I believe that is the law.

Zoning has to also comply with the master plan.

And I have, I believe, uh identified a defect in the uh city's uh community plan.

Uh the urban neighborhood is one of ten of the land use categories on the zoning map uh that are identified in the plan.

Uh that uh urban neighborhood is one of them.

Uh it is uh one of only uh there are only three other uh categories that do not identify a place or uh say where the zoning districts can be applied.

The remaining uh uh categories, residential mixed use category on page 53, says it's appropriate near commercial centers.

Community commercial mixed views says developments in this land area should be located in one or two quadrants of intersections in the arterial andor collector streets.

It's pretty specific about where that where that district has to be.

The traditional core is downtown.

Regional and commercial services have to be near require substantial infrastructure and need to be near significant transportation facilities.

The only other land uses that don't identify, just like urban neighborhoods that don't identify where the uses are to be the public lands, parks, and the no city services areas.

I I point this out because the fact of the uh lack of guidance on where the variety of districts can be applied is equivalent to no plan at all.

And if you don't have a plan, you can't zone.

So I think that the zone is uh is uh a reach to try and zone RB on uh on the back of a flawed plan.

I believe that uh you could avoid that with RA.

Thank you, Miss McHugh.

I hear that.

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any further requests online?

I'm showing no additional requests for comment, Mayor.

Okay.

Seeing no further public comment requests, we'll close the public comment portion of this hearing and bring it up here for motion discussion and vote.

Um, but before we get there, if there are any clarifications for staff of the applicant that came up during public comment.

Okay.

Um then I think Commissioner Sweeney.

We're to you.

And so also just to clarify the process here, we're gonna do two separate two separate motions, two separate discussions, two separate votes on the annexation and zoning.

Perfect.

So I'll just read the motion for annexation.

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 approve the Hanson Lane annexation, subject to the terms of annexation and direct staff to prepare an annexation agreement.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Would you like to speak to the annexation motion?

This is a dream annexation, surrounded by development.

Um, this is the kind of parcel that we we want coming into the city.

Um, I'll be supporting that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Magic.

Um Thanks.

Yeah, I'll be supporting the motion as well.

Um we did not hear that much argument against annexing this property property.

I think people understand that when you have wholly surrounded properties, it really makes sense from a variety of reasons to have that property um be one way or the other.

Um, you know, either all in the county and very easily identified as county versus kind of all in the city.

And uh we have talked about uh these pockets of lands that are county land within uh city limits, and they become problematic for a variety of reasons.

They have different sets of rules.

We heard about uh building safety, that presentation earlier in the county, at least last time I checked, there is no building code for residential development.

So all that we heard in that presentation does not apply to residences that happen to be in the county.

Fireworks are allowed in the county.

Uh there would be no fire hydrants associated with this property if it were in the county, there aren't any right now.

Um septic systems versus sewer, if you come into the city, there's obvious environmental benefits to having properties on a sewer system versus septic and standards like um roads and streets, county road standards are different that county uh city street standards.

I completely understand the desire to keep this property and this what I've uh experienced.

I've walked it a number of times.

You know, uh a wildlife corridor, kind of a protected, cool part of our community.

And I think that the Fowler Avenue connection um project was sensitive to that, and we're getting a better project as a result of the public participating in that.

But at the same time, it pains me that you know we're gonna be displacing potentially some wildlife.

I was hoping the fox would show up tonight.

I appreciated the fox um at the community development board.

That would be very cool to live with that in your backyard.

So we have policies that we have to follow when we accept annexation and review annexation.

They can be found on page 16 of the staff report.

It's policy one through uh six seven, eight, and ten, eleven, twelve, I believe.

And I agree with staff's assessment on all of these.

And so I will be supporting the motion for all of those reasons.

Thank you, Commissioner Magic.

Deputy Mayor.

Yeah, uh I appreciate those comments.

I uh share them and uh accept the agree with the staff report.

I'm happy to see this this piece come into the county, I mean come into the city from the county, uh, and we'll support it.

Great.

Um appreciate the findings of my colleagues.

I uh will also incorporate the staff's findings for for my findings.

The annexation feels um relatively uncomplicated.

Um so feel ready to get on to the I think the meat of the discussion, which will be the zoning.

Um I'll be supporting this motion.

Mr.

Moss, would you pull the commission on the annexation?

Commissioner Sweeney.

Aye.

Commissioner Magic.

