Shall we go?

Okay.

Good evening and welcome to the June first meeting of the Community Development Board.

Uh, the Community Development Board Development Board is a seven-member citizen board, comprised of volunteers appointed by the City Commission that fulfills the requirements of state law.

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

Final decisions are typically not made here.

Thank you for joining us.

We welcome the presence of those here in the City Commission room.

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

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

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

Find this meeting under the upcoming events list and click on the copy of the meeting and agenda.

It is highlighted in blue.

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

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

Staff will call on you by name.

Please note that we will take public comments from those physically present here first, and then we'll uh ask those joining online to participate.

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

These are for viewing and listening only, and you will be unable to provide public comment using any of these methods.

You can dial in and listen to the meeting.

You'll find the phone number and access code under section A of the agenda for the meeting under the V video conference heading on the city's website as described above.

You can watch this meeting on Cable TV channel 190.

And finally, you can stream this meeting on your computer, go to Bozeman.net, click on departments, then on the City Commission, then on live stream and videos, find this meeting under the upcoming events list, and click on View Live event.

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

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

With that, call this meeting to order.

Do a roll call.

Maybe score around the dais we'll start with the mayor.

Sure.

Joey Morrison.

Jason Delmu.

Ben Lloyd.

Markie.

Lauren Mike Chow.

Eric Bonnett.

City staff present.

Sam Sexteter.

Chris Saunders.

Great.

Thank you.

Any disclosures this evening regarding anything?

Agenda items primarily.

None.

Okay.

Approval of the minutes.

Do we have minutes to approve?

I'm having a hard time getting my agenda.

I've been technical problems.

Not today.

We've been having some struggles with the minutes.

It's everywhere.

So as soon as we get those resolved, you'll have a batch of them appearing on the agenda.

Great.

Thank you.

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

Memory served.

I did look at the agenda.

Um special presentations.

No.

One action item.

One action items.

Somebody read it for me.

Would you?

Sure.

Thank you.

A text amendment to revise division 38.330, wireless facilities, section 38.710.160.

Submittal materials for telecommunications and division 38.800 definitions within chapter 38 of the Bozeman municipal code, application 26074.

This is a public hearing and is now open.

We are acting in the capacity of you are officially acting in your capacity as the planning commission.

Planning commission moved through all of the old responsibilities, and so any uh actions that you take from this point forward on um amendments to the code or the text of chapter 38 will be heard as the planning commission.

Okay.

And now we are at the point in the process where the staff will give its presentation.

We will.

And so we will turn that over uh first of all uh to uh Jen with the uh city attorney's office, and uh we also have Bailey Minnick online, who is one of our planners who can assist in the presentation.

Okay.

Sam is this the clicker.

Yes, it is.

Oh, yes, it is great, excellent.

Thank you.

All right.

Good evening, Chair Lloyd, members of the planning commission.

My name is Jennifer Guitari.

I'm here from the city attorney's office, and I'm here tonight to provide you with a legal overview of proposed changes to the Bozeman Municipal Codes Wireless Facilities section.

Um we may all enjoy getting away, getting off the grid without cell coverage, but we all understand that robust cell coverage is vital to a robust community.

As our community grows, so too will the need for enhanced cell coverage.

As a reminder, consistent and reliable cell coverage is not only necessary for our public safety professionals performing services for our community, but it's imperative for our schools, educating our children, banking institutions providing services to local businesses, and um our health care providers providing care to our family and loved ones.

So, in short, having good cell coverage is good for our community.

The city, through these proposed amendments, continues to seek to regulate wireless facilities to the extent that it is permitted to do so.

However, federal law um mandates most of what we can do.

So we are fairly limited in how we can regulate.

So it's important to keep that in the back of your mind as we go through some of these proposals.

A little bit of background for you the present wireless code was adopted in 1998 in response to changes in federal law.

That means there has not been a comprehensive review of our wireless and telecommunications code in nearly 30 years.

A lot has changed.

And because telecommunications law is so wide and vast, it's also a very technical specialized area of law, the city attorney's office determined that we needed a specialized consultant to help us in revising the code to ensure that the revision revisions we would propose are compliant with federal law.

Since March 2025, we've been uh diligently and methodically working with telecommunications consultants to get to the point today, which is um providing you with the amendments to the code.

So I do want to generally direct the planning commission to the staff report and the proposed ordinance attached to the memo for more granular details of the changes that are being recommended to the code.

Tonight, I'm just going to discuss with you three key points of the most salient points of the revisions that we are or amendments that we are proposing.

So we're going to be looking at new section 3833050, which will govern, we propose to govern application review processes.

This is all federally mandated.

We'll be looking at new section 38330 060, again, more federal mandates regarding exempt wireless facilities.

And then we'll look at the revisions to section 38 710 160, which we did have in our code, but will now, if if adopted by the commission, will include some more federal requirements.

So looking first at 3833050, our application review process, as I explained, federal law has a heavy hand in this area of law.

What you see in this section of this new section we're proposing is colloquially or in the industry called as shock clocks.

So shock clocks are essentially the timeline or deadlines by which an application must be processed.

We do not have a say in changing this uh the shock clock deadlines or the timelines.

Um we have to follow what the feds tell us are the timelines.

And so within 050, we've got three key subsections, eligible facilities requests, small wireless facilities, and large wireless facilities.

Now there's a whole other definitions part of the code, and that's also included in this ordinance that contains some definition changes or inclusions that we need to have, one of them being eligible facilities requests that was not previously in our code.

Um so just to summarize, an eligible facilities request is essentially a streamlined process when providers want to upgrade or make changes or modifications to existing wireless cell towers or base stations.

So the feds have created these time frames for each of these types of facilities, eligible facilities requests, so the modifications, small wireless facilities, which are defined in the code, and then large wireless facilities.

Additionally, the there are some remedies or um avenues for relief for the applicant if the city does not abide by these um mandated time frames.

And that is all contained in 050.

The next new section that we are proposing is 38 330 060, exempt wireless facilities.

So this is a short list of federally mandated facilities is what I like to call them that are exempt from all of the city's regulations.

Um they they still would need to get I think a building code and a building permit, but all the other requirements are not um expected of them.

So two examples we have here are are particular, certain government-owned facilities and then temporary facilities erected during a state of an emergency.

So these facilities are permitted to be exempt.

And then 38710160, submittal materials for telecommunications.

So uh my understanding is 710 um governs submittal materials and requirements for the community development department, and within that it includes a subsection for telecommunications.

Now we've have kind of said over and over how telecommunications is um really governed by the feds, and it's sort of this like unique unicorn.

Um we have a specific um specific uh submittal materials that are required for telecommunication and wireless facilities that are governed by federal law and that must be included in an application in order to be compliant with federal law.

So the chart that you see in the proposed ordinance for uh 710 160, there was previously a chart there, um, but we've completely reconstructed it so that the categories are going to be compliant with what is federally mandated.

And then just to kind of help you out, if you're looking at the chart on the slide, you'll see I just tried to briefly give you some categories of where I think most of those um submittal materials fall under.

Um the city published three public notices instead of the required two to make sure that there was adequate public notice on this amendment.

As of tonight, we have not received any public comment.

Um, and on the slide you'll see um Bailey's proposed motion.

And this concludes uh my presentation, and I'm happy to answer if you have any questions that you may have about the the legal changes to the ordinance, and if not, thank you for your time this evening.

Any questions?

Mr.

Del Meo.

Yeah, quick question.

Oh, I saw there was a couple of like uh illustrative uh tables or diagrams that have been taken out.

Is that because that's substantially not allowed anymore?

Or why were those taken out?

Do you mean the um the pictures?

Yeah, so we updated it, so um, and we moved things around.

So one of the nice things about having a telecommunications um specialist consultant was they could tell us what is actually happening in the industry, which we might not be up to speed to in Montana.

Um so um those were moved to the definition section, and now instead of sort of those line drawings, they're actually photographs to give a better uh description, visual description of what those facilities would look like.

Okay, great, thanks.

Additional questions, Eric.

I'm curious.

Uh you mentioned that uh you know the city's ability to regulate is you know largely constrained by the feds.

I'm curious if there are any significant areas that uh the city would be permitted to regulate that it's opting not to.

Let me see if I'm understanding your question.

Is there any area that we have local authority to regulate, but we're opting not to?

Yeah, any major, I'm sure there's little things here and there.

Not that I'm aware of.

And as we were going through the um ordinance writing and drafting with the consultants, um it there was it was a constant communication of like um, and of course I can't think of what specifically now, but we would say like we would like to include X, right?

Do we have that leeway to include X, or we would like to keep Y, which is in our already in our code?

Is it um in conflict with the code?

Right.

So we did do that check.

Um, and so to the extent that we could, we kept um the power that the little power that we had in in being able to regulate.

Okay.

Yeah, so I mean, I think one thing that I noticed was um that uh the old language in several places referenced that the the kind of um I don't know, static treatment articulation would be kind of uh incongruence with a residential neighborhood if it was sited uh within a residential neighborhood.

And it seemed like that was struck and was just kind of turned to be like opaque, you know, like visually opaque as opposed to you know, a kind of residential in character, which I'm assuming is something that is we're not to ask about it.

What was the first part that you said?

So I missed.

I can find the the specific um section if that's all.

Was it about the opaque fencing?

Yeah, and I think some of that and the way that the kind of enclosure, the on-ground enclosure, uh there's some language.

Like the stealth versus the concealed, some of that language, and we did um have some discussions internally about that.

Um you may have noticed in the overall UTC update.

Uh as much as possible, we removed um imprecise language, and so that was simply continuation of that.

One of the things that's especially in the realm of telecommunications, you need to have very clear direct type standards, not well, if the staff thinks it's a good idea, then type standards.

And so uh we tried to be more specific wherever possible, keep the intent and purpose of the original standards, but clarify the language.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, that makes a lot of sense to me.

Especially as a planner.

I do think that you know, if I were a telecommunications person, I'd probably be like, great, I'm gonna build a concrete masonry unit enclosure.

Um relatively low cost, very durable.

Uh and I would argue not at all in kind of residential character.

Um as opposed to many other materials that might be available.

Um, I'm curious.

I guess if staff had it seems like you thought about this aspect of making it, you know, kind of binary, you know, it's opaque or it's not.

Um but I think just you know, when these are cited in residential neighborhoods, that's you know, there's kind of two main concerns that I think the public has.

One is house look, and the other is that you're gonna impact my health.

Um, the health piece is definitely something that is squarely under the federal regulation, not ours.

Um the aesthetic piece, uh interestingly enough, um, the majority of the locations where any of these kinds of um equipment enclosures have been placed in uh residential areas, most of them have gone in parks, and so we've actually been able to do a lot of work with the owners of those facilities because we're the landowner, not because of any kind of regulatory authority that we have.

Um of the challenges uh that we discussed in this is um the opinion of what constitutes a residential character in this town, probably could include a center block building in a metal sided building and uh just about any other material you could come up with, yeah.

Um so it became kind of tricky to, you know, it must be materials of a building within X feet, or and then why did you pick that many feet?

And so you just get to this endless round of but why did you pick that?

And um so we ended up with the languages you have before you.

Sure.

And then then kind of that leads to a kind of another segue question or related question.

Um I think I also noticed that some of there's a uh kind of a reference to uh landscape screening that I think was struck as well too.

So could you describe you know kind of what what was required around this you know potential metal or concrete enclosure in landscape-wise, and what's how any of that changed?

Sure, uh there was uh an expectation, believe it was um up to four to six feet, and that needed a certain level.

The problem here with these kinds of facilities they don't have irrigation, um, and so the plants don't generally thrive very well, and so you're asking someone to do something which either you're dispatching a water truck multiple times a week for years to get them thriving and established, or you end up with something that just becomes an enforcement nightmare because you can't keep them alive.

Um, so if you're talking about um you know a co-located facility on the roof of somewhere, then obviously that's different perhaps because you have a host site that has other facilities available.

Uh, the mall, for example, has one of these in their parking lot.

Um, but if it's a truly freestanding facility, then it seemed like that was a complication, and then we're also looking hard at the question of where do we put um landscaping, it all takes water.

We are very keenly aware of the demand for water, and so we want to try and not be asking for things that aren't necessarily going to be the most effective use for that resource.

So several different pushes and pulls there.

Okay, great.

Thank you both for answering my questions.

And curious what other members think about these issues.

Yeah, so it looks like you might be talking about like on page eight where it says exterior facade materials and the character of equipment compounds used in residential areas must be of or must be materials commonly used in the immediate area, and then struck through was the architectural design of the exterior of the shelter, must be compatible with the surrounding residential structures.

Is it those kinds of changes or what you were seeing?

Yes, yeah.

Do you on that for that first uh sentence about the this is the question for staff and legal um I mean it seems implied that since we're talking about exterior facade materials of the equipment compound, um and regular requirement that they must be materials commonly used in the immediate area, um is it worth putting they must be facade materials commonly used?

Because I mean, would someone be able to say like I mean, this isn't the point that we don't know, someone could be like, Oh, there's sidewalks everywhere, it's concrete, it's natural concrete.

There are sidewalks everywhere, we hope.

Um, that would be a clarification you could suggest, yes.

Okay, and then I guess and so the upshot then is this that um these kinds of determinations like compatible with the surrounding or compatible you know, residential structures or compatible with the neighborhood that that's the kind of sort of subjective determinations that you're purposely trying to pull away from.

We are compatible can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people.

So putting specifically this is the kind of stuff we're looking for, materials, uh proximity gives uh much more reliable, we believe, guidance than just it be compatible, which may have nothing to do with what's in the vicinity, and it is interesting.

We've seen a number of these, not just telecom facilities, but other kinds of utilities.

There's uh an amazingly wide range of pre-manufactured um enclosures for these kinds of things that actually look really good.

Um, somebody's put some work into it.

They realize these can be intrusive, and so I think there's been over the last 30 years or so since the Telecommunications Act passed a lot of uh improvement in the industry to try and realize the impacts they have and just voluntarily address those.

We don't just want to specify the uh the fake the fake evergreen tree uh approach.

If you can find me a hundred and fifty-foot evergreen tree in this town, we might talk about it as a as a replacement, but uh we we didn't come up with any examples of that.

I think that's good for my questions.

Additional questions.

I have two.

In the exempt category, there's emergencies, which I get, and there's certain government buildings.

What are those certain buildings?

Why isn't just government buildings?

Let me pull up that section of the code.

Um I don't know if you had an opportunity to look at 060.

Um what I had on the screen was really just a summary.

Sure.

Um, and I couldn't read it to you, but it's um for the government-owned facilities, we have um those which are um upon declaration of by emergency, which I think was the second one, um, and then a government-owned wireless facility facility erected for the purposes of installing antennas and ancillary equipment to provide public communications for public health and safety.

So it's very specific examples.

Um then this is a temporary wireless facility upon the deck of a state of emergency or determination of public necessity.

Um except that such facility must be.

So they're really for those three subcategories, they're get they're pretty specific in what it can be, and I it was just a general catch all.

Okay, I I understand.

Thank you for that clarification.

The other question I have is what you just mentioned, Chris, is that these can be in general intrusive.

We spent a lot of time up here talking about how things look and feel and character and all this.

And is there um anything, and you also describe some new approaches that are good?

Is there anything that gives confidence in in that process?

I mean, some of these are kind of honor system market um or sort of best practices.

If someone comes in and doesn't want to do that, um, what are the processes for making sure it fits?

Well, part of it is since we adopted regulations for telecom in 96, we deliberately chose a path to make the outcome we want the simplest, fastest path to get there.

So for example, if you go up on uh Davis between Oak and Baxter, there's fire station number three, and it has one of those big, really obvious facilities, 911 fire station, exactly what you would expect to see those kinds of intensive facilities.

Right across the street is a church.

The church also has a facility, but theirs is neatly encased in the steeple, and unless you know it's there, you will never see it, but it functions just fine.

So the those kinds of concealed facilities have a faster review process and more permissive placement.

So we we tried to hang some carrots out there, so that it's um uh desirable for the facilities simply to go the direction that we want them to go.

Um depending on where you're at.

If you're in uh the NCOD area, we do still have some latitude there under that authority.

Uh it's not as robust as we might do for some other facilities, but it's still there.

So we have those kinds of tools that we can work with.

Um at some point we've exhausted what we can do because it's federally driven.

Yeah, okay.

Um, one of the fundamental rules that we work within is if our regulation prohibits the delivery of service.

Yeah, then we need to back off our regulation.

Um we cannot basically say you can't have a facility here.

That doesn't mean we have to let somebody put anything they want.

The code is written, and Jen and the consultants did a bunch of work along with Bailey to ensure that part of the material that they provide with their application is basically show us you did a good faith effort to site these things properly.

And with the advantage of some taller buildings around town, uh some of the rooftops have become available that previously would have required a very tall independent support structure.

Um, and so that's changing some of that dynamic as well.

Okay, thank you for that.

Any other questions, comments?

Do we have a planner presentation or is that it?

No, that's it.

Okay.

Just the ordinance.

Okay, you can ask Bailey a question, she is online.

She's online.

Yeah.

Any questions for Bailey?

Where are you, Bailey?

I'm I'm here, even though you can't see me.

Hopefully, you can hear me.

Can hear you.

Yeah, I I personally think Jen did a great job.

So unless you guys have questions, I'm just here for support.

Okay.

Eric.

I'm just kind of thinking about the questions I asked before, and it and I think that I mean it all makes sense to me.

I do think there are some other places in the code.

For instance, you know, thinking of the you know, the building across the parking lot for better or for worse, it you know, has these trellises because they have this big blank wall, right?

And there's a requirement in the code that requires buildings to address large expanses of blank wall in various ways, mostly with plants, but it could also be with murals.

Um I don't know, it just feels to me that if we're kind of getting rid of the idea that they need to think in any way about the character of the context into which they're putting this thing, and we're also taking away a requirement for landscaping, which makes sense.

I do think there are other ways that there might, I think there could be an opportunity to um make sure that there's the least common denominator ugly boxes and insert into some neighborhood somewhere, you know, and I think you know what what you're talking about, Chris, of kind of making the better thing easier, um, I think is great.

Um, and so I do think there could be a way that says, okay, if you're gonna do some you know, monolithic blank wall, you know, you need to either add some pattern or add some art or you know, do something like that that um might still be fairly objective, but also you know, kind of objectively prevent the big blank box as well as incentivize them to do something even and even better than that.

But I guess that would be my thoughts on that.

No, I do appreciate that.

And uh Bailey, check me if I'm mistaken.

But um, if somebody's building a freestanding facility and it reaches the threshold of a site plan, then site plan standards apply, which would include blank walls.

Um, so um, you know, there are certain dimensional limits before that kicks in.

So depending on the if it was a really large facility, it very well may need to address that.

If it's very small, probably under the threshold.

Yeah, I think what I'm saying, which that makes sense, but um those, as I understand the blank wall elements in the code currently, they're largely designed around a building that has windows and doors and the separation between windows and doors.

My assumption is that these structures will have one opaque gate, really, more than a door.

So I think the same, you know, it's a smaller structure, so the same dimensional standards and feet probably aren't proportionally appropriate for how one would perceive it as being blank.

Right, right?

Like it might only be 20 feet tall and 20 feet wide.

It's still a pretty big concrete, you know, uh block wall next to someone's house, even though it might fit within the dimensional standards of uh you know, a blank wall in the context of a site plan.

I'm, you know, you're much more educated on the intricacies of of how that would apply, but I think I guess that'd be my feedback for um the planner on the line is to maybe consider that um as an option.

Yeah, thank you.

Anything else?

Those wrapping of traffic control boxes comes to mind to get blank box and make it something, anyway.

I don't see anyone for public comment, but I'll make the call for public comment on this agenda item.

And we will go to an online source.

We have no one dialed in tonight.

No public comment at all.

Okay.

Like, I'll also clarify a question to staff.

I mean, I guess my impression is unless we maybe make a motion for a certain change or something.

I mean, this is a draft, and I imagine that this draft will make its way to the commission in roughly two weeks, unedited, unless we make some sort of specific motion.

Correct.

Um the proposed motion here reflects the ordinance that is before you without any amendments uh that are proposed from the commission.

So if you planning commission did want to, um you would just need to make that motion.

To follow up on your question, if you have specific language, we're happy to hear that.

If you would like us simply to investigate a particular thing and see if we can find um uh an improvement to address that that also is consistent with law, we're happy to do that too.

Yeah, I mean, I was mostly asking, I guess, for the benefit of it seemed like suggestions were being made, but uh was thinking like we don't really have like an applicant here that's that's like you know, a developer applicant that might make an adjustment based on a comment.

Like either we probably make a motion and um something specific gets flagged for the commission or I mean, or I think that probably our discussion here just doesn't really become official.

I mean it's an official discussion, but I don't think anything's gonna happen to our comments unless we possibly make a motion.

The only thing I would add is that often when an item is coming before us, um, one, I would say this board probably more than any other board, almost every commissioner watches the discussion of these because it often then you know turns into an item that comes in front of us.

And so we often usually watch the respective boards discussions.

Um the other piece uh pretty much every time an item is comes before us, the staff will present what was the discussion and what were the points that came up and potential amendments or solutions from that.

I do think just for the sake of clarity, if there's amendment language or even a general parameter that can give us something to run with.

Okay, well, we probably need a motion uh in order to have uh discussion and possible amendments, amendments.

Okay, the motion.

So I guess I mean I'm really curious to hear what the rest of you think.

Uh so I guess we could make a motion and then talk about it.

I guess for my part, I've been thinking about this aspect for you know a total of five to ten minutes.

I think some people have been thinking about this for a long time, and so that so I really value their input.

So I at least I would hesitate to, you know, like here's what the language should be.

I guess for where I'm sitting, it's like I said, I'm curious what the other five of you think, and and and like I said, I would move that um staff uh consider um opportunities to address the kind of aesthetic, yeah, and contextual impact on residential neighborhoods that seems to have been reduced in this draft from the prior draft, and to me seems um like potentially advantageous to incorporate.

So we'll start with the main motion, then we will uh move on to that exact topic.

Sounds good.

I'm happy to make it.

Um having reviewed and considered staff report draft ordinance, public comment, all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 26074 and move the community development board in its capacity as the planning commission to recommend approval of the amendments.

Ah, I don't get to make motions anymore.

Right.

Yeah, good job.

Second, okay.

Discussion.

I don't have anything to add beyond what was incorporated in the staff report.

I appreciate the staff's presentation.

Um, been hearing rumblings about needing to um catch up with some of the changes that the feds have cast down.

So I'm happy to support this from this body, but um excited to hear about proposals for future revisions.

Um my only potential motion would be um whether just to add that clarifying uh adjective facade um in the section that we were talking about.

So but I would say um the so this is in section 38 330 040 B1 F or the first sentence um uh talking about equipment shelters, and uh the first part says exterior facade materials, and then the second part of the sentence just says must be materials commonly used in the immediate area.

So the potential amendment would be to add facade before that second uh materials.

Um I would also ask staff if if they think that's worth making a motion, or if that's something they just would feel like they could just make that edit if they feel like it's uh worth worth the clarification.

Um I understand what the concern is um and the um desire to have as much um clarity as possible for applicants coming in.

Um I don't think it's necessary, but I think um it could be helpful.

Um which doesn't that sounds like I'm giving you the it depends standard answer from a lawyer.

Um but again I think given the the heightened concern that you may have expressed about applicants coming in and doing what they would like to do and wanting to maybe give them a little bit more um guardrails, um, then I would understand.

But as written, um I do think that the statement is clear, but okay.

So you're not concerned that someone would point to a commonly used material that's not necessarily an attractive facade material and be like, well, the sentence says materials commonly used in the meet area, and so whatever concrete is commonly used.

I think that there's a possibility, um, but I would leave it, you know, to the planning commission if you think that um given the concerns that it sounds that you're expressing about wanting to make sure that there are more for lack of a better word, like direction or guard guardrails um to put that in.

What about the converse?

I'll ask um our uh our planning uh staff.

Um is there is there a uh concern that if if we set facade materials that makes it somehow too restrictive and that there's some attractive or desired options that we'd be somehow ruling out because it's not technically a facade material, even though it might be uh material commonly used in the media area.

I think um if we're working my way through the question uh you might find it more suitable to you to say something like the appearance of materials commonly used in the air because it may not be honest to goodness hardy plank or other cementitious board it may be a cast material but it has the look the feel and it's shaded to to have that appearance um yeah it tends to be you're right you could um you're about to trigger my rant about the uh fake wood grain of aluminum garage doors yeah well um there's an up and a downside to just about everything um you know one of the options looking in the code quickly while the conversation was happening um murals are an allowed use for blank walls um so if somebody wanted to do one of the building wraps somebody mentioned the um traffic boxes um the the wraps are what they did in the parks um park themed wraps so there is a lot of latitude there uh for how people address these things so I think if you just said you know the foot the a similar appearan appearance to the materials will figure out the exact wording um you'll probably cover 99.9% of the likely circumstances consistent with that is is I want to add the word architectural in there believe it or not um architectural appearance but that there is a again a faster track if if um a good faith effort is undertaken to be compatible consistent with the neighborhood you are in the fast lane conceptually yeah I don't know how you otherwise enforce you know encourage that yeah and some of that is just based on the size of the facility um there's not like a faster fast and a faster track unfortunately um but yeah we can we can get there and we have three practicing architects so I'm I'm guessing that uh you folks could put on your if I was reading this hat how would I know how to apply it right and uh give us a some good direction on whether you think it's needing some help and if so how it might be a made better.

Does this direction need to happen within the next 30 seconds?

Um no the commission hasn't voted on anything that we scheduled for another few weeks.

Okay.

So um if you need to or wish to consider for a while and then just uh you know comments at Bozeman.net works for everybody.

Okay.

We're happy to happy to take suggestions that way.

Great thank you.

Any other discussion oh I'm sorry that's now comments at Bozeman MT.gov.

Okay, the right email.

I think that my yeah I just asked the yeah architects among us if they have any thoughts one way or the other whether it's it's worth uh if if we think that there's any real risk there.

Personally I think that's section B should be useful which I'm sorry I thought we were just like in discussion.

I personally think that section B might be what we want to focus on clarifying it does start with all installations must be as visually unobtrusive as is feasible and I feel like that might be a little bit subjective what's feasible to one person isn't always feasible to another especially with builders in town here.

Um, but also if you read on um existing structures must be visually incorporated into the structure or background by use of architectural elements, color screening or other concealment methods.

Maybe we just add like commonly used vernacular materials into here and cover all of our bases.

I don't know.

That's my first.

Which section B.

This is under aesthetics B, also section B or point.

Oh, I see.

Yeah, gotcha.

B1B.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I think just for clarity, was the motion specifically in regards to F.

Yeah, I didn't, and I didn't make it.

I was more like trying to investigate whether I thought it should be made or not.

But um, great.

Okay, I'm just trying to track.

But that subpart F is where I started my initial or that's where my focus was.

Yeah, I think that pointing out that that there's a requirement for them to be visually unobtrusive, this retained definitely makes me feel much more comfortable.

Um, and I think uh, or um member Delmu.

Um, I think for my part I'm kind of intrigued a little bit what um Chairman Lloyd was saying where, you know, I think this idea of architectural materials as opposed to industrial materials or something like that, right?

There's a distinction there, it's like it kind of belongs in the building.

Um but I but I do think that the emphasis on on appearance is is kind of appropriate because I could think of a lot of times where I mean I I totally dislike the wood grain on garage doors as much as you, but I think this is a place where I might think okay, like this isn't gonna get maintained very well.

So I want some material that looks great and can be forgotten about for 50 years and will still look okay after that, and that might be something that I would probably never put on a house, but might be appropriate for the situation situation.

So that is I guess my thinking, the kind of architectural appearance seem to be the two key elements of the definition.

Okay, so we're so is the uh upshot maybe that that first B1B that um member Mitro pointed out offers some initial guidance in this process, but then in the subpart app I was looking at that um the the possibly adding the word architectural before the second materials.

Is that what we're thinking?

Exterior facade materials uh and the character of equipment compounds used in residential areas must be architectural materials commonly used in the immediate area, maybe something along the lines of architectural maybe something along the lines of architectural materials of an appearance common in the immediate immediate area, right?

So it might be you know a cast concrete, that's not the same material that's used, but it's cast to look like wood or cement board or something like that.

So the emphasis being on the on appearance.

Should I repeat that?

Didn't that make sense?

So um, so exterior facade materials and the character of equipment compounds used in residential areas must be architectural materials of an appearance common in the immediate area.

Okay, it's a stab at it anyway.

Yeah, yeah.

Do you want do you want to make that motion since you just said it?

I mean, I think you you might just be able to incorporate what you just said as the motion for.

So I move to do that we changed what I just said.

I think what I was trying to ask was if there if you made an official motion, maybe wrap up that one.

Um, I didn't know you did it, okay.

That's what I was trying to figure out.

No, no, I was mostly trying to have a discussion about whether it was worth making it startlingly close.

Okay, that's where I was like, oh no, we're losing the vote, but as long as there wasn't an official motion made on F.

Right.

Okay.

Which but it sounds like now there is a motion on that.

And procedurally, it's an amendment to the original motion.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

And a motion to amend the main motion.

Right.

No, it's seconded, yeah.

Should it it was it will restate that?

Or these two days.

Okay.

So we're considering the the motion has been made.

Oh, the initial motion, that's what you're saying.

Sorry.

Wait, the one no, there wasn't the initial motion.

I seconded it.

Right, the main motion.

So this is a motion to amend the main motion to change 38, 330, 040, B1F to exterior exterior facade materials.

And the character of equipment compounds used in residential areas must be architectural materials of similar appearance as those commonly used in the immediate area.

So that would be the motion.

If there anybody moved and seconded.

Additional discussion.

I think we're ready to vote.

Well, I just want to say I personally would prefer to maintain the option for wireless operators to uh build facilities out of sod or straw bales, but majority of the others feel differently logs.

You built your house out of it first.

Well, it's got yeah, it should be like timber frames.

This is a great historically important sod roof in Bozeman.

So there is several.

All right, Sam, we ready for a vote.

Maybe I was troubleshooting some issues, so I missed something.

Um the original motion is that standing or are we replacing this?

We are amending it with the language that Mr.

Delmu put into your recording, but you can retrieve later.

All right.

So the main motion is the staff motion.

This is just an amendment.

Understood.

Yeah, okay.

And then so mover delme?

Uh aye.

Seconder.

Oh, he's not amendment.

Sorry.

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Board member Eggie.

Aye.

Board member Mitro?

Aye.

And Chairman White.

Aye.

Any other discussion or amendments to the main motion?

Seeing that.

So now we gotta vote on the main motion.

Now voting starting with the mayor.

Mover Morrison.

Hi.

Seconder Delmi.

Aye.

Board member Egggy.

Aye.

Board Member Mitro.

Aye.

Second or Bonnet?

Aye.

And Chairman Lloyd.

Aye.

Motion passes 6-0.

Both of them do.

The amendment and the motion.

Okay.

What else?

We have a uh public comment on agenda.

Yeah.

Public comment on non-agenda items.

Anything on log wireless facilities.

Nothing.

Okay.

Seeing none.

Nothing online, Sam.

Okay.

Nobody's dialing.

Okay.

Now we'll move on to next meeting, which is FYI discussion.

The uh June 15th meeting, which I will not be in attendance.

Okay.

Um June 15th.

We'll also have a text amendment.

Um, this is a couple of cleanup items from the UDC that we've identified.

One relating to dealing with uh some legacy issues with certain types of short-term rentals, and then also um in the B3 parking that is post-October 1st.

Um, in all of the moving around with the legislative changes in 2025, um there was a piece that got missed.

So we need to get that in place and have that.

So that will be before you.

Uh also before you uh will be a presentation and I believe a request for action on an update to the engage Bozeman framework.

Uh you may have seen the boards that are out in the hallway.

They're on Engage Bozeman, the website.

There's a dedicated page for this.

This is the general framework that kind of sets the uniform process across the city for um how the city engages with with the members of the community.

So uh that was adopted originally back in 2021.

Uh the laws changed in some ways, our communities continued to evolve.

We've changed technologies, and so there's a process underway to update that.

Kind of bridging between the Engage Bozeman and the Unified Development Code update.

We're going to be doing a webinar this week, June 4th at noon, on how to do an effective public comment, kind of with an eye towards understanding development review, but also more broadly applicable as well.

Just how to help folks understand how communications work best for them to communicate the points they wish to communicate.

Okay.

Any other FYI?

I found my agenda, which means it's time to adjourn the meeting.

We're adjourned.