Come on.

Thanks for having us.

Okay.

July 15th meeting.

After I turn my mic on.

Call the meeting to order.

All right.

Let's see.

Good evening and thanks for joining us.

Before we start the meeting, I'd like to remind folks of a couple things to make it easier for you to follow along and make public comment.

You can watch us in real time in several different ways.

Attend in person in the city commission room, stream us live on your computer by going to the meetings video page at Bozeman.net and clicking the view live event link.

You can watch the meeting on cable TV on channel 190.

You can also join us via video conference.

You'll find the link to join us by clicking on the calendar event for the meeting on Bozeman's main web page to find the City Commission agenda.

Or our agenda, click on the link to register and follow the prompts to enter the meeting.

Lastly, you can call in to listen.

You'll find the phone number for the video conference and access code on the agenda.

Please note this is for listening only, and you will be unable to give verbal public comment using this method of participation.

If you are joining us through video conference and are having connectivity issues, try exiting out of the meeting and coming back in.

If you continue to have issues, please remember you can also listen via the phone information streaming live on the website on cable channel 190.

If you would like to offer public comment this evening, there are three ways you can do that.

You can make your public comment in person here in the commission room.

If you are joining us through video conference, you can use the raise your hand feature.

When it is your turn to comment, staff will call you by name.

Please remember to go back in and lower your hand when you have finished making your comment.

You can always provide written comment public comment before the meeting by sending an email to comments at Bozeman.

We will hear in-person comments first, followed by those joining via video conference to allow time for remote attendees to queue up for comments.

Thank you.

And with that, if we can get a roll call.

Here.

Member Wilson.

Here.

Member Greckey.

Here.

Member Webster.

See if the unmute works.

Come on.

Here.

You're here.

All right.

Awesome.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you.

And we have a new member today.

President, my name is Lisa Wildhack.

Any disclosures today.

And changes to the agenda.

That's all right with you, Chair.

We would like to move FYI up on the agenda.

Yep.

Okay, a couple of FYIs this evening.

I would like to introduce our new board member, Lisa Walbacher, filling one of the seats requiring professional qualifications.

And recognize Michael Wiseman as our new chair of the historic preservation advisory board and Ashley Wilson as our vice chair.

Thank you both for serving.

And then the second FYI is for the general public and yourselves as well.

The City Commission is having a work session on zone edge transitions and building heights in August, August 25th.

And ahead of that, we're doing some engagement where you can meet residents who live next to high density development and learn about some of the impacts and brainstorm together how we could potentially address some of those impacts going forward.

We'll look at areas that have no transition between zones or between high density and low density construction because they're in the same zone.

We will look at the old version of the transitions regulations, and then we will look at illustrations of the new regulations just put in place and see if there's anything anybody thinks we should add to that.

So yeah, again, we're meeting in Beale Park at 6 p.m.

on Wednesday July 22nd, and then again the following week on Monday, July 27th.

Commissioner Magic will be joining for that one on the 27th.

Still working to get another commissioner to join us on the 22nd.

But yeah, please make room in your schedules, and it's open to everyone in the public, whether you have a ton of experience with zoning or zero experience.

So see you at Beale Park.

Thanks.

Two additional FYI items, one related to that.

We do intend to hold a spot on your HPAB agenda for August.

That's the August 19th meeting for a discussion of B3 height and zone edge transition.

So that's related topic to the walking tours.

And I'll turn it over to Chair Wiseman.

I think he had some thoughts about how he'd like to structure that potentially.

Yeah, so I had asked you guys if we want to have them give us the presentation or if we want to try to attend or watch the presentation to the community development board first so that our time is spent just asking questions if we need to, or making decisions and not having to spend the whole part of our meeting on the presentation.

And so I think the options I threw out where we could leave it where they give us a presentation.

We could try, we could not have them have it on our agenda and try to deal with it outside of this meeting, or we save that spot on the agenda for discussion if we need it, but try to watch or go to the presentation separately or you know during the community development board meeting so that we can get a jump on it and actually have some discussion prior to that.

Um and I I know um Alison had mentioned she liked and I this is where I'm at too holding that spot on the agenda.

So we have a set spot to talk to.

I think it's Aaron George, right?

It's gonna be here for that.

Um, but that everybody would try to get, and if you can't all do it, that's fine.

I can I'll be going or watching it later.

So at least some of us will be caught up and we can kind of contact people outside of uh our meeting to gather some thoughts.

But just want to see which way if you guys have a strong opinion about that.

Sounds good to me to watch beforehand and come to the meeting with the time on the agenda.

Yeah, I will not be attending August meeting, but I will plan to submit comments that will that can just contribute toward the board's discussion for that meeting.

So I will be watching the community development board meeting ahead of time.

August 3rd, 4th, 3rd.

They're Mondays, right?

Yeah, okay.

Ditto, I won't be present on August meeting, but can watch the um community development board and then submit comments.

Yep.

Jim, did you have any thoughts on that?

You might be muted.

Jim, can you hear us?

You have to unmute yourself.

Jim, we still can't.

Yes.

Oh, there we go.

Yep, I I'm here now.

Sorry, I just had a call come in that I ignored, and I think it screwed everything up.

Sorry.

You're still popular.

Oh, no.

Did you have a question?

Sorry, I didn't hear it.

Yeah, Jim, are you okay for uh holding a spot on our August agenda to discuss the uh building height zone edge transition?

But watch the presentation before our meeting, so they're not giving the presentation at our meeting.

Absolutely.

If I'm sure somebody will send that presentation out.

So I am very good with that.

Thank you.

All right.

Decided.

That's what we'll do.

Okay.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Great.

And then you bet.

One final FYI item.

Um, just because you are an advisory board, you may be interested to tune in to the city commission meeting next week.

They will be having a work session on advisory boards.

So just wanted to share that date with you in case you are available and interested.

And you can always watch the recording if you can't participate next week.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay.

Uh let's move on to what are we moving on to?

Oh, approval of minutes.

Sorry.

Can we get approval of last week's minutes or a motion to approve?

Um Rick Karen who gave public comment at the last meeting.

His last name is misspelled.

I don't know, they guess directed to that's all.

Couldn't we make a motion to approve with the update noted?

So I'll make the motion.

Second.

Hi.

Member Wilson.

All right.

Secondary Nicholas.

Hi.

Chair Wiseman.

Hi.

Member Brecken.

Yes.

Member Webster.

Hi.

And Member Weilbacher.

I'll abstain.

Okay.

Floor is open for public comment.

Is there any public comment in the room?

No public comment in the room.

Is there any public comment online?

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

No public comment.

Okay.

Then we'll move on to our first action item: public engagement summary and preview of layout for the updated design standards for the neighborhood conservation overlink district.

Yes.

Thank you, Chair.

This is Rebecca Harbage, Deputy Director of Community Development Department for the City.

And we are joined tonight by our consultants on this project, the Lakota group.

I believe several of their team are joining us online, so they'll be giving a presentation.

But before I turn it over to them, I just wanted to open with a couple remarks and some clarifications based on some of the feedback that we've been receiving on this project.

First, we have heard some feedback that perhaps this is a larger undertaking than was expected by some members of the public who've been participating.

And I did want to just clarify that this is an overhaul.

Second, what you'll see today from the Lakota group are some very early draft concepts.

So we did share some materials in the packet, and hopefully you've had a chance to look at those, but we are sharing information that is based on Lakota's experience and expertise combined with some community input going back again to the phase one of the local landmark project and the recommendations report that was adopted in I believe May of 2025.

What we shared and why we shared some draft concepts.

It's intended to address some of the concerns that we've been hearing along the way.

For example, making clear what's required versus what is a recommendation, figuring out ways to allow flexibility in some areas where it's appropriate, while also giving teeth to standards that will help protect the integrity of our historic structures where we want the type of teeth and the type of requirements in place.

This is totally incomplete.

So I want to just emphasize that these are very preliminary drafts that we're sharing with you.

And we did, I believe, share one example, which is addressing windows and how windows might be treated.

This is not meant to imply that that's all we will be looking at.

There are intended to be many sections of this report that we just have not had a chance to draft yet.

We're still gathering feedback.

Um we really wanted to share some drafts to give you an idea of the level of detail that we're thinking about, the way we're thinking about approaching some of these concepts, um, and also the layout that is being considered currently, so we can get your feedback on whether those items are going in the right direction.

And I do want to just say that there will be lots more opportunities for you to weigh in on more of the details as we draft additional sections of the report.

And then finally, um, this is something that we discussed quite significantly with our neighborhood focus group at a meeting last week.

Um, the issue of bulk mass and scale.

I'm sure that that is not something you are surprised to hear about.

That's a concern that has come up in, I would say, across all of our public engagement efforts.

And what I want to say is we hear those concerns.

Um, those are important topics for neighborhood character.

I want to just emphasize that.

I will pause after saying those are important concepts for neighborhood character.

We hear that in all of our public engagement.

Period.

We have not yet drafted the sections that will address things like additions, new construction, streetscaping, landscaping.

So those are some sections that may further address some of the concerns around bulk mass and scale that have been coming up.

I also would like to say that the question about you know what do we do?

How do we approach standards that further limit what base zoning allows is a larger policy question, and there are multiple ways we can approach that question.

We will be seeking feedback from commission and seeking direction from commission about how they would like to move forward with addressing those concerns.

Is it through the design guidelines and through the overlay district?

Is it by taking a look at the zoning districts themselves and how the map is laid out, or is it something that they consider to be settled because the conversation was recently had as part of the UDC project?

I'm not saying that city staff have an opinion on any direction.

We are going to be speaking with commission at the end of this month and getting some further clarification from them about how they'd like this to move forward.

But I do just want to say that up front that we're we're listening, we hear that these are big concerns, and our intent is to figure out how we will address them as we move forward with this project.

With that, I think I will turn it over to Saraj, and hopefully he will be able to share his screen and share his presentation.

Awesome.

Thank you so much, Rebecca, and good to see everybody again.

Um, and thank you for joining us.

I believe Doug will be sharing his screen.

There we go.

Awesome.

So Rebecca mentioned this earlier, but really our goal is to share where we are in the process and get your opinions and reactions before we kind of continue drafting some of these initial thoughts and initial ideas for the standards.

So before we dive into it, I just want to give us a quick overview of the project and summarize what we've heard so far from the community, and then after that, we'll introduce the overall structure and the framework of the design standards and walk you through the approach for the tiers, which we'll hear more about, and then at the end of it, we'll show more examples as we as we go forward.

So just as a brief introduction.

Yeah, I kind of touched on that.

Awesome.

The next slide.

Um, yeah, just briefly introducing the project team.

Um, there's myself, Doug, and uh Douglas Gilbert on the call.

Doug is Gilbert is a preservation architect and Lakota leading the planning, engagement, and document development of the design standards, and together we're kind of working closely with city staff throughout the process.

And I just wanted to quickly touch on the project goals, which we've shared with you all previously, but we have a few overarching goals with this process.

Right.

So first is making sure that we create a new set of new set of design standards and that they reflect today's preservation goals and practices, and also still respecting what makes Bozeman unique.

And also it's coordinating with the new landmark program and the updated UDC so that all these efforts kind of work together.

And also Rebecca touched on this earlier, but community feedback has been paramount for this process, and I will share a bit of what we heard so far.

But community feedback is really helping us shape this document and just making sure that these standards are easier to understand and easier to use for property owners and for everybody on this on this in this meeting.

So just a little bit about the process.

We've organized this work into a two-phase process.

First phase is really focused on understanding where things are at, understanding what the community has a stop of mind conducting our own research and doing a lot of the engagement as part of the initial phase.

And then in the second phase, which we're just about starting, that's where we start taking everything that we've learned and all this foundation of knowledge, and we start translating that into actual design standards.

That's where we are.

We're starting to test some of these directions that we have in mind, and we want to share that with you and get your opinion.

And engagement is going to continue into the second phase of the process, like Rebecca mentioned.

So for everybody on this call or in the room, stay tuned for more engagement.

Speaking of which, we've had a number of engagement touch points, and I've spoken with a ride wide variety of people throughout the process, and whether it was through interviews, neighborhood tours, listening sessions, open houses, neighborhood focus group, we did an online survey, and we're going to touch on some of these today, just to give you a sense of what we've heard.

And in total, we engaged with over 300 people, and that really gave us a good understanding of where things are at and what the consensus is so far.

And you're going to see some of some of what we heard is a bit of differing differing opinions, and some of what we heard were actually more so consensus.

So and I also want to highlight that some of you might think, oh, 300 people is not that much, but to be very frank for a project in a community of this size, and for this type of project, this is really considered frankly more than we anticipated.

So we're very happy with engagement results and numbers and participation so far, and we only hope for more.

And before I move on to stakeholder interviews, I also just want to mention that engagement is continuing, right?

Like even before this meeting, um, we received a whole host of um comments from the community, and so that alone is counted towards all the voices that we're hearing and all the um feedback that we're getting from the community.

And I think it was an easy 30-plus comments for today's session.

So this is really great.

The community is very aware and participating.

Um so the numbers are increasing by the day.

When it comes to the stakeholder interviews, um, and as we kind of maybe take a step back and look across all of the interviews that we had, um, which we have summaries of and which we'll post um summaries of um online soon.

We're preparing the engagement memorandum as we speak.

But just taking a step back, the some of the um themes that came up is that you know folks told us that context matters, and um it's it's really important for us and the NCOD.

They want to make sure that we have clear and predictable standards moving forward.

Um we want to make sure we understand what is regulatory versus what is not.

Um there is uh there is uh some we we heard some consensus about um contemporary architecture and and it the community uh is open to it as long as it's done well.

Um also folks recognize that different neighborhoods have different characters.

If we move on to the next slide.

I did mention the regulatory versus advisory, just being able to understand how are we mandating some of these standards moving forward.

We did hear about materials quality, um, that does matter, and maybe it is not the number one topic that everybody is talking about, but I think um folks in general recognize that materiality does contribute to the overall historic um character of a neighborhood.

They also mentioned that larger buildings will require greater design attention because they're taking up larger footprints, and they are overall contributing more to the overall character of any neighborhood that they're in.

So there's gonna be a need for stronger attention to larger buildings.

And overall, when it comes to the review process and COA process, we just want to make sure that it's more efficient, it's more proportional, and it's more predictable overall.

That portion we just covered was essentially interviews that we had.

But then moving on, um, we had larger engagement touch points with the community overall, whether it was an open house or um the survey that we put out.

And here I want to mention that um we had a whole host of different questions and different ways for participants to share their thoughts.

We had more than 30 questions overall, um wide variety of types of questions.

There was visual preference exercises where we were showing them sample visual character images, and they were kind of weighing in on whether or not they um like some of them or dislike some of them, and we'll talk about some of that.

There were open-ended comments, um, and in overall, it wasn't only residents, we also got property owners, business owners, and other stakeholders that um shared their feedback as part of the open house, which was in person or the um online survey.

And you'll see as I kind of go through some of the feedback that we got from the survey, a lot of it is um overlapping with what we heard from stakeholders during um our interviews.

But just as a uh a little bit of statistics, um we had about 248 um participants that had not attended the open house or the meeting that was happening that happened in person.

And um that is great for us because it helps us and helps us reinforce the fact that the online survey is reaching um more voices than simply an in-person event.

And 56% of the respondents that took that survey um act uh lived in the NCOD.

So we had about 44% of respondents that did not live in the NCOD.

So we all this also helps reinforce the thought that this project is um overreaching, and it's not simply um impacting people that live in the NCOD, but it just it helps it helps us know that it defines Bozeman overall as a community.

So one thing I didn't want to mention before I move on, and it just it just popped in my head is um when it comes to the survey, while a lot of people still participated, there was a critique that the survey was a little too long, and um it that was intentional because as I mentioned, we had had the open house that was in person, and we wanted to give the same exact opportunity for somebody that maybe didn't show up.

So all the questions that were at the open house were repeated in a community survey.

So um we didn't take any shortcuts, it was the same exact questions, um, even a few more additional questions that um helped us kind of get more feedback.

But yes, it was longer, um, but it at the same time we did allow people to skip certain questions if they don't wish to answer all the questions um in the survey, or if they didn't have an interest or didn't um have a specific answer to just answer what they wish to answer.

So it made it a bit more manageable.

So wanted to make sure I point that out.

Um, and then when it comes to the survey and the open house, there were overall six key takeaways.

Again, as I mentioned from previous engagement results, clarity is a big one.

Um we want to understand what is required versus simply encouraged.

Um we would like for the overall process to have more consistency, more enforceability of those standards goes without mention, but we want to be able to protect neighborhood character through compatible design, and this is the whole point of the process, right?

Um, stronger guidance on massing on um scale and transitions and making the document easier to navigate, and of course, being able to strike that um balance between contemporary design and historic preservation.

So what defines a neighborhood character?

That was one of the questions that we asked, and um there's two slides about it here.

The first slide that you'll see is kind of like a word cloud of all the um the majority of the responses that we got or the keywords that kind of surface to the top the most.

Um and uh human scale was one of them.

preservation so what defines a neighborhood character that was one of the questions that we asked and um there's two slides about it here the first slide that you'll see is kind of like a word cloud of all the um the the majority of the responses that we got or the are the the keywords that kind of surfaced the top the most um and uh human scale was one of them people were really uh consistent in describing um overall that it's it's not just about the building that defines the the neighborhood and its character it it goes beyond that so the scale the mature trees um the historic character front porches for some um architectural detailing and then you'll see a sprinkle of other things that um also popped up but maybe weren't mentioned as much as um those four or five things that I just talked about but overall detailing um walkability landscaping front porches it's it's a good mix and moving on to the next slide um here we tried to uh kind of just list them um all in in one place again building scale setback historic character streetscape and landscaping um but also I wanted to show on this slide that we have started illustrating some of your existing um the resources in your in your in your districts in your historic districts or in the NCOD overall just to kind of give you a sense of what the illustrations in um the design standards are going to look like they're very detailed um they're they're really trying to depict um the details that we are um hoping to preserve in the NCOD and the historic districts so some of the direct quotes that we got were that mature trees and tree canopies the diversity of housing types um places people um enjoy walking right and then the patterns of development that matters a lot when it comes to urban planning and overall um character defining features of a community all right this was another question we asked folks about their overall experience securing um COA and here I do want to note that um at the top of each um of these images you'll see that um we have highlighted the number of respondents right that have actually participated in this question and that is um we just wanted to make sure you understand how many answers versus how many potentially skipped from the total number of respondents and and again as I mentioned earlier we did let them know that they can skip questions especially if they have attended the open house um they really don't need to answer the same question twice so um here we wanted to understand how people's experience overall has been with the COA um process as it is us today and yes we got 123 responses and one of the first things that stands out is that really there isn't one single dominant experience about a quarter of respondents 23% described that the process was positive and they said that they've been able to obtain a COA um successfully and generally found that the process was straightforward.

At the same time we have 20% of um respondents that reported having challenges and their comment frequently mentioned like the amount of time involved or the need for multiple revisions or potentially also we heard something about uncertainty of expectations and potentially difficulty navigating the process overall but there was an even larger number 28% that um they are familiar with the COA process but they have never personally gone through it.

So that tells us um that there is a significant audience that understands preservation requirements in theory but they just haven't had that firsthand experience which is also fine and then finally 29% selected other and those really they didn't rather fit in any of the specific categories but um but with their written comments they were able to share maybe richer insight into um where you know what their overall um uh experience or understanding is of the COA process so here with um this slide we are showing some of the comments that we got so we reviewed the comments overall and we just highlighted a few that you'll be able to see all of the comments um with the memorandum here you know some respondents said we need greater clarity um they wanted clear direction overall on you know which standards apply again um which standards apply but when it comes to different projects or um you know maybe a step by step instructions of for navigating the overall application process um some comments pointed at um the fact that some of the standards are maybe rather a bit qualitative and so making it difficult for applicants to know whether a proposal is going to be approved um or if it's going to meet the requirements or not so before they invest the time they kind of were hoping for a bit more um direction from the standards um at the same time it's it's also important to recognize that not everybody shared that experience or that perspective some some um respondents felt that the existing NCOD standards are actually already clear and um they even questioned whether the process is um actually difficult to navigate or not so some folks were fine with it what happened

So some folks were fine with it.

Oh what happened?

Whoa, oh yeah.

Yeah, I know it's not liking the full screen, maybe.

Maybe we can just stick with this if everybody's okay with it.

Rebecca, is it okay if we don't go full screen?

Yeah, you're getting thumbs up in the room.

Okay, awesome.

All right, another question that we asked was um the need for stricter requirements in historic districts, essentially asking if um the requirements for historic districts with the new standards should be stricter compared to the rest of the NCOD area, right?

And um with with this question, overall, I'd say 51% supported yes, stricter, stricter standards um within the historic districts compared to the rest of the NCOD.

But we also have 30% that said no, and they those folks were hoping for the same standards to be applied across the entirety of the NCOD.

And 80% were not really sure.

Um, and so they kind of hard you know mentioned that they're just unsure.

So that's I think the takeaway here is that the majority do support stronger protections in historic districts.

Um but at the same time, still not everybody wants that um uniqueness in how standards are applied.

Um but this also I think suggests that future standards should um not only be well crafted um and unique, but also maybe clearly explain why different areas may have different requirements.

I think this is what it comes down to is being able to explain why historic districts or specific um specific areas have higher um uh restrictions um than the rest of the NCOD.

Um another question we asked was how well do the current design guidelines protect Bozeman's historic character.

And here only 8% felt that um that it does do so very well.

Most respondents felt that um there is room for improvement, with uh 39% saying somewhat well, and 39% saying um not very well, and 14% clearly saying not at all.

And so overall the feedback I think suggests that community sees value in these um guidelines or standards, um, but they do believe that they could be stronger and do a better job on protecting neighborhoods' character, which is great because this is what we're doing exactly.

And then the next slide, we did ask about a tiered approach.

I think you've maybe heard a little bit about um the tiered approach, and we might have mentioned this previously, but um this was a topic that emerged from um our observations in the field and um realizing that there's so much to actually cover with these design standards because of how large the NCOD is, and it's arguably one of the largest in the country.

And so the the thought came as to um maybe it would be a better approach to have um different treatments within the NCOD based on um the level of preservation, whether it's a historic district or historic resource, um, or if it's more so just preserving um the overall character rather than the actual historic significance.

So we'll we'll talk a little bit more about how we how we did the tiers, but uh the question that we posed was whether or not they support it.

And 48% did support the tiers, 26% did not, and another 26% were simply unsure.

And so the opinions are mixed, yes, but I think the majority are in favor of it, which also does reflect the stakeholders' opinions of this and the neighborhood focus group, um, which was selected to kind of help guide this process as well.

Now we're moving into materiality.

Overall materials within the NCOD.

Um we asked, you know, which materials are most important to preserving the neighborhood's character, and um three really stood out clearly brick, wood siding, and um stone or wood and then stone.

And these materials were identified, you know, with by a significant majority of respondents, but it it doesn't also come to anybody's surprise.

These are the three materials that I think are the most prevalent in the NCOD overall.

And so uh it's just an important consideration to keep in mind as we're developing the material sections of the standards to kind of maybe give more um more the substance and make sure that these three are covered as much as we can.

And then when we go to the next slide.

And um here the the two most important uh the two most common um responses were deterioration of historic wood elements and also the use of vinyl or aluminum um siding over historic materials.

So incompatible replacement materials were um another recurring concern.

But um it's important to also mention here that not too many people answered this question, and it's 206 actually skipped it.

And that's uh th that's probably because um this is a very technical question, and so it's technical, it has a lot of technical terminology.

So it was likely just one of those questions where not a lot of people had enough um knowledge to share, and so they just chose to skip over it.

Um but it it could also be folks that don't live in the NCOD, right?

Remember, it was um only 56% live in the N C D.

It could be people that don't live in an NCOD or historic home, and so they haven't encountered any of these issues previously.

So they just chose to skip over.

Now moving on, um, we asked about multifamily building compatibility essentially and what is appropriate in the NCOD as allowed by zoning.

And so what we'll show is two slides.

One showing the most favored, um, and then another showing the least favored.

So when it comes to um when it comes to the most papers, I think respondents consistently did like examples that showed maybe traditional neighborhood patterns or um residential looking, um uh high more like look and feel of a residential neighborhood, um, more high quality materials and detailings.

So the highest rated example actually got 86% from the respondents.

And then moving on to the least favored, um that's the other side of the spectrum, right?

Respan respondents were um they're least supportive of buildings that maybe appeared a bit more contemporary um or less connected to the surrounding neighborhood context.

So I think overall these responses maybe reinforced that um there is an importance to um massing or maybe materiality and more importantly, transitions, right, when considering new multifamily developments and um the NCOD.

This question is an interesting one.

Uh so we we heard a lot about you know, maybe uh a few buildings that the community were not too much in favor of, and um we wanted to understand what was what was the biggest um barrier?

And so we showed existing multifamily buildings from the NCOD, and we simply asked the question of to what extent do these current multifamily buildings actually fit in the NCOD?

And the response came at a little less than two out of five, so 1.9 out of five.

But then what we chose to do, and we did that because we understand um the importance of materials, is we actually took the same exact buildings and we re-rendered them with new high-quality architectural materials using materials that materials that currently exist in the NCOD and within the nearby historic district to try and give them a new flavor and um give more attention to detailing to some of the existing same exact um multifamily buildings, and then re-ask the same question.

Does this change your mind?

So if the building stayed the same height, the same number of stories, the same everything, but we just simply dressed it up with new quality materials that fits within the NCOD.

Does that change your mind?

And 70% said yes.

So materials does have an impact, and it's not always about the size of the building, it's more so about how well does it fit.

And we show here two examples.

So this was the first.

And then the next slide shows another example.

So we changed things like materials, cutters, window detailing.

We changed how the ground floor is interacting with the overall street, you know, making it more walkable, making it more um accessible and open and welcoming.

So there is a lot that went into it, but it is essentially the same exact building.

Saraj, can I just ask a clarification on that last question?

Sure.

Yeah, if I remember correctly, it what on that particular question, it wasn't whether the building was like okay or acceptable or not with the all dressed stuff, but whether it was better than the previous image.

So bear with me one second.

Getting there, one second.

Okay, so the existing buildings, the question was on a scale from one to five, right?

How you feel these buildings fit in the NCOD?

One do not fit, and then five fits very well.

And the revised, and then the follow-up question was we showed the images of the re-rendered buildings, and we said the images below show how the existing buildings above could look different.

Um could look if different materials were used.

So review images, uh, review the images and respond to the following question.

And the question was does changing the materials change how you feel about whether these buildings fit in the NCOD?

And the response was yes at 70%.

It does change how they feel about the existing buildings.

Does that help?

It does.

I I I think I just wanted to avoid the um the correlation between like it's better with it's okay.

Does that make sense?

You know, the mass and scale issue still exists, but would one prefer the one that dressed up to the other one?

Well, sure, that one would fit in better than the other one.

Um, but the mass and scale is still an issue.

I I just I just wanted to be careful about like a an either-or correlation.

Does that make sense?

Right.

That makes sense, yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Um awesome.

So that was that was really a fun exercise for us because we also got to see what um what's how the character could change um within the NCOD.

So we see great value in kind of taking a look at this more closely.

And then um with the next question here, it was really just asking like contemporary design.

It wasn't a specific question.

I think it was like overall, and it was our own interpretation, if I'm being very frank, um that to try and understand like what works in terms of contemporary design.

And I think overall there was a there was a support for for contemporary architecture, and um it is important to know to note that you know, given that the NCOD is not all historic and given that we need to make room for today's architecture to be distinguished from historic architecture.

Um, we you know, we will we will be taking a closer look at um how the standards could be applied to contemporary design.

Another consistent message um was that people aren't necessarily asking for more regulations, but but more so for clearer regulations.

Um but given our review of the existing guidelines, I think um there is some ambiguity in then in trying to explain or give more clarity to some of the existing guidelines, there we might end up with more.

Um, but the the hope is not to necessarily make things um more difficult, it's just trying to make things clearer.

And they want to understand, you know, what is encouraged and um where flexibility exists today.

The moving on to the next slide, um, some of the additional takeaways, you know, this was just overall other things that we heard.

There's recurring topics like demolition, substitute materials, foundation repairs, accessory developing units or ADUs.

So all these will also be part of the new standards as we draft it.

Now we move on to the tiers, and I kind of talked a little bit about this before.

Um, but we believe that a lot of what we heard does kind of point into ultimately a sort of a tiered approach.

And with the tiers, we ended up with four tiers.

And this is the framework that we're proposing.

So the first tier would be a preservation tier, and this applies to formally designated historic resources, and um, so that includes the districts and does have the highest level of protection.

The second tier is preservation eligible.

So this tier recognizes that certain places may become historic resources, right, in the future.

And so we're allowing a little more flexibility there, but we still see great value in these um in these areas, and we want to try as much as we can to give them the same level of um protection as the first tier, but there is a little bit more flexibility in preservation eligible tier.

The third tier, this is the character tier.

This focuses on preserving the neighborhood identity and think more like development patterns.

Um, and then finally we have the context tier, and this really just applies to the remaining properties in the NCOD.

It um primarily focuses on just compatibility and overall context.

So, what you'll see in the next slide, this is a map, and it is very much a draft.

Um, but in the darkest shade that you see, um, that that's the preservation tier, and this covers the existing historic districts or resources.

And so that is just adopting what we currently have as formerly designated properties, and then um the blue is preservation eligible, and then the pink is the character, and the last, which is um the remaining um areas within the NCOD, is the cream color.

Hey Saraj, this is Rebecca.

Can I just jump in before you move away from the map?

Just to give a little more context on this Saraj mentioned this is a system draft.

This is not us proposing where we would apply tiers.

You'll have much more opportunity to talk about that in the future after we decide yes, we like the tiered approach.

No, we don't like the tiered approach, maybe four is not the right number, etc.

We wanted to provide some sort of visual for you to look at so that when you think about character tier, what does that mean?

What we're showing you on the screen is perhaps that's the northeast part of the NCOD.

Maybe that's the Northeast neighborhood.

And we wanted to give you that so you can think about how has the Northeast neighborhood developed.

It has this sort of funkiness.

Maybe we want it to be a little more flexible.

That's what we're thinking when we're thinking about the character tier.

And so we want it to just put that in your minds as you're thinking about the tiers.

And then for the preservation eligible, the lighter blue color, what you're seeing here is as the Lakota group walked around Bozeman when they were visiting back in April, uh, they did notice some areas that are not within our existing historic districts that perhaps have some contiguous design elements and perhaps would be appropriate for either nomination to a national registered district, or as we move forward with our landmark program, perhaps those become local landmark districts.

So just to kind of give you more context, and really what we want is to just give you something concrete to help you think about the tiers, not to say are these the right spots.

Go ahead, Siraj.

Awesome, thank you.

That was great.

Thanks for the clarification.

Um so the next slide here, it shows the second layer that we're adding on top of the tiers.

So you have the four tiers like Rebecca just mentioned, but also what we're trying to show with these circles is what is regulatory and what is advisory.

So you'll see in a little bit the example standards.

You might have one standard that is regulatory in the preservation and preservation eligible tier, but is actually only advisory and encouraged, not necessarily mandatory in the character and context tiers.

So the example that we're showing here is for residential windows, and the standard says maintain and preserve historic shutters that are in good condition when they are characteristic of the architectural style or period of the building.

That is regulatory in the first two tiers, but is only advisory in the last two tiers.

And this is the same framework that the whole document would be structured on.

And that's the example that we shared with you all, which was Windows.

I think you have the draft for Windows residential windows.

It follows the same framework.

And that was just pulled.

One example was pulled out of that.

And then the next section here, which is really the end of the presentation, we wanted to provide you with a preliminary draft of what the standards outline is going to look like to help you understand what the different topics will be exploring and writing about in this new design standards document.

So first and foremost, just an introduction.

And then the second is a review of the tiers because this is how the whole document is based or structured.

And so we'll explain the tiers right at the beginning, and then we'll jump into building materials, which we understand currently is not a big section in the current guidelines, but we do believe that it is important to bring more attention to materiality.

Then we talk about single unit architecture standards in section four, and then we move on to multi-unit and mixed use architecture and section five, and then section six is commercial and institutional.

Seven is industrial and eight, which is really important is weatherization, energy efficiency, and disaster preparedness.

Section nine, additions and new construction.

This is going to be a big one.

And we're going to try and put as much effort as we can into this one to make it as as prescribed as we can or as as clear as we can to any user of the standards.

And then 10 will be demolition and relocation.

And it's important to note that for the demolition section will be pulling from your current code because demolition has been already codified.

So it's not changing in the standards, it is simply explaining how that works.

And then 11 is site features and strength and streetscapes, which will also include anything that you see that is basically outside of the building itself, but still defines the historic character or the character of a certain neighborhood.

So that is really it.

And I think in in closing, I just want to reiterate that what we're looking for today is three main things.

First, understanding of the overall tier approach makes sense to you all, and then two, understanding if there are any topics that have not yet been addressed in your opinion as part of the outline that we shared with you all.

Like, do you feel like it is um encompassing of all the different topics?

Is there anything that we're missing?

And then three, do you feel like we're striking a good balance between preservation and then flexibility for the rest of the NCOD?

And that's it.

Rebecca, would it be helpful to pause for some questions here?

Or do you want us to go through the outline in more depth and um the window example?

Thanks, Saras.

Just looking at the board, um, maybe Chair Wiseman, what is your preference here?

Would you like to take questions and discussion, public comment, or have Lakota dive more in depth into any of the documents we share?

Um I think maybe a quick pause for questions.

Okay, a few things I wouldn't mind asking about, and if it that bleeds into that what comes next in Saraz's presentation, great, but I think just a couple questions if everybody's okay with that.

So I have just uh uh a couple quick ones.

I guess the overarching concept of that uh character context compatibility is that to be described in the definitions of those tiers, is that the idea?

Yes.

So the thought is that in that second chapter, which talks about the tiers, we'll do as great of a job as we can to kind of explain the differences between the different between the four tiers and explain um how we came to kind of make those distinguishments.

But also, and even more importantly, as you look through the draft outline that we shared, every section that we have in the document, whether it's materials, whether it's um uh you know, single family, whether it's um any of these topics, it does then revisit the four tiers at the beginning of each chapter and then explains right how each tier is um different from the the next tier when it comes to this specific topic.

And when we're doing that, we're bringing attention to um you know the the differences between them, and that should help the user understand why certain standards are advisory versus um regulatory within that specific chapter.

Right.

And I and I I kind of see that in the way you've outlined that uh example chapter on Windows.

Um the my follow-up to that was for individual areas, uh Bonton versus Story Mill.

If those are if those are two kind of historic areas, is do the you know, do the tiers sort of address defining features or defining characters of those areas, and then the level of standard is then just explained.

I'm just curious where you know where where that breakout of individual chapter uh uh individual character areas comes into play um I think it it only comes into play um when we're describing at the at at the onset of each chapter, maybe a little bit giving examples from Bontan versus a little bit of examples from another area, but the standards themselves will not be distinguishing between specific areas within the same tier.

So when you see a preservation tier, that is gonna be all encompassing of all the districts.

When you see a um a character tier, that's gonna be all encompassing of all the different character areas, whether it's northeast or other.

Um, but it will not go into depth as the specific neighborhood versus that specific neighborhood.

Because to be frank, that will create a very large document and um that would be really tough to manage.

Okay.

Yeah, I wanted to add in, if I could, uh I noticed that in the existing guidelines that there are sections with these different character areas, and to be very frank, I don't think they add anything to the um the ability to interpret or use the guidelines.

Um it's not that they're bad, it's just they don't really support that.

You could have them as a standalone document or index perhaps, but um Saraj says I think what you really want to say if it's an historic district, doesn't matter exactly what the character is, you would uh you would identify you know on a more micro level of you know the actual property or its neighbors and those sorts of things.

That's how we would typically approach something like that in a uh preservation review.

I hope that helps.

Yes, thanks.

Uh and then just one last question and I'll let some others chime in.

Um is there a mechanism or do you see or is it easy or hard, or how does it function moving forward as a living document if we want to change the boundaries of some of those tiered areas.

Hey Doug, could you pull up that map again?

I I I'm happy to address this.

This came up in our focus group meeting too, and I I made this point.

Um when you have a map, that's what you want to be changing.

You don't want to ever change the actual text of your standards.

I mean, unless you have to for some reason, but the map is something that is more fluid.

So if you uh add a new historic district designated, then you update the map, and that's more of a reference point for the standards.

So um none of the tiers, none of the descriptions change, which is another um uh sort of I don't want to say negative, but just another sort of fault in those existing guidelines where you have to have this separate element describing the character versus the area, whereas here it's okay, it's on the map because you designated a new district or a neighborhood came to the city and said, Hey, we want to be a character district, um, and that gets you know sort of recognized by the city, then you just update the map.

So it makes it a really easy process without changing anything else.

Thank you.

Um I think some of that conversation might bleed over into the local landmark program.

So if we're thinking about um how might a new local landmark district be designated, that's a question that we have not yet addressed under the local landmark project.

Um as far as maintaining a map that is accurate so that future property owners know what applies to their property.

Um that will be really important, and I think that's a topic that we just we have not yet broached for this project.

So how how might these things ebb and flow we'd love to hear your feedback and what you think should should happen, but um it's something that we need to spend more time thinking about as well.

Thanks.

Um question.

First of all, thank you for this.

This is a ton of work on behalf of um Lakota Group and the and the city.

So this is very comprehensive here.

Um I know the deputy director Harbridge had said that the mass and scale issue would be dealt with at a later point.

How do you anticipate bringing that into this document?

Is make sure that any new development that is coming in.

Wait.

First and foremost, it is bound by zoning.

So once that's covered, and it's not necessarily part of the standards, then comes the standards themselves.

So now that you have the building size defined, the standards will help you understand how you actually dress up that building, make it better fit within the historic context of the NCOD.

Where I see it might come in is for new construction and additions.

And what we can do with that is simply leave it at advisory for um potentially saying, you know, um consider up to this number of stories, but this can't be regulated because zoning is the underlying um code and um anything that comes in will have to be advisory as it relates to this topic in specific.

Danielle, can I jump in?

So I think this is a tough question to ask the coda um because we have told them that we need further policy direction from commission.

Um I think to try to address like how might those issues be incorporated into the design guidelines.

For example, I could imagine you having a section within additions and new construction that perhaps would say you know height will not exceed, for example, and there would be a yes, it's regulatory or it's a recommendation.

And that's if commission says that's that's the direction we would like you to go with this project.

We want you to further limit height in these design guidelines.

Something like setbacks and having a front yard.

That's another area where potentially, if commission says yes, we want to modify what's allowed in base zoning with these design guidelines, you could lay that out in the same type of a matrix table where it shows you know the setback will be, or you will not build at the you know, right up against the sidewalk.

And that would be required in certain areas, or it would be recommended in certain areas.

And so that's kind of how I would imagine some of those could be worked in, um, if that's the direction that we are given by commission.

So just another clarification.

Um so uh so um so it seems then that um that the base zoning would trump the overlay then under that under some of those situations.

Right, my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that overlays and the most restrictive um you know overlays or regulations usually trump like the base ones, right?

So if you could just clarify.

Yes, to clarify an overlay district modifies the base zoning, the underlying zoning.

So if that is the direction that we hear from commissioners that they want to in a regulatory manner modify the underlying zoning and what is allowed, then that as we work that into this, we will need to figure out with our legal counsel how exactly do we word that?

Does it go into this?

You know, yes, it would go into the the tables and into this design guidelines document.

Is it also something that we need to put into our unified development code specifically and call it out there?

Um more more conversation to come on that, but there is a pathway where an overlay zoning district modifies the base zoning.

Does that clarify for you?

Yeah, and I could I add in something about this because it's kind of we know it's a big topic, and it's something I've been thinking about quite a bit.

Um it's a really you can do that.

Um that's technically possible, but I just want to point out um that it can be a really bad idea for a community to have a distinct or considerable variation between what zoning allows and what an overlay district allows.

Uh it creates a lot of conflict.

Um and it's a conflict that doesn't usually get resolved and can actually harm preservation or character goals long term because people can appeal decisions and push the boundaries every single time project comes in.

So when you do have a major conflict between the two, it's best to resolve that conflict either by changing the base zoning or having some differences in the overlay district.

So it's it's just something I'm throwing out there for everyone's consideration, and as we move forward, and and many of you will be talking about this, um, but I wanted to make sure people are kind of clear about that.

Um, and it that that's based on my experience, and it's it's a huge headache.

So Douglas.

Douglas, am I unmuted here?

I can't tell.

Um, oh, okay, great.

This is Jim Webster.

I'm the guy online, I guess.

But anyway, you bring up a good point whoever spoke last, because I can't really tell who's speaking, but that's great that this is coming up because this base zoning versus NCOD, man, um I can't tell you, although you could probably imagine my emails, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, um, ever since I left Bozeman a week ago, everything has been lit up like a Christmas tree on this topic, and understandably so, because some research that's out there would suggest, and I will say thank you to one member of the community, and they know who they are for pointing out that actually um in many places, hundreds and hundreds across the country, where there are other NCODs that NCODs help to, shall we say keep base zoning operating within the guardrails, and I know as you say, very sensitive topic, and we're all sensitive to it.

There's no easy solution, but going forward, because yes, it's a hot topic here in Bozeman.

How can we know or how might you all suggest where you've seen this work?

How do we keep our base zoning kind of in check in a sense because right now this is a real you know what storm, and I'm just being honest.

Um that we got a lot going on, and we want this to work.

Everybody wants to see zoning and all that work, but right now we got there's a lot of different thoughts and information out there, and really should our NCOD be able to say within reason, keep base zoning in check, and some people have suggested, oh no, the NCOD was never can't keep base zoning in check, base zoning rules.

And I'll just close with I know Lakota, you know, Douglas and Siraj, we're not asking you to referee this, but how have you seen other communities deal with this because we are really at a loggerheads, and it's creating, I think you know this, huge friction in this town, and we need to get this under control before we talk about frankly not to undermine you guys, but building materials, you know, do we use window putty, you know, all this stuff.

That just doesn't matter until we get this base zoning versus the NCOD under control and any commissioners out there that are listening in, man.

I guess it's gonna come down to you guys and gals weighing in on this.

So please, any constructive thoughts, what do we do?

Where do we go to have a higher potential for positive outcome?

Thank you.

Thanks, Tim.

I think I think Douglas um kind of explained it as best as any of us could that it is most advisable to be able to, if you are gonna prescribe in your standards um anything related to massing and scale that it doesn't conflict with um your current zoning.

I think the my team would be most comfortable talking about this um once the commission has had um more conversations about this, particularly because of how much of a hot topic it is, and Rebecca, if you want to weigh in, but I think it might be best if we kind of move on from the mass and scaling because we can't we can't really give too much um uh about it if commission hasn't yet discussed it.

I'm being very frank.

So, Siraj, then is there a question or two, any guidance to offer?

What should we be asking commissioners at the next meeting or whatever meeting to move this forward again in the most constructive way possible because it just seems like we're kind of going around in circles, and frankly, I'll say honestly there's enough, you know, kind of some bad vibes out there, and we'd like to turn those into good vibes, of course.

Right.

I think it's a question of massing and scale and understanding um how if they're comfortable changing um the what zoning allows to potentially be less than what it allows today, because that seems to be the biggest topic of concern or transitions.

Um I don't know that there is any other um question, unless other team members think otherwise.

But I think this is this is what it comes down to it.

But um, unless that changes, um, I don't think we can there's value in necessarily having that um conversation in that much depth because you know the guidelines will not change that.

Yeah, again, I'll just reiterate if you have a wide gap between what zoning laws base and what your overlay district allows, that causes conflict, as we've said.

The best way to resolve, you can resolve it through the overlay, but it's a really bad idea because it creates so many problems and it can actually very slowly erode as every applicant comes in and pushes the boundaries.

Oh, well, what if I do this and what if I do that?

Then I'll you know, and trying to get to that higher level of what zoning allows.

And so if you bring the zoning closer to the overlay, they're never gonna match uh 100%, that's okay.

But you do not want such a wide gap.

What that gap is and what people are comfortable with is something you want to think about.

Um, but that's just that's how I think we would recommend you all talk about that to approach that because that's what we're seeing is that there's in some areas there's a huge gap.

You bet, and thank you, Douglas.

I know that puts you in a difficult spot, but just wanted to ask the question.

I can see uh the community will just have to keep going back in diplomatic fashion to the commission and just asking questions to see if we can't polish some of the rough edges on this.

Thank you.

Can I ask a question?

Thank you.

So um for the consultant Suraj and Douglas, um Commissioner Sweeney speaking, uh and the commission liaison to the board.

Um I just have a question about you know, you have worked with a lot of other communities and COD layers.

Um code, our UDC has two provisions that clarify.

Um I'm just gonna read the first one to you.

38.500.020 applicability and compliance.

The provisions in this article, the UDCE article five, apply to development.

However, uh oops, sorry, I'm reading the wrong one.

Um 38500201 for sites within the city's established neighborhood conservation overlay district, the provisions of 3824020 supersede provisions of this article.

So that's the first one that is referring to the NCOD and its regulations superseding base zoning, and then um we have one more.

I'm gonna find it.

The new UDC is not properly codified in Unicode yet, it's a nightmare.

Which you're probably experiencing as well.

Um, my basic question is do in other cities where they have an overlay impose stricter standards.

1005 oh interpretation as a minimum requirement.

Um a reference like that in the unified development code saying where these guidelines, where these standards are stricter, those apply.

Is that tight enough language to be legally defensible in other communities?

Because if we as the commission are going to go that direction, we're gonna need to know how to put that in the code.

And so I would love to know what your experience with that is.

I think it's a little tough answering that question right now, especially because this is how it's written today, and it's not necessarily being like, and and there's still conflicting thoughts on how much that is providing us teeth or not.

So I I feel like it would be really tough for us to say yes, but then because that's you know, that's how it reads, but then you know, given how it's not being necessarily fully applied according to some, then like it's just really tough to answer this, to be honest, because there's so so many conflicts going around based on this exact same sentence, and I don't know that you know us saying yes will sway the ball a certain way, or I don't know.

Rebecca, I I feel like I I don't know how much more comfortable we are talking about the specification.

I can jump in again.

So my interpretation of where we would like to go is that if we have language in our code that says these standards apply and supersede, that those standards would supersede.

However, you have to then look at what those what words the standards use.

So if the standards that are supposed to supersede, say may or should or could, then what does that mean to maybe require something to supersede?

So that's why we're going down this path with Lakota Group to better define in those standards that are meant to supersede what is required and what is recommended.

So hopefully by doing that, then whatever we end up with in the design standards will be a regulatory and applicable part of our code by referring to it and incorporating it by reference.

I hope that that helps.

And I think part of what we are experiencing is exactly what Douglas just described.

The gap between our guidelines and our zoning is too far apart.

Especially with the recent change to the UDC, which was a big concern issued by this board, which is why we asked that design guidelines to be prioritized.

Yeah.

And so that is we're in exactly the situation he just described.

We had been actually for several years, even before, but especially after the UDC change.

That boundary's been pushed, the teeth have been eroded, not that they're not there, but there's you know, everybody who asks, but by right, I can do this.

Why can't I do this?

And they just so that I think we need to take that to heart that the underlying gap has to be tightened between zoning and the NCOD.

Otherwise, even though we give it teeth, if there's still that much disparity, city is still gonna get continually pushed, continually sued by one side or the other, right?

They need to be a little bit more in compliance.

That's and that I mean that that's my takeaway from what they just said.

So I think the I think that's where the push needs to happen.

Thank you.

I had some questions.

Um hi, I'm the preservation planner on the board, so I'm gonna ask just some questions about your approach.

So, did you ever consider uh looking at the NCOD in a neighborhood context versus historic district?

So, like places in historic districts or excuse me, buildings in historic districts, and then everything outside of districts.

Would you ever consider looking at it at a neighborhood scale?

Northeast, southeast, southwest.

I think what we tried to do is with the preservation eligible with the context, and I know we highlight Northeast, that was sort of what we're trying to approach is if we saw that um certain neighborhoods are distinguishable from others, we were trying to kind of give them some uniqueness to them, but I think overall it's it's just really tough to define what a neighborhood is within such a large area, and then I don't know how many we would end up with.

with the preservation eligible with the context and I know we highlight Northeast that was sort of what we're trying to approach is if if we saw that um certain neighborhoods are distinguishable from others we were trying to kind of give them um some uniqueness to them but I think overall it's it's just really tough to define what a neighborhood is okay um within such a large area and then I don't know how many we would end up with so the character tier would be the area where you might be recognizing just that I mean unintended neighborhood character right if if there is another if you're in your opinion there is another area similar to the Northeast not similar in character but similar in how unique it is that we need to look at and potentially adopt into the character tier and we don't have it here right now I think it would be great that's part of the discussion is we can revisit that and see um you know what it looks like and what's unique about it and and and if there's really significance in highlighting the character of it um in a tier.

Okay and then what um for the preservation eligible tier how is that determined like what is your approach to that I would love to hear Douglas's approach so I'm assuming you're going to be looking at a course documentation that's been done by the city in past efforts on potential historic districts I would just like to understand more of the approach you take.

Sorry before you answer that I want to interject and extend the meeting I'm just gonna extend it till nine o'clock because we're going to be here for a bit so I extended a meeting until nine o'clock just because of my questions Mike sorry Douglas just trying to make a laugh go ahead well I can respond to that um so we we looked at um you know we've we tried to look at the entire to see in person the entire NCOD obviously we did see more area some areas more than others uh just based on the schedule that we had but one of the things that we were looking at is the pres this tier is geared towards preservation um potential future preservation um we were looking at areas that tended to have kind of a concentration of architecture that um had some integrity and uh uniqueness and a cohesion in a neighborhood scale um and it wasn't just like all over the place in terms of periods and designs and etc although you know variety of course is found throughout the districts but um we we did consult uh survey forms to try and determine like um state of construction and so on and so the areas that you see on the map in the light blue were areas that as a result of that kind of research individual inspection were our first kind of draft recommendation for this tier we thought these could be potential districts based on architecture and the neighborhood character of those buildings as a whole and individually if that makes sense.

Okay.

Um go ahead I'd like to just add too real brief yeah real brief you know to just tack on there I mean what we wound up doing is is essentially a drive-by survey um uh which you know we you know we were all in the car you know looking and we're stopping in blocks when we found things interesting and so we were I think able to identify or evaluate pretty well as Doug said areas that we felt had cohesion as potentially historic.

Now it could be that you know you all decide one isn't really something worthwhile.

Neighborhoods could come together and say hey we you know we feel like we might be a potential historic district so they come to the city and maybe you get added in as a blue until it's official um then you turn into a preservation tier so uh and I think one of the comments um in that were provided to us here prior to the meeting talked about needing more survey work um so this that could also identify future potential historic districts which is one of the purposes of survey work of course thanks um so are you proposing four tiers because you've seen that working well in other design guidelines you've been a part of or did did did four come out as a logical number for our overlay district due to the size of it I think it was unique to your um NCOD it's lar its large footprint um we definitely have to make the distinction

Thanks.

Um, so are you proposing four tiers because you've seen that working well in other design guidelines you've been a part of, or did four come out as a logical number for our overlay district due to the size of it.

I think it was unique to your um NCOD, its large its large footprint.

Um we definitely have to make the distinct the distinguishment with the first two tiers.

Um then we realized that the Northeast was just very eclectic and it's very unique in and of itself, and we realized that maybe that should be uh its own tier, um, just so we can kind of bake in that uniqueness, and then we have to have one for the rest of the NCOD.

So that's how it came down.

But those tiers can increase, we can remove a tier, we you know, but it's all still up for discussion.

But this is this was the most logical um approach that we took took to it.

If I may, Alison, um, this is Rebecca again.

I think one of the struggles that the city has had with the NCOD and applying design guidelines across such a large area has been there are clearly some places where very strict application of historic preservation standards makes sense, and there are other places within the same NCOD boundary where it may not make as much sense to be very strict, and so that causes the struggle to try to figure out what is the what is the appropriate way to apply this same set of guidelines in places where it makes sense to be strict in other places where it makes sense to be flexible.

And so with the tiered approach, that's kind of our way of trying to figure out how can we be strict in some places where appropriate and flexible in other places where appropriate.

And like Douglas and Sarah Chap said, this is our first take based on what they saw, what we saw, the feedback that the city provided to Lakota.

Um, we would love to hear.

Do you think it makes sense?

Does it work?

Are we missing anything?

Is it too many?

All of that is good commentary.

Um I just have a question concerning these uh four levels that um I'm concerned a little bit with the last two tiers of character and context.

If if it's just again using that language of it of just advisory, we're running into the same problems again.

Um, what's the incentive?

Will there be incentives in place?

What if somebody is just in a character tier or a context, but they want to do the right thing, they want to do something more.

Will there be an incentive for them?

What if um you get an area within a character section that rises up, you get a huge group or a neighborhood, and they it restore their homes and to a preservation level.

I I'm a little concerned with the language of advisory again.

That seems to be the problem initially.

I mean, I'm new at this, I'm I'm learning all the uh what's going on, but I just I'm a little concerned about that, those terms again.

Yeah, that that makes sense.

And uh maybe I'll start and then turn it back over to Siraj in case you have anything to add.

Um I think the intent is that within each chapter, uh, there will be a number of standards related to different aspects, and within each of these tiers, certain ones are required and certain ones are advisory.

So the idea is not that nothing is marked as required for character or context, but that maybe there are fewer that are required in those tiers than there are for the preservation tier.

So it just kind of steps down the number that are required versus advisory, and as far as incentives, we have heard that.

Um that's a topic that definitely came up with our neighborhood focus group, just the cost of maintaining a historic home, and we recognize that that is a challenge, and in order to ideally get folks who want to restore and rehabilitate their historic homes, yes, incentives make a ton of sense.

Um as far as does the city have budget and does the commission want to put that budget toward incentives related to historic preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation.

That's a almost an entirely separate question.

Um what I would reflect back to you is yes, that would be wonderful.

Um, and we will have to see where we can go with that.

Chair, I would love to dive into discussion before it gets much later and if we are all done asking questions.

Oh, yeah, we need public comment.

Someone's whispering my left ear.

Are there quick uh question?

Was there more of this presentation to go through?

I think the next uh yeah, no, I think the presentation was over.

The next part was um just to be able to review or hear feedback on the materials that we shared with you as part of the packet.

So that would include um, you know, the windows, and again, not asking for you know specific thoughts on each standard, but how you're seeing it applied all across and also the outline.

So it's really just those two topics.

Okay.

Yeah, then let's uh let's take some public comments if we have any, and then we can start to discuss.

Any public comment in the room?

Okay, any online.

No public comment online.

Okay, the floor is open for discussion.

I'm diving in.

Okay.

Um my first comment, I want to talk about the survey.

Um, I want you to know that I recognize the challenge of creating a survey that gets um productive response as I am also creating surveys for my current line of work.

I did have a lot of concerns about the survey.

I felt it was very exclusionary in terms of someone's ability to understand to go through the survey.

Myself as a professional uh had difficulties going through it, and I ended up not doing it because I was entirely frustrated by it.

I do want to point out that the number of people that actually answered each question is a lot lower than the total who responded to the survey.

So I am actually walking away from that uh not feeling that we got actually um positive, excuse me, productive or uh a good response rate.

So that's my first comment.

I was unfortunately not here in town for the workshop, so I couldn't attend that.

Um the next comment I want to make is I'm I'm actually pretty shocked um that we are proposing what I would call complex design guidelines due to the fact that we just approved a very complex unified development ordinance.

Um it's I am putting my developer brain on, and I am really concerned with the idea that we are gonna have and developers I mean could be your property owner too, right?

That are developing their property.

Um, but the thought of going through the UDC and now the possibility of four tiers in design guidelines.

Um I am I am very surprised with that approach.

I think it is completing uh creating complexity that we will not even know what it is until it's live and in place.

Um just from the response I got for the preservation eligible tier, I I will not support any tier like that unless I am shown exactly how it's determined for these areas that are eligible.

I want to have the data.

I want to know what has been provided to the consultant.

I want to know the results from the windshield survey that was done.

Um I doubt our current contract has that in place for that type of work, but if if I don't see that data, then I'm saying that it's it it doesn't make sense to have a tier approach.

Um I mean, I I want to also make sure we protect those properties that we have for a very long time have been not protecting.

So the Northeast district is eclectic because it is the most unpro unprotected district in our community.

It has become eclectic because it has always been allowed to change tremendously compared to the south side because there has been less money on the northeast side than the south side.

That's how it always has been historically, and that's why that neighborhood looks different.

You don't have high level of architecture, that's the other difference.

So it's very easy to tear down little shacks that don't demonstrate a high level of architecture compared to your Bontad or Cooper Park that actually have a style of architecture that you could recognize in a book.

So the idea that we are just gonna celebrate some districts as being different.

We have to be reflective of what has happened in the past.

So if we did this tier approach, there should not be four, the whole freaking NCOD that's not in a district or a preservation eligible area should just be character.

The context goes away.

Now, having said that, I don't see a future where our commission will be encouraging a big gap between our NCOD design guidelines and what they have already approved in the UDC.

I don't see it, I could be surprised, I'm not seeing it.

And with all the pressure that we're getting from the state of what they want for density, I think we would be setting ourselves up for some big problems, as one of our consultants indicated.

So having said that, I think I'm um was hoping to see more design guidelines that just spoke about new additions, massing form, stuff that's really already in there, just needs to be improved.

Um instead, we we know we're diving into building materials, and I'm just really scratching my head at the whole thing because I have been a part of many conversations with new construction, and the top concern you hear is the cost of the materials that you're asking them to do based on guidelines.

So the thought that we are gonna now approach that, um, I'm just I'm really um confused and shocked.

Um I don't think the problem that we're having in Bozeman has always been okay with contemporary architecture.

That's not a surprise.

We have celebrated that.

It's because we don't have a town with a high level of architecture.

We are a farm town, we are not Butte, we are not Helena.

Our architecture is very different.

It's why we've been allowed to have contemporary eMERGE.

Now, contemporary starts to feel different when it's very big and inappropriate for what's next door, and that's what's happening.

So I'm just I'm looking at these revisions.

I know I'm coming off as harsh.

It's probably because I'm tired, so I apologize, but I just don't feel like we are going in the right direction.

Um I, and it's probably lingering from the survey questions, but I did not want to ask about or answer questions about what window treatment.

I mean, the thought of city staff having to explain that to an applicant is mind-boggling to me.

It is, I would say, actually, against best practice.

Best practice right now is to have design guidelines that are very advisory and to have your code, your zoning regulation have what you really want to emerge in your community.

But we just approve that.

And now we're having design guidelines trying to fix this.

I I'm I will just close by saying I'm not in agreement with the tier approach.

I'm getting closer and closer to sadly thinking the NCOD should just go away, and we should entirely rely on districts.

I just had a thought.

Um I just kind of want to recenter us around how did we get here?

Why are we redoing, why are we updating these design guidelines?

The two major things I think we've all heard, and please disagree with me if you do, is that we want these things to be enforceable, and we want new construction, entirely new construction to be appropriate in mass and scale.

I'd have never had someone come to me and say my neighbor put in new windows and it's destroyed the character of my neighborhood.

So I don't know.

I I share your perspective, Alison, that we're in the wrong direction.

I feel like we're micromanaging homeowners, which gives historic preservation a horrible name.

And we're not dealing with the elephant in the room.

So I don't know.

I'm sad to hear you say I want the NCOD to the NCOD could go away, but I get I get this difficulty now.

Might I add in um something to address both of your comments, which are great comments, and I think we're we're really listening here.

What is required and the level of review is up to you all.

Um what we're presenting here tonight is uh essentially a framework of how we might organize these.

Um and what's in them is ultimately up to you all.

We're you know, we're not necessarily looking for the specific feedback tonight on the windows that we submitted to you.

But ultimately we will, you know, we so if you all don't want you know uh a detailed review on regulation of the type of window somebody puts in, that's your choice, right?

And so that would reflect in the guidelines that we provide to you.

Same thing with materiality or any other topic.

We just we're just presenting the framework that we feel like is all-encompassing and is bringing enough detail to uh the standard, so there's more clarity to it, there's more teeth to it, and kind of basically all the things that we've been hearing since the beginning of the process.

But if you feel like certain areas need to be less regulated, that's a discussion among you all, and we're happy to be part of that and help you, you know, figure out what's best.

May I jump in or something?

Um I think one thing that we have struggled with, and perhaps some guidance from HPAB would help, is we hear the neighborhood character concerns and the desire to address all of the aspects of neighborhood character.

We also hear sometimes in this project and sometimes outside of this project about what a shame it is when historic structures have changes made to them that cause them to no longer be contributing historic structures.

And so we're trying to do both as part of these guidelines where we put something in place that helps protect the integrity of our historic structures and also addresses the concerns that are less about materials and windows and what the building looks like and more about how the neighborhood feels and how buildings work with each other and how the streetscape is when you walk down the sidewalk.

So we're trying to do all of that, but I don't want to just just put aside the fact that we are hearing concerns from people who don't feel that what we have is strong enough to protect the integrity of our historic structures.

So can I ask um about a historic district?

If you if you are in a historic district, you have to have a framework that defines what that means, right?

What is historic, what is significant, the stuff we look at in the landmark program, right?

Um the NCOD intent was to understand that we have a lot of stuff we don't know what's there.

And along with form and scale of new construction, the other big thing we keep hearing is demo and loss of resource, potential loss of resource, whether through eroded integrity or complete screen.

Um when we first started talking about tiers, I think we had maybe two.

And we had two and maybe we're thinking about three.

Um perhaps it's less about trying to define historic character outside of those districts or potential districts and more about preserving resource.

And maybe that's the function of the NCOD becomes more about you know, it really relates more to demo and uh remodel where you're not gonna go through the NCOD process, you're gonna update your survey.

And maybe that's the function of the NCOD becomes more about it really relates more to demo and uh remodel where you're not gonna go through the NCOD process, you're gonna update your survey, and then we're gonna see where your building sits and decide which tier you fit in.

Um or maybe there's not a tier, maybe it's if you're not in the historic district, you know, we're gonna look at what you can and can't do.

I I guess I and I I don't have an answer here, and I'm kind of thinking out loud, but just thinking about if the goal of the NCOD is to protect resource and not lose it, there's still a lot of resource.

We still don't know what we have.

We still have unupdated surveys.

Um that's one of the things we talked about with demos, like that should be number one, update your survey.

Um so maybe instead of I mean, knowing knowing that the uh using guidelines to rein in zoning we don't like is a bad practice.

Um it's gonna lead to more of the what we're seeing right now.

Um, what is the function of the NCOD?

And if it's not micromanaging windows and historic details, what is it?

And I think turning that focus on to resource preservation, which may or may not be materials.

Um go ahead, Alison, I hear you give it away.

No, I just I think I I mean, Rebecca, I I believe you I always will believe what staff puts forward.

I am shocked that you are hearing that there is concern about I feel that the design guidelines actually work quite well when it has to come to building materials, window placement, window spacing.

I'm thinking about our amazing downtown, I'm thinking about every district, like I'm really desperately trying to think about one that bothers me.

There's probably a few that I was involved with, but you know that I just will always feel bad about.

But all in all, I feel like they are working quite well.

Where they are not working is where you're outside of a district, number one, where you are in a zoning district that allows more density, number two.

Um, I mean, that is where I all the ones that are popping up in my mind right now, where I look at the site and I think something was missed here.

Um I think it is bringing me full circle where um we've been saying to update survey forms, and I'm I guess I'm thinking that if well that's a question I didn't ask, if we did this tier approach, we're probably not really relying on the surveys anymore.

I mean, are we?

Question mark?

I don't know.

You don't need to answer that, Rebecca.

Um, but that's just a thought.

I mean, I I we keep like it's like the can we keep taking down the road.

We need to update the surveys.

Well, we'll do it later.

Well, but we need to do it, but we're gonna do it later.

Well, that ship has sailed, okay.

So if we're not gonna update the surveys, then why do we have a neighborhood conservation overlay district?

Honestly.

I mean, and we and we have to go full steam ahead with like getting new districts out there, and there are districts that are not in the conservation overlay district, friends.

Okay, there's some amazing districts that we have in our community that are not in this little orange area.

So we just really need to ask what are we doing here?

Um I I am all for well forever think that materials need to be considered.

I guess I just feel like the design guidelines are doing pretty good job there.

I will promise the consultant team, I will look at that in more detail.

I didn't have a chance to do that.

Um that note, I am getting a little bit concerned with the and I and I know Rebecca told us ahead of time and Sarah, just how much we would be considering in a meeting.

I think it's becoming too much.

Um, where it's either that we're just we're gonna start missing things.

So we need to just kind of think about that if we can at the end of this meeting chair of what that looks like, whether we're meeting more frequently or I don't know what that looks like, so I don't necessarily want to meet more frequently.

Um yeah, I I just I really think the loss of a of a resource, so demolition is like the top of my priorities, and then it's just these massive structures that are being placed.

I mean, you would any urban design textbook and like just stuff that you consider, it is flat out being ignored.

It is not being considered with just general building form and scale.

The transition is a whole nother topic that I'm glad it sounds like we're gonna return to it.

Um, but that's definitely involved with this discussion too.

If I might also, I'd I again you're bringing up great points, and I think we should probably be really clear again.

The map we're showing indicating potential tiers, and and ultimately you may decide you don't want to tier it this way, that's fine.

Um but this is we're showing what we think could be potential areas for say the preservation eligible tier or for a character tier.

But we we are not the ones making that decision, right?

So you may have an umbrella of four tiers, and when you start out, you may have the preservation and you may have context.

And as you do surveys, you know, the city might say, hey, we want to survey these areas that the consultants will go to group consultants that could be preservation eligible.

You do that survey, and then you could have a process of formally recognize that as a potential or preservation eligible.

Um that's one way of approaching that, right?

So that you're saying why what areas, what are their boundaries?

How do you define that?

That is what you do through a survey.

Um same thing with character.

We're you know, we heard so much about the Northeast area, so we said, well, that could be a potential character area.

But you could have a character area that again, maybe it's a group of neighborhood group that says, hey, we want to be a special character area.

We've got a certain genetic wait uh that you know we want to protect in that, or um, or it could be an area that's a commercial area, it's not part of the downtown commercial historic district, but it's a commercial strip that has a very different kind of character than um than something else.

So there should be a process of identifying what would fit into the preservation eligible and what would fit into the character.

So it's non-nebulous, it's not just you know, somebody said, hey, we're gonna do this, right?

Um, because you then open up, you know, the potential for a lot of pushback from from neighbors.

So you're bringing up good points.

I hope that helps to clarify what our I think I what I what I think our approach was.

And we're just showing this as possibilities.

I do want to just add in that commission just thank you, Commission, approved a budget that included some significant funding and not enough funding, but as much as we could ask for for updating surveys.

And as far as I know, that has not we have not made a plan for how we will prioritize what what we're gonna do with that funding.

Um so there is a potential path where we say historic preservation advisory board suggested that we should prioritize looking at preservation eligible areas, or perhaps we should look at potential districts outside of the NCOD.

So there you can provide us with some guidance on that, and just wanted to share that there is funding for us to update some surveys.

What where has the money been going for the surplus fee on COAs?

So from my understanding, there's a surplus fee that's been added to COAs, it's been established for many years.

The idea was to have that actually go toward survey efforts.

I am sure it has changed Rebecca since I last remember being a part of this.

Um but I would just like to just kind of I it also probably supports efforts such as the one we're in right now.

Um but from I was just wondering if that was still a thing.

I think I remember seeing it on a fee schedule.

Um but anyway, that's just a side note because I thought that was like the intent was to help with future survey efforts.

I mean, we've been talking about survey updates for a long time.

And I don't I don't see it, I don't see it happening, friends.

I mean, it's it's it's a very, very, very large area.

We unfortunately didn't help ourselves with the idea of keeping the NCOD like up to date.

It was like very cool in its time of creation and was in textbooks and stuff, and like this is very cool what Bozeman's doing, this little town called Bozin, Montana.

Um, but we unfortunately didn't think about like a way to keep it updated, especially on with the intense growth we've seen.

What is our topic for next month?

Our intention for next month was to bring back demolition code.

So we have it on the agenda tonight to gather some more feedback from HPAB on demolition code.

Okay.

Um we would we would like to gather your feedback.

We will take that and give it to our consultant on the landmark project who is working on code amendments and bring back ideally a draft of the revised code for you to consider next month.

Um then just um the thought of um just what Lakota group and and and Douglas Gilbert was saying, just how do you see us if you see us at all, Rebecca helping with determining areas that are preservation eligible?

Is that is that was that a thought that we are involved in that, or is that more consultant staff level?

And and if you don't know the answer, then we can just say we'll think about it.

I I think that it is more HPAB with the sort of like information provided by consultants.

So, like you're seeing tonight, Lakota went around town and identified some areas.

Those are now in your court.

We can provide you more information.

They have sent us like some little descriptions with some photos of what they saw.

If you want, we can share that, and then we would look to you all to tell us what makes sense there.

Um if we also want to finish up the landmark program, um, we would have a path to recognize districts under a local process versus having to wait and require the like massive amounts of documentation that the national register requires.

So that was sort of what we were thinking is this would dovetail with our local landmark project to give us a local process.

Yeah, no, I that that makes sense.

I don't see a lot of local districts coming forward right away, so I would still want a I would hope that we would feel comfortable with the preservation eligible tier.

And I'm thinking that's gonna need to involve us.

And I don't know when how that looks.

Nothing new has been created for quite some time.

Right.

So I think it's it's gonna be under the local landmark that anything actually happens.

Right.

I mean, we we want us to keep moving forward, right?

Putting in a framework that provides an opportunity for right to someone for someone to create a local landmark district or nominee, you know, a property as a local landmark.

And I love and it makes sense to me to have this map component of the design guidelines, like be like what's updated as those changes occur.

It certainly helps protect staff in the city just with that logic.

Um I just don't see that happening quickly.

Um, so I just think we yeah, I mean, I it's history would also show us that it will not happen quickly.

Um, especially with some of the things we've talked about with the process that would be required in creating a landmark district.

So I I would say I don't know that I see a value to the character portion.

It sounds really great.

I don't know how it gets administered, I don't know how it gets developed, I don't know how it gets defined.

Um and it may just be because I I don't fully understand that that mechanism.

I could certainly see um having preservation tier that's stuff that's already established.

Stuff that needs historic guidelines, it needs documentation, it's going to relate to the Secretary of Standards Interiors, all that stuff.

Going back to there's there's a I mean, there's a piece in the line in the Secretary of Interior Standards, or or maybe it's a supporting document or something, but it it basically recommends against using that as a design guideline.

I mean, it wasn't seems like that wasn't quite its intent for cities to adopt that as a design guideline.

It's a it's a push uh, I forget how uh Adrian described it, but it's non-regulatory in in nature.

But the uh uh the it's it's there to my limited understanding, provide a framework of how you judge what's historic or not.

Everything in the N2D is not necessarily historic.

Correct.

We have districts for that.

Um there are places like Northeast neighborhood that have a lot of character.

Are those buildings historic?

You said it yourself, they've been allowed to be very eclectic and not comply with any specific path or style or whatever.

There's a lot of crazy stuff over there.

That's great.

Um, and it maybe that's a local landmark.

Yeah, we can determine the framework for that.

So I I think I guess where I'm getting at is um going back to what the purpose of the NCOD is.

Um, and it is to provide acknowledgement that there's hidden resource there.

And so uh I could see where we have we kind of get rid of the character option for now.

Uh we have the context, which has a very low level of actual regulation within the context of historical preservation, and recognizes that a lot of this is unknown territory, and we address that through the COA process of if you're doing a major, and I'm just throwing this out as an example.

If you're doing a major site plan, that triggers updates of any properties within that.

If you're doing a demo, that triggers an update of any record of any of those properties.

And and we we touched on this in the demo, so I won't get too far into that.

But you know, having a framework for how those survey forms get updated and how we recognize what is or isn't a resource that needs protection.

That's all that context is for.

Then we move to preservation and preservation eligible, and I think that is where we start to look at preservation eligible.

Right now, this map is going to be context and preservation.

Defined districts and not defined districts.

And it's going to be through the local landmark program or some other pro.

I mean, we looked at trying to do a Fred Wilson, you know, non-contiguous district as well.

Um, that's what's going to start to bring things, and maybe it's sort of you know, similar to a wilderness area, right?

You don't you don't just get designated as a wilderness area, you go into a wilderness study area or however that mechanism is.

So we define, all right, your preservation eligible.

Um so there's maybe a higher level of protection in terms of this area is under study.

Then does it move to a district, or does it move into a local landmark or you know, something like that, or maybe the local landmark is simply preservation eligible?

What that's showing right here.

Maybe we have preservation, local landmark, and context.

Yeah, three tiers.

Yeah, that's where my brain's going to.

I agree with that.

So it's just a matter of really I mean, I think we're saying the same thing.

It's I mean, I just really need to understand how the preservation eligible area on a map is determined.

And then I need to also spend more time.

Again, I didn't have a chance like to look at that window example and really better understand how the um how the guidelines would be applied differently between those two tiers.

So I would like to just better understand, right?

Like I'm I'm I think I'm having a hard time.

Well, if it's preservation eligible, why would I want to potentially you know allow something that damages its character, right?

I mean, like the idea is that it's but but also then my other brain is saying, well, it's because it's not protected, it's not in a district.

Um there's a there's a lot of oh, go ahead.

Oh, I was just gonna say that's very much true.

And I think we were kind of struggling, like we we ourselves were kind of going back and forth on some of some of the standards, like should we allow this here?

Is this mandatory here?

And that's exactly because of what you were saying.

So as you look through the documents, you'll see that there's a lot of overlap between the first two tiers with mild flexibility, like little change between the first two, to be honest, and then similarly with the last two, like you'll find that the first two are very close, and then the last two are very close.

Um that's uh we we we were kind of struggling with it as well.

Like um, and we we did it based on best um kind of best approach for for you know what we saw.

The character concept, I mean, could be a future for us, you know, like as a local landmark district, like I'm just trying to think of as that becomes successful, and you have maybe areas that are just you know well, we we there's also the potential that we create a landmark district that has the opportunity to protect this that character too.

I mean, we've we're talking about that, like whether it could be a um just for the Lakota group's benefit, like we're talking about the landmark district eligibility or criteria, and you know, we really want to recognize Bozeman's uniqueness and and areas that might not meet Nash National Register standards.

So anyway, that might emerge as the character.

I just don't think we need it in our NCOD design guidelines.

Understood.

And that was the not submission, to be honest.

Yeah.

Well, and in theory, if you have a local landmark uh district ordinance and bringing in local districts, they would then, once officially adopted, they would jump into the preservation of that district is or land or left mark.

One thing maybe help for context.

I don't, you know, I don't want to muddy the waters too much, but um and at the federal level, um, you know, there's there's federal review of any federal action, right?

And if a property or district's on a national register listed as a national register property or district, um and during the federal review of that, um it it gets a very close scrutiny.

Uh but then each project that would come in gets looked at and evaluated individually, and oftentimes uh a resource might be considered eligible for national register then.

So it hasn't been formally adopted.

And that's uh then institute a kind of lower level of of actions, you know, that the federal government would have to do to go through that.

So we see that in the state, you know, the state manages for the most part, so every state kind of manages that process for the federal government.

Um but in that in some ways that's almost what we're talking about, where you know, if you're already locked into an historic district, you have the strictest review.

Whether how strict that is is up to you, but you have the stricter review.

If you are eligible, which is essentially what we're saying, uh, and you've been designated as eligible, you know.

So you're not, again, we're not just willy-nilly making this up.

You would either do it through a case-by-case basis as a project comes in, or you would do surveys of certain areas and say, oh, this is a potential district that we want to look at laminating, and therefore there'll be some increased protection over the general context area of the NCOD.

So and you can name that whatever you want.

If you want to change the names around, that's the something you're gonna consider to make it most um easiest for people to understand.

Well, and if there's a state or federal mechanism for that eligible period, why not use that and just rely on that?

So our tiers are preservation local landmark context.

And if somebody is going through the effort of making an actual historic district or historic property, and they're listed as eligible while it's under review.

If I understand that, right?

Wouldn't that take care of that?

Yeah, I mean uh uh we're starting to, I mean, and I knew we would get here.

There's a lot of there are things that are going through my brain right now, Rebecca, that's on the regulation side outside of the design guidelines that like I would want to see in place to make me feel I keep saying feeling, make me professionally uh, you know, be able to agree with this approach.

And that's like mitigation, we've talked that's gonna come up with demolition.

Um you know how frequent the map can be updated is kind of like what you're saying, Mike, right?

So like if we have these properties that are eligible, I mean, right?

Rebecca and staff aren't gonna be able to like, okay, let's get a map amendment real quick, you know, adopted in the design guidelines.

So we have to have language.

I guess it could be in the design guidelines that talk about that.

Like, right, like we would have to there would have to be a safeguard to have that protection be put in place before it actually appears on this map, whether it's like before it's actually formally approved as a landmark district or something else that we can't even consider right now.

And it goes back a little to the discussion about if a landmark district triggers a zone map and then if the zone guidelines are closer.

That's where my brain is going.

Yep.

Um would love just uh, you know, because I'm a board member that can just add things to your contract as a consultant, but I would love your thoughts on what communities are doing when they have um so right, we have a lot of long-standing historic districts, but of course there have been changes that have occurred in those districts where I'm asking the question when should the district be looked at again to ensure that there's like a a number of contributing properties versus non-contributing.

Am I making sense right now?

I I feel like we have a lot of districts that need to be looked at to ensure that they're actually still districts.

The one that comes to mind is uh and the one I'm reluctant to bring up is the brewery district because we lost the brewery itself.

Um, and that was talked about a long time ago.

But I guess my recommendation would be that we clean up districts if we need to if with this effort.

Is it my am I making sense?

It's like nine o'clock now.

No, I feel like I'm not making any sense.

Those are national, yeah, those are national register listed districts, so that's something that sometimes is done, but it's very rare to do that.

It's it's rare.

Okay.

All right, that makes me feel better.

Allison, if I may, uh when when it's a local district, you have a lot more control over that, but uh national register, you don't just change things willy-nilly.

Obviously, you can do a survey, maybe it's no longer eligible.

And uh properties have been delisted by, but this is by the National Park Service that would do that.

Yeah, a couple of notes on that.

So I have talked to the State Historic Preservation Office about this topic.

Um it has never been done in Montana.

Um, no one has amended a national register listing in Montana.

It you have to go through a quite a bureaucratic process of working through the state review board and then going to the federal level as well.

Um that is ideally something that we could help address through a local landmark program.

So that it if we would have a local mechanism that is within our control to make sure that we are recognizing what needs to be recognized and keeping things up to date and amending as necessary within a local process without having to go state feds.

Um I forgot there was one other point I was gonna make it left in my head.

No, that's okay.

Um I'm gonna stop talking soon, but I I really am getting to the point.

I I really think we should require updates to a survey, an inventory form every single time.

I I'm just getting to that point.

I we have it hasn't worked.

Okay, so right, so it hasn't worked.

The approach we've taken hasn't worked in terms of keeping the surveys, the inventory forms updated.

Why can't we require that?

Now, I will also say, could the city help with this effort, right?

Could the city have a preferred list of consultants uh on contract to help a property owner update the inventory form to help like you know have consistency in updates?

I I'm I don't I am not gonna be I I don't see that as a burden.

I I feel that if if someone has a property within the NCOD, if you're buying a property in the NCOD, then you should be aware that that is gonna be required of you, period.

I mean, it's it's just I I'm I don't see how we are gonna keep addressing this outdated data source, basically, unless we start requiring it to be updated.

I am sure there is something that the state has done that might pressure us to like in saying that we can't do that.

But Rebecca and her team and Mr.

Sullivan can look into that.

But that's what I think we should do because it's just not working otherwise, and and now we're moving in a direction where it's like gonna be really even more important that we have inventory forms that are updated because now we have this whole like eligible category that will help us support landmark districts, right?

Well, that's that's what I was gonna ask is and you raised this issue earlier.

As we move into local landmark, is are the survey forms that critical?

We're setting the standards, so do we still rely on those forms?

And I'm asking the question is that is that what we rely on most for those standards?

I would think well, remember, I mean, like those inventory forms exactly.

I mean, the standards have changed, but I do think that we would want to have some sort of data in place.

Maybe maybe we have an abbreviated inventory form that can be completed for like a local landmark, something that's just easier, but something, and like honestly, like I'm thinking about things that I've been a part of when something's being torn down, and you just quickly do an inventory of what the freaking building is before someone tears it down.

You're taking pictures, you're doing a brief architectural description, you're getting like the general who built it, when what phase of the you know, period in Bozeman, blah blah blah record done.

I mean, it's it doesn't have to be complex.

Um I think we have made it into something that is a burden, and it it does it should not be a burden, and we don't even have to use.

I mean, I think we're using the SHIPO forms, right, Rebecca, when they're updated.

I mean, Bozeman can create their own forms.

We're very good at that.

We're very good at creating our own thing.

So, I mean, we could create our own inventory form.

There's nothing wrong with that.

But then I think I mean, I just don't see a way around that because it's gonna be information that is important as we progress and recognize other areas.

You want to talk about demolition in the next five minutes?

Um I guess real quick, what I know you're looking for direction from us.

Um I don't know that we have a lot, but you know, we're kind of looking to you guys for some direction too.

Uh speaking of the Lakota group.

Um I think probably there's consensus on four is too many tiers.

Um, especially in light of trying to clarify the path through the NCOD for applicants.

Um we obviously have a lot of internal housekeeping to do.

Um what uh I guess Rebecca or Siraj or Douglas, what are you guys looking for today in terms of direction?

Well, before they answer that, are they coming back?

I mean, can we can they come back like once more things have been drafted, like those other chapters?

Definitely this is not the last time you'll talk about this.

Okay.

Well, and I guess the the the point of this is to just show the framework, right?

These are examples.

None of this is correct at all codified, so it's it's more of like and we did not mean to focus everybody on windows.

Uh it just was what they prepared first.

Perhaps we could have prepared the we all love the new construction.

We all love windows, we all love blazing, you know, we all love that.

Um I I mean, I don't want to speak for the whole board, but I I will just say that less is more potentially, and I I do like the chapters in theory.

Um I I kind of did want to, you know, like industry, industry.

Do I do we really need that in the NCOD?

Maybe I I think I would just the group, Lakota group, to work with staff and just knowing what we just approved in the UDC, I'm just questioning some of those chapters.

And I'm just asking the question can is there something in the UDC that we just approved that is providing enough guidance there for industrial type of development that would not have to be also in dressed in the NCOD?

Because I do think um the less chance to have conflict between the two would be better.

So I would be okay with less chapters in the design guidelines than like trying to cover every scenario that might come up.

I am thinking about that area that's between Story Mill and I mean our northeast side.

I mean, that's really our industrial area.

And then probably around MSU, there might be some pockets.

But like I'm trying to think of like where do we have industry in NCOD?

I have a question for you guys.

Um what did you think about the classification of single unit versus multi-unit?

Like we don't have Bozeman doesn't have a zoning district that is single unit, and a lot of our older structures have been converted into multi-unit.

For me personally, I found that confusing of like which one is this gonna fall under for review.

Like, you know, we have several old Victorian mansions that have been converted into multi-unit apartment buildings, but here they're breaking it down into single unit dwelling architecture standards and multi-unit and mixed use architecture standards.

So did any of you find that confusing or inappropriate, or maybe not as helpful as we hope it would be.

Um, because we are a highly educated community, but um I do see your point, commissioner.

Um so I think I will just again say, you know, look at the sections that are being proposed, and then like thinking about that the the conflict we're trying to avoid with the UDC.

I'm just I I want to make sure we are I know that check is gonna happen regardless, Rebecca, of course, in the final draft stage, but I just think we should get that cleaned up before we go like very public.

Of course, this is public right now, but I mean like really finalized drafts because what I would hate to see happen is we have uh immense pushback.

Like I what I would hate to see happen is that this effort dies because we have all of a sudden this pushback, like you're gonna make us do what now, you know, for our owners or potential owners in the NCOD.

I've been a part of that, and that is not what we want to happen.

Well, we saw it happen with the UDC friends, so let's I mean, we don't want to repeat that again.

So I would just whatever could be potentially cut, I would consider that.

But that's a good point.

Um, because then you dive into commercial, and I mean my billing official brain is like, well, multi, you know, household is commercial.

So I guess I didn't tell a lot of you, there was immense community pushback after the NCOD neighborhood focus group, and I'm surprised nobody gave any public comment on it because I asked them to.

I was called by four of the different representatives, and I reached out to another one the next day, the final one I've never met, so I don't know how to get a hold of them, but um Thursday and Friday were really intense days of neighborhoods pushing back and freaking out, and they were calling me.

So when this agenda I'm missing, no, because they had a neighborhood focus group.

Oh, okay, what we heard what we saw in the public comment.

I think some of the public comment was another public comment, yeah, was part of that.

But um real quick, I'm gonna extend the meeting another half hour.

Yeah, I'm so sorry.

Yeah, just know like the neighborhood groups, so there's a representative from each of the neighborhood associations within the NCOD participating in an NCOD neighborhood focused group group, and they saw everything that we just saw on Thursday.

Okay, and they had their own chance to ask questions.

It wasn't video recorded, and there are no minutes.

But if I can judge from the anger and distrust and anxiety in the voices of those people who called me.

Not good.

Not not good.

So just know that that's out there.

Yeah.

And then I think what my point is is you know when you start to have your major developers also then saying that they have concern.

So that's just where my brain is going.

That's not to discredit any of the feedback we're getting from neighborhood residents.

Weatherization, right?

I love that concept.

Do we have a weatherization chapter in the UDC?

I mean, if we don't, Rebecca, it should not be an NCOD.

I mean, like, I'm just, I mean, like, I'm like, I'm like, wow, that's really cool.

I actually want to study that.

No, but we I don't think we have it in the UDC.

I just I don't want to make this document where it's it's very complex, and that's just what I'm gonna say about that.

Like site feature and screen streetscape standards.

We have so much new good stuff in the UDC about that.

So we have to be very careful and make sure that like what's in the NCOD is really relevant for those, you know, more historic patterns we have.

Allison, what were you saying is the bulk of the pushback from the neighborhood focused group?

That it was gonna overly micromanage small homeowners with existing structures and not addressing the issue of compatibility and the largest components of compatibility these people felt is mass and scale.

Yeah, I mean, I mean, most of the design guy, I mean, this layout is mostly for existing buildings, not teardowns and new construction.

So that makes total sense.

And here's the thing, it's always been like that.

Okay, right?

The way it's operating now has always been like that.

Yep, which is actually where I had hoped that we could realize it's happening, and then this update could think about that.

That was the other thing I wanted to say.

Each of them was really surprised that there's like an entirely new framework, that it's all new, they want it, they were wondering like I thought we were just going to address like keep the format of like here's the policy, and here's the so this is the enforceable thing that we you you need to do, and then here's your options to get there, and then create an entire new section for new construction.

That's what I resonate.

And I would I would support staff there and agree with what Rebecca said.

Uh you know, listen, I there is distrust everywhere right now, every city I'm working in, there is distrust that is at the community level.

Um, you know, we can only share as much as we can in our meetings, but I I am not surprised with the um the overhaul, I think is the word we used.

I mean, I think I think I was one that was vocalizing just the concern of having the UDC go first.

I mean, there's a lot of overhaul happening, is my point, and that increases um the the fear and the um you know the the distrust when you have that much change occurring and we just happen to be doing a lot right now, so um, but it's all it's all good, we think.

Can I just jump in and because Alison?

Go ahead, Jim.

Maybe not.

Nope.

Okay.

Well, I will I'll continue.

Um because we're using certain words in this conversation, like distrust and pushback.

I would ask that we think about this as all being feedback in the process, and we are intentionally engaging with you all with the public with the neighborhood focused group to get these comments, and I hope that we will be able to incorporate some changes and bring that back to show that we are hearing the feedback we're receiving, and that it doesn't have to be distrust and pushback.

That the this is the process working.

We want these comments and we want this direction.

So I appreciate that we're getting some critical feedback, and that is okay.

That's part of the process.

Sorry, I'm confused.

I don't know whether that was back to me or Alice and Brister, but that's okay.

That was that was there anybody out?

Is there anybody out in the room?

Because I understand there was no public comment or anything.

Would do we have anybody out in the public tonight, or was there nobody there?

We had three members in the audience, Jen.

Oh, thank you.

Because you can appreciate that I can't okay.

I can't tell that from where I'm sitting because the camera never pans on the audience, not that you know that's the be all end all.

But it is important though to see who's there, or not who's there, but that there are people there.

But um, no, I just wanted to just wanted to say whoever was mentioning about um neighborhood feedback and all that.

As I was saying a little while ago, yeah, my emails and texts were lit up like a Christmas tree.

So I know, and we all know I think there's a lot of feedback out there.

Where it was tonight, I don't know.

So I mean, I'll temper my comments.

Um, okay.

Oh, I just got a text from somebody, and I understand that.

Thank you for your text.

Okay, that's good.

That covers one person, but I know there's others out there.

Um, and I want to be respectful and constructive, but yes, it seems like I'm not sure what it is, but I um I just wish we could have maybe a little more of an open discussion, because there is so much out there, guys and gals.

I you know, from where I'm sitting 2,000 miles away from you guys, I don't know what to think.

I'm kind of disappointed, to be honest.

Um, I'm getting pretty exhausted with this whole process.

Um, I will go so far to say that again, constructively in the commission was told, yeah, approving the UDC first before all this stuff.

Huge mistake, I think.

You need to get your ducks in a row first, and we didn't do that.

And if you guys want to chop my head off, that's fine.

I will go on public record.

I mean, good Lord.

Um, I'm just hoping that we can move forward and some of these neighborhood comments.

God, if they get into public comment or whatever, that would be that would be good.

Um sorry, I'm tired too, like all of you.

God, it's after 11 o'clock here.

Um any rate what can I say except I just hope we can get some balance between that base zoning, the NCOD.

Um, and I know Lakota, I said this before, so I'm repeating myself.

It's not up to you to referee us, but God, we just gotta have more open constructive communication at the community level because we know this is going on in other communities around the country.

So and what's really interesting, and I'll just say this here using Chat GBT for like the first time.

I put in something for Claude on anthropic and just said compare Charleston to Bozeman in their Charleston, South Carolina to Bozeman, Montana on how historic preservation has been carried out and what came back to me just blew my mind.

Um we need to just get into this, I think a little more and have more two-way discussions because certainly Chat GBT was uh not impressed with how Bozeman had uh gone forward in its discussions, and that's not a reflection on say our board or anything in particular, but it's just where we are in um we I think we need to dig a little deeper, and I'm sorry, I'm I'm not my best for words tonight, but there's more we can do.

I think we're trying, but the community does not want to be chopped off at the knees by any one group of people, meaning commission or staff.

So please let's all work together and share some good feedback and figure out folks how do we row together?

That's the bottom line here.

How do we row together?

Because I see this uh kind of spiraling downhill, and the last thing we want to do is just hit the ground.

So count circling back to what's in front of us looking through the chapters that were proposed.

I think unless unless splitting everything out into these chapters makes things more clear and easier to navigate, then it's kind of defeating the purpose.

Um I could see a world where breaking out single unit, multi-unit mixed use, commercial institutional and industrial.

If I right now it's set up basically, you go through either residential or commercial, which is a pretty clear distinction, and it's pretty clear based on code, and it's what most people are familiar with.

Um the ambiguity tends to come.

What do I actually have to do?

Yeah.

If this provides a framework that says you're immediately identified as this position, here's your framework, great.

But if every other project is like, well, you're kind of this one and kind of this one, that doesn't help at all.

Um I realize not every project is gonna be residential or commercial, but you know, if you look at it based on IRC, four units or less, you're residential.

Anything more, you're commercial.

It's a pretty clean split.

Um within that, you know, commercial could definitely be broken out into mixed use or some of these others.

Um I do wonder about industrial architecture standards.

I don't uh unless there's a and part of this is a framework around historic preservation.

So are there historic elements that are specific to industrial architecture standards?

Um old grain mills, old breweries, old, you know, whatever.

Uh and maybe those are totally appropriate.

And I think in the absence of seeing the specifics, I'm I'm just not entirely sure.

But again, from a feedback standpoint, if those divisions create greater clarity, yes.

If they confuse the issue, no.

That's kind of where I come down to.

The whole if we said everything about you know mass and scale aside for a second, the other overriding feature is clarity and predictability.

And as an architect, when I have a project that comes up and I know I'm gonna be in the COA, and I'll be totally honest right now.

Anything that goes through the planning department, we black box, and I put an hourly fee to it because I never know how long it's gonna take.

And we've just gotten used to that.

Uh anything that helps that process, I'm all for uh, particularly with the COA.

That's just kind of another level on top of planning department.

Um, but I I would love to see that just get streamlined.

And I realize we are dealing with ineffable qualities and feelings and nostalgia and other non-qualitative things.

And it's messy, I know that, and I've been on enough HOAs and other, you know, both sides of a lot of those things to know that that's that's it's hard to split that.

But I think just looking at this framework, that was kind of the part of the initial impetus behind the tiers was to help provide some clarity because not everything needs historic and not everything needs nothing.

There is some in between, and we need to cover some of that gray area, and it's how we can help parse out some of that gray area that I think we're looking for the most help in.

Um, are you guys still there?

Yeah.

Oh awesome.

I was thinking maybe up those questions again, just so on the last note, you guys could have next slide.

Yeah, like what was it you were asking as a prompt for these guys?

Um I think we've answered a few of them.

Um just making sure that the tier approach made sense, and it sounds like yes, there's still an appetite for tiers, so four might be too much, and we need to kind of rethink how many tiers we have and why.

Um and then the other question was um overall if we are um being able to look at all the different topics that are top of mind.

So meaning, are there any topics that we're forgetting about?

And it sounds like maybe we've looked into too many topics, and or we are kind of branching out too much, and it might make sense to try and simplify a little bit if there is ways to do that.

Um, particularly sounds like um industrial is not necessarily um a big topic, um, something um something similar.

Um in relation to industrial, maybe we don't need to bring that in.

Um the the topic about um residential um possibly trying to simplify that approach a little bit between single units and multi-units.

Um and then the other part of it was the third question was focused on just the flexibility and um being able to strike that balance between um maintaining character but also providing flexibility, and I feel like the majority of the discussion sort of um helped answer that question overall.

Like, yes, we're still trying to build in flexibility um where we can, and that's why the tiers are there.

So I think overall, yeah, we did um we did get great feedback tonight, and um we'll definitely be looking into providing more answers.

Um, but if there's more comments related to any of these three topics, we're still here.

So yeah, this I'll just say section nine and section 10 would be two sections I'm very excited to review.

So that's additions and new construction standards and then demolition and relocation standards.

Like that's you know, that's the movie I'm really looking forward to watching and and checking out.

Um and then I will just want to circle back to something that Mike said, because it's it is it's what I do also full time in my real job outside of this, but streamlining development is a thing.

Um it's it's important for many reasons, it because we get housing built, but it's also because it just makes you know um predictability is really important, not only for an applicant, but for a community member so they know what to expect, whether it's receiving notice or just knowing what's going to be permitted.

So my whole point is I I am weary of just us going toward us being the city of Bozeman, going toward like a more complex approach.

Because I I just I'm thinking about like me as a staff member or me as an applicant and like helping someone go through these sections in addition to what we just approved in the UDC, which I haven't even figured out fully yet.

Um so I just I I can't caution that enough.

And Lakota group, I'm sure staff has mentioned this, but Bozeman has always had a target on it in terms of the state legislature, and uh we don't want to be testing out something that is um something that just is not is not going to be received well, or the response is saying it's gonna it's slowing down development, you know, like that would be the worst case scenario.

I am in no way saying that's the only thing we should be paying attention to because I don't mind pushing um you know into territory, it's a little bit new, but I just think we need to make this simple, and I definitely can relate to the idea of um you know the standards are harder for those who ask for permission or those who just want to keep their house, you know, like all they want to do is live in their house that they happen to have in the NCOD, and they need to change the windows.

So what do I have to do?

Uh compare to building a multi-unit monstrosity across from the co-op, for example.

Um, you know, and then just having anything go.

Um so yeah, once Lakota group coming into town again, are they?

No, not till final presentation.

I I want to say in our in original schedule, it was sometime in September perhaps, or the September.

Okay, all right.

So before the snow falls, potentially for probably for a ideally it was for a final presentation.

Okay, we'll yeah, we'll work.

That was good, Rebecca.

Good, because that was hopeful thinking there.

Yeah, okay.

And I just wanted to add also, so unfortunately, we are dealing with a lot of different projects that all overlap.

And so keep in mind that the design standards only apply through a COA process.

So we are also working on the landmark project that is updating code related to what requires a COA certificate of appropriateness.

So as part of that conversation, we have talked about expanding the exemptions for smaller projects at small homes.

So there may be a path that is unrelated to what is in the design guidelines that exempts certain types of smaller projects that help people maintain their homes.

Yeah, because aside from personal property owners, and I'm thinking individuals, homeowners.

I don't mean to say streamline development to make it cheaper or easier.

Yeah.

I mean to say the process should be clear.

If we want to require everything has to be brick, that's one thing, right?

That's a different discussion.

But it's yeah, it's knowing, right?

If you walk into it knowing you gotta put brick on, you know that walking in and you gotta deal with it.

But if you don't know what you have to do from the outset, and you can't get any answers until you're halfway through the process, and then turns out you have to retool, that's not fun.

And and and it and it's hard not to be able to give that sort of assurance to a client.

Um so more so than what we cover is how we how we cover that well and clearly, and I think both the public and staff is anxious for justifying yes, no.

And again, it's not all that simple.

There's gonna be gray, there's gonna be a lot of yucky stuff, but as much as possible if we can clarify that and at least contain the things we don't know or lesson that makes things a lot easier.

So I think that would be kind of overall direction.

I appreciate that.

And um commission also has set a priority of um finding efficiencies in the development review process that the city undertakes.

So as my side project, I am also helping to review our development review process for things like regulatory certainty, which is how how can they read or know what is a yes or what's a no, um, and predictability and timelines.

So we are also working on that.

And that's internal, you all are doing that?

It is it is primarily internally focused now.

We are um getting feedback from the design community, and then we are also going to be providing updates to commission as that project moves forward and getting their feedback as well.

And we did um have so some of you are probably aware of like the firewall in the city, like the commission doesn't go and give things to staff unilaterally, we go through Chuckwin.

So um two groups of two commissioners did meet with larger development entities and smaller builders and do sort of a round table discussion and bring that feedback from you know, and even a case study of you know, where are some of the pinch points, what are the problems we're seeing.

Um, and so that's a little bit you know, public facing part of that component of that project.

So the summaries from both of those, you know, two commissioners and two commissioners doing two groups, that has been given to the city manager, so yeah, and you guys have it.

So yay.

Okay, are we done with discussion on this topic for the evening?

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, great.

Um, uh, thanks so much for your time.

Uh thanks for casting a wide net.

I think we can start to pair some things back as they make sense.

Um, and I think uh hopefully you got enough feedback to help.

I don't know, maybe we muddied the waters, but steer the ship a little bit.

Feedback is good feedback.

That's right.

All right.

Great.

Then you got good feedback.

Yeah, great.

All right.

Um yeah, thanks again for your time.

Uh we appreciate all the work you put in.

Thank you.

Okay, can we cover demo in four minutes?

There's a collective resignation right there.

So perhaps some direction on how you're going to be able to do that.

I'm so jealous of your coffee.

I'm so jealous of your coffee.

Um minutes?

I mean, we have notes.

There are notes.

Of the things I of the sheet that I sent out.

I listed some recommendations and some things that we really didn't have enough or didn't want to make.

I mean, is there and I'm sorry, I didn't print one.

Was there any topic we want to revisit?

Or is that enough to send to Lakota in advance of our next discussion with them?

What's our other consultant?

Community planning collaborative.

Oh, sorry, yes, community planning collaborative.

The other the other people.

I think it's in here.

I can't quite find my notes, but just um that things are surveyed when the demo permit goes in.

And if you guys want to take some more time and look at that and send me comments or send Rebecca comments, or we can start working from there.

That's fine too.

Just for timing purposes, um we are planning to have a conversation about demo code at the August 19th meeting.

So what that means is we would like to get draft before you before that meeting, so you have a chance to digest it.

Um which then backing up further means that we need time for our consultant to review what you would like to incorporate, get some recommendations to city staff, and then we need to review that with our legal council before we're like able to provide a public draft of a proposed code.

So as soon as possible.

Um is what I'm saying.

I'm fine with the notes.

Sorry, I actually I think the notes are good.

I'll second.

Second or third, whatever we're on.

Well, uh Jim, did you have any comment on it?

Demo yes.

I mean that yeah, no, Mike and um.

Hey, I will say my my bad for not being able to answer that very well written piece that you put out to all of us with those questions.

I still owe you responses.

I'll still do that, even though it's gonna be after the fact.

Um yeah, I'm just running a little behind with some other things pulling at my time.

Uh I'm supposed to be well, let's put it this way.

I am not on vacation even though I'm away from town.

Oh, just leave it at that.

Um, but thank you.

I owe you some feedback.

Here's the uh here's what I'll say.

If uh we can make a quick motion here to send this to community planning collaborative.

Um and Jim, if you send me your notes, I will see uh if there's any substantive uh departures or differences or things like that.

We could send a little more information along if we need to.

Yeah, Jim, look at Mike's most recent email.

It basically has recent email.

Don't and that basically it's it's um notes put together for the questions that were originally asked.

I I think you'll be in alignment.

Okay, now when is that email?

Uh a day ago.

A day ago.

A day ago?

Well, I mean it's it's almost p.m.

here.

It's uh it was sent as information by Mike on July 14th at 6.32 p.m.

Yesterday.

Yes, okay, 7.14, 632.

Okay.

I'll be on it tomorrow morning and I'll be able to do something with it.

Amazing.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, so motion to send these notes off.

I'll make a motion.

Yeah, and I'll second.

Oh, well, isn't that my action?

Is it an action item?

Is it so missed?

Yes, technically we did include the question.

Well, it was on the agenda on the agenda as an action item so that you'd be able to take public comment.

Correct.

Well, yeah.

Uh then let's take public comment before we'll pause for public comment.

Okay.

Is there any public comment on demolition and any online?

No public comment.

Great.

Let's proceed with the motion.

We had a motion.

We had a second.

Can we go?

Mover Wilson.

Hi.

Second of Brecky.

Yes.

Member Webster.

Yes.

Member Willbacher.

Yes.

Member Nicholas.

Yes.

Chair Weisman.

Yes.

Okay.

Let's send those notes off.

And if uh Jim has any feedback, send me your email and send them to you.

That was a great vote of confidence that you just voted for him, but that easy.

Well, yeah, no, I know.

I'm sorry.

Just trying to keep it moving.

I know you guys are well in pensioned and yeah, okay.

All right.

Um we moved F I Y I.

I don't think there's anything else left for us to go through.

So I'm gonna adjourn.