Aye.

Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Motion passes four to zero.

Um Commissioner Sweeney, would you care to help us with the zoning motion?

Okay, sure.

Um considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, recommendation of the zoning commission, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 2575 and move to approve the Hanson Lane zone map amendment with contingencies of approval necessary to complete adoption of an implementing ordinance.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Would you like to speak to the zoning motion?

Yeah.

I was like kind of excited about RB here until I learned that we can't have a sandwich shop and an ice cream.

I was imagining kids, you know, biking home from school, uh, hopefully wearing helmets, and you know, stopping to get an ice cream.

But you know, that was the only thing that I was excited about RB for.

Um so honestly, I think I'm not gonna support RB for this area.

And uh my reasons for that are uh criteria H, the character of the area.

Um, and I also feel like it has been the war on the single family home in this city for a long time, and we actually really need um you know some more starter homes, and you can have that in RA.

Um, our new RA has no minimum lot size, so we could have you know duplexes, multiples um in this area, and it would you know complement the existing neighborhood well.

Um it's times like this where I wish we had eight unit row houses at two stories.

The only thing, you know, the thing we've heard over and over again is the height, and I definitely resonate with that.

Um the images in our code depicting the zone are not honest.

And if it is built out to the maximum density, which has been the trend because land is so expensive, then we are looking at those larger apartment buildings with live work um, you know, on that higher density end of the missing middle spectrum.

So let's see if there was anything else I needed to say about this.

Yeah, I it does concern me a lot, and for the public, you know, I was a party to the made lawsuit against the state for removing your right to participate at site specific development review.

So you know, we really do have to take into account the whole range of options, the worst case scenario of what could be allowed when we zone, um, because that's the last interface that you really have with it.

So I will not be supporting RB for this.

Thank you.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor.

Um so let's see a couple of things.

I really appreciated kind of staff walking us through the differences between RA and RB, and I believe the applicants representative talking about a gentle gentle increase in mass and scale.

Um RB would have an additional five feet of building height, um, eight dwelling units per acre versus six.

Um it would allow some multi-family homes that RB would allow multifamily homes, uh, like a townhouse with eight units that are not allowed in RA.

I am a believer that you can have mixed housing and have it be a neighborhood that works.

Uh we have a number of examples, including many of our historic districts were developed with a variety of housing types to meet the needs of the community at hand.

We had to put in the wealthy people, the workers, the people who taught at MHU, the students who went to MSU, and within close proximity to one another.

And we have a great example in Bridger View, um, uh uh operature drive of a development that's also zoned to RB that has a mix of housing types.

And if you haven't seen it, it's worth kind of um walking around and seeing that they have a fourplex next to a single family home, a number of duplexes, and it's all very uh sensitively designed.

Um mixed housing does not have to be a negative, it does not have to destroy a neighborhood.

I also want to say that I think we at times get this bad rap that we're against single family homes, and I think that is just simply not true.

We all live in one.

Um I've lived in one most of my life.

I've lived in some apartments maybe back in college.

But we recognize as putting together the community plan as trying to lead our city that we need a variety of housing types.

Single family homes are out of reach for the majority of people.

I would there's no way we'd be able to buy one at these prices.

And so I don't know how young people do it, how people just entering the market.

So that variety of housing types allow people, very good people, very well-intentioned people to get their foot in the door into a housing product, and that could be a duplex, a fourplex, a town home, a condo as a starter home.

I would add that um we still have parking requirements in RB, and that would be uh further restriction, you know, on those very small parcel that parking would have to be accommodated, and that would further kind of limitate limit the number the amount of density that would be able to uh reside on this property.

That parking would have to be accommodated, and that would further kind of limitate, limit the number the amount of density that would be able to reside on this property.

Looking at the criteria, so once again, we have to review criteria, and staff has done that for us.

And we really made a point of trying to promote these kind of neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and trying to find ways to get us out of patterns of establishing just single family homes and just apartments.

And that's kind of what our society has done here for years.

So the growth policy really speaks to, I think a RB type of development.

Our future land use map, the urban neighborhood allows a variety at scale of different zoning from RA to B1, which is commercial, REMU, which is kind of a mix, and RD, which really would be high density commercial.

I do not believe the uh R D would be compatible, that it would just simply be too dense.

It would allow a height that I don't think would be appropriate for the neighborhood, but I do believe once again that RB sh is a kind of an incremental increase that applied to the smaller parcel is not gonna have some of the negative impacts that I think people believe that it might have.

Our um growth policy talks about supporting well-planned walkable neighborhoods, or this is gonna have to go through subdivision review.

And I think we will see uh good result out of that subdivision process.

Um I don't want to repeat myself here.

Growth policy talks about enabling a gradual and predictable increase in density.

This property is wholly surrounded.

I think it is a predictable thing that this property was going to develop at some point in the future.

One uh thing that um Commissioner Sweeney touched on that I would also mention is the need for commercial in this part of our town.

Uh I sure wish somehow maybe in some of the land that's yet to be annexed, we can kind of think about some commercial that can be worked in.

But just to say that I believe RB can be a really good um zone here.

I agree with the staff's assessment of the criteria that we have to review, and I'm gonna be supporting the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Magic.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you.

Um I'm sitting up here, and I I could I feel like uh this this is this is I'll be honest, this is a struggle.

Um I could certainly understand how the you know our Harvest Creek neighbors, you know, feel besieged.

Um they were they were hit with a five-lane thoroughfare, what we plan for for Fowler Avenue.

And you know, through their work and the work of others in the community, we reduce that to two lanes.

Then they get hit with uh the first draft of our Fowler Housing uh development project, and it's pictures of four and five-story developments with like 84 units or homes.

And uh and and we you know pulled that off the table and and began a uh uh more of a community discussion on what what might go there.

And now here we are with the handsome lane.

Um part of me is thinking, you know, Ms.

Higgs, I want to make a decision about you know Fowler or that neighborhood and not have you appear so that we're we're you know you feel comfortable with this decision that we have to make.

Um and I don't know how to get there.

Um in part because I have to make decisions for not just for our neighborhoods, but also for the whole city.

Um that um that is kind of um part of of you know that's laid out in our in our growth plan.

And and we want a well-planned city, we need a dynamic communities.

We want reasonable expectations for the use of our land and and and you know, growth that's compatible with with our neighboring zoning, and that advances our community goals.

And that last point is where I kind of get stuck on this one, um, where I feel like RB RA does not does not make our community very dynamic.

It does not advance our community goals.

If we want more people on bikes, if we want more, if we want to get to a spot where where transit makes sense in this community, um uh we have to have a mix of housing types.

And that's what I also I think that that mix of housing types is what makes for a vibrant community where you have vibrant neighborhoods where you have um more families and more kids.

Um I also feel like this this the differences when I step back and look at the differences between RA and RB, I don't see the dramatic difference, the exponential difference that I read about in the public comments.

I see two code, two of our least dense housing residential districts that really try to uh protect neighborhoods and protect this this um you know that or provide that both the single family and the missing middle that we we need in this town.

Um that code really protects, uh especially in R B.

You know, there's lots of we go to our worst case scenarios, it's kind of easy to do that.

Um we worked really hard as a commission as a community to pass a code that uh uh a zoning code that I feel like has a lot of form-based protections.

Uh yes, that there you can, you know, you can put an eight-unit um eight-house building, you know, an eight uh unit building in there, but but you you're you're totally scrunched by by the amount of area that building can take up in the lot in the lot.

You're you're scrunched by setbacks.

We're dealing with 2.65 acres here.

You're not gonna be able to put a lot of housing into that area.

Um, this combination of of you know, this this worry about how dense this is going to be, I feel like our code addresses a lot of that.

Um our community plan has goals in there that um that an RA zoning designation doesn't meet for me.

So you know, I again it goes back to those community goals.

I feel like staff did an excellent job with their uh outlining a lot of that in their staff report.

And um and so I will be voting for RB uh uh an RB designation here.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um I appreciate the the findings that each of you have have laid out.

Um I think the the pieces that I want to focus on are really um one, what we tried to fight to make R B as a zone to do.

Um we wanted to, you know, initially my push was for you know neighborhood retail, neighborhood coffee shops, ensuring that if there's commercial that goes in, um it's not a it's not a city destination, it's a neighborhood destination.

It doesn't bring um travelers in, you know, like a brewery does with a big parking lot.

Um it still can do some of those things, but it it's it's not there would be challenges with you know with with some of these pieces of therapy types of commercial um that didn't make it into the use tables.

And so consequently, RB is a really novel and interesting zone that we haven't seen as many zone map amendments and annexations requesting.

We you know, we're often getting you know the the highest density um requests possible.

Um and we've only had um lower density requests on a few occasions over the last couple years.

And so to me, for one, I think it's important for the public to know this process.

We don't uh we don't tell property owners what we would like to annex them in at.

Um but we have future land use map that says what could be allowed, and then probably some conversations with staff and then you know, sort of reading the room of their of the neighborhood of the community, knowing that we probably wouldn't go we probably wouldn't approve RC or R D um as a zoning for this area, but R B and RA are both appropriate.

Um just not wanting to, you know, opine too much on Fowler and the road itself, um, since that's not part of this application, but just wanting to lift up some pieces from the staff report of um wanting to annex in wholly surrounded areas, um, provide housing opportunities that are, you know, have varieties.

Um, this is a really uh a gentle increase in density on you know, basically, you know, less than three, three buildable acres that would have the opportunity to front onto an arterial.

Um, these are not going to be individuals that would likely drive through any of the local streets.

Um it wouldn't make if you were living in it, you wouldn't decide to not drive on oak versus driving on Annie or New Holland.

You know, you're we all take um the best route, the quickest route.

So there's there's some of these pieces that are you know coming in just the modernization of our of our traffic grid that we're seeing and knowing that we need fouler to go through there.

And so to me, this the tension and angst over 2.6 acres of being really high density, I don't think is is possible, but I think it all comes from what I see as is very similar um legitimate angst of change and and frustration of what one may have felt was was promised to them in perpetuity of the the foxes in the in the backyard and things like that.

Um all that to say this is uh I I really don't have a whole lot of concerns with with RB and you know going to incorporate staff's findings for my own.

I think they're they're strong, and um the only piece that I would um that I pointed out in the in the community development board meeting as well is just um criteria J, which says preserve value of existing structures and there's no existing structures.

Um I would say that criteria is neutral rather than met.

Um further discussion.

Okay.

Mr.

Moss, would you pull the commission?

Commissioner Sweeney?

No.

Commissioner Magic?

Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Motion is approved three to one.

We have one final item in front of us this evening.

Um, Commissioner Magic, if you could help us out, we will be appointing an individual to the police commission.

Um these are kind of quirky.

They are the city manager's appointment, but he can't make motions.

Um we Beth Korea, correct.

Correa.

Yep.

Okay.

Uh I move to a point.

Beth Korea with the term expiring.

April 30th, 2029 to the police commission.

Second.

This has been moved and seconded.

Mr.

Moss.

Will you please ask for public comment?

Oh, yes, this is an appointment that has public comment.

Any public comment in the room this evening on this police commission appointment.

Yes, Mayor.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Anthony Smith, and you can reach me at 406-209-0350.

As we stand on the threshold of hiring a new police commissioner, I want to speak to the philosophy of accountability.

We choose proposemen.

We have seen a heartbreaking rise in police violence recently, which signals that our system is in a state of disease.

The violence we see in our streets is often a symptom of a department where the human needs of its officers are not being met.

I believe that an officer who is truly supported mentally, emotionally, and through rigorous, empathetic training will not resort to the levels of violence we have witnessed or allow such violent acts to continue.

When we focus on punishment after the fact, we are treating the symptoms, not the illness.

If our officers are given the tools to manage their own trauma and stress, they can show up as the peace officers this community needs rather than as agents of force.

The role of the police commissioner in Montana is specifically to test with hearing appeals and overseeing discipline.

I urge you to appoint a leader who understands that nonviolence works.

We need a commissioner who views discipline as a chance to identify where an officer's training or personal support has failed them, who ensures that accountability means ensuring every officer has the mental and emotional resources to know that de-escalation isn't force and will choose it over violence.

Such a commissioner will model the peace we seek by demonstrating to the department that bosons values heal Bozeman values healing over retribution.

By hiring a commissioner who recognizes that violence is a result of unmet needs, you are choosing a path of safety for both our residents and our officers.

Let's move away from the violent cycles of the past and toward a Bozeman where everyone's needs on both sides of the badge are met.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further public comment requests on the police commission appointment?

Second request in the room.

One final request in the room.

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any requests online?

I'm showing no requests online, Mayor.

Okay.

Thanks for catching that.

Um close the public comment and bring it up here.

Um we've got a motion.

We've got a second.

I think we're just pulling the commission.

Commissioner Magic.

Hi.

Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Aye.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Motion passes four to zero.

Any further FYI from the commission?

Yeah.

Yeah, Commissioner Magic.

Um I was just going to talk real quick about last week's walk at Bozeman Creek.

Uh really well attended.

Commissioner Sweeney was there, as was um Jim Madden and Steve Noble of City Bozeman Creek.

Um we walked from City Hall to Bogard, and Commissioner Sweeney went beyond to the linear trail.

Uh a couple things struck me, not only just kind of the excitement of the people and learning.

Um Mark in the audience was also there.

Um just uh the commitment, the passion that we saw, particularly from Jim and Steve.

Um, but people just kind of interest in learning more and excitement about this um plan, our vision plan we're working on.

Um there were some things.

I mean, it there's reason we're doing a vision plan because this section of Creek um has been forgotten in many ways.

There's this weird tunnelization.

Uh there was a tremendous amount of trash.

Commissioner Sweeney and I parked at Bogart Park, walked this way, and picked up two bag fulls, yellow bag fulls.

A lot of it was in the lot behind City Hall here that's privately owned, but I think neighborhood services is gonna help with that.

There was um graffiti on one of the bridges, and the downtown Bozeman partnership took care of that fairly quickly.

There was a weird grease bin outside one of the restaurants about 10 feet from the creek.

There is a drainage pipe going into the creek that no one really knew where it was coming from or what it was doing, but it was a hydrant, like fire hydrant flow of water.

Um so some stuff that, you know, we yeah, I think as a community need to work on.

And I'm glad that we're doing it through this vision plan and this kind of commitment to treat our creek better than we have here in recent past.

Um three good things.

There are art installations, three of them, thanks to Mount Time Arts.

That was terrific.

Uh, if you want to know more about the vision plan effort, you can go to the engaged Bozeman website.

There is a public activity plan for June 2nd, and that should be kind of exciting.

And last thing, I've got to get this in.

So from City Hall to Bogart Park through the linear trail to Keggy and beyond, like through the golf course, not once in that couple mile strip.

Is there any sign that says Bosman Creek?

Thank you.

Yeah, um, just to add to that, uh the really powerful takeaway for me was that last little bit after Bogart Park and going into some of the near um neighborhoods surrounding Bogart Park and Bozeman Creek neighborhood.

Um just seeing the vulnerability to flooding.

Um that is gonna be uh topic uppermost in my mind as we go through this uh plan.

So yeah, excited for the June 2nd event.

Um and then I did just have one other FYI that I wanted to mention.

Um last week I attended uh realtors housing update and was surprised to learn in speaking with um several realtors, but one in particular.

There are a lot of single-family homes under the 400,000 mark.

Right now, they are attached homes, but they're still a single family home.

And so, you know, I wonder if we need to start doing some work to sort of correct this narrative.

Like a lot of people, young folks just assume they'll never own a house.

So they don't even look.

And actually there might be more of them that could get on the ladder than think.

So I don't know.

I'll be thinking about ways to interface with realtors and sort of change that dynamic, you know, a little bit away from the crisis narrative.

So just one last thing.

Um last night, Commissioner Deputy Mayor Fisher and I attended a traffic safety meeting out at the Pire Station 3 next to the regional park.

Um it too was really well attended.

I think a number of great takeaways that I'm not gonna talk about tonight, but I think for the future stuff we can kind of bring to the table to just once again kind of make some changes regarding our traffic safety.

Thanks.

Any FYF from staff?

I just want to respond to um Commissioner Sweeney's comment.

Um she and I discussed this idea.

Um I meet with the uh it's used to be GAR, now it's Southwest Montana realtors, um, Cindy Sigs every month, and she uh is trying to provide that list of homeownership opportunities and in single family uh condos and um townhomes.

And uh it's it's it does not yes, housing is still expensive in Bozeman, but there are opportunities for folks who um want to get into the four and five hundred thousand dollar range and own there are opportunities out there.

So I discussed this with um both the assistant city manager and Britt Fontenau, uh, who runs our housing program with Brian, and we're gonna try to figure out how to share that information with the public in a way that um would uh uh maybe change the story for some.

Maybe they don't know that those opportunities exist out there, and I think as a part of our housing program, telling the story of our housing program, that would be a really important piece of information to have in there.

So we are working on it, and thanks, Alison, for that great idea.

Great.

Um seeing no further business to come before the postman city commission, this meeting is adjourned.

Goodbye.