Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-24 INC Agenda and Packet MaterialsA. Call meeting to order B. Disclosures C. Changes to the Agenda D. Public Comment E. Action Items E.1 Approve the Jandt Neighborhood Association as a City Recognized Neighborhood Association(Clark) F. FYI/Discussion F.1 Tax Increment Financing (TIF)(DiTommaso) THE INTER-NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA INC AGENDA Thursday, February 8, 2024 This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online video conferencing system. You can join this meeting: Via Video Conference: Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting. Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in- person United States Toll +1 669 444 9171 Access code: 927 9843 5349 Approval of Minutes Approve Minutes from 9/14/23, 10/12/23, 11/9/23, and 1/11/24 (Evans) This is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the Inter-Neighborhood Council. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that item but you may only speak once per topic. Please note, the Board cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the Board shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your name and place of residence in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to three minutes. 1 F.2 City Liaison Update(Clark) F.3 Neighborhood Updates(INC Reps) F.4 Recognition of New Members, Members Terming Off(INC Chair) G. Adjournment For more information please contact Takami Clark at tclark@bozeman.net This board generally meets the 2nd Thursday of the month from 4:30 to 6:00 Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Mike Gray, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301). In order for this Board to receive all relevant public comment in time for this meeting, please submit via the Commission Comment Page or by emailing agenda@bozeman.net no later than 12:00 PM on the day of the meeting. Public comment may be made in person at the meeting as well. 2 Memorandum REPORT TO:Inter-Neighborhood Council FROM:Takami Clark, Communications & Engagement Manager SUBJECT:Approve Minutes from 9/14/23, 10/12/23, 11/9/23, and 1/11/24 MEETING DATE:February 8, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Minutes RECOMMENDATION:Approve minutes STRATEGIC PLAN:7.3 Best Practices, Creativity & Foresight: Utilize best practices, innovative approaches, and constantly anticipate new directions and changes relevant to the governance of the City. Be also adaptable and flexible with an outward focus on the customer and an external understanding of the issues as others may see them. BACKGROUND:N/A UNRESOLVED ISSUES:N/A ALTERNATIVES:N/A FISCAL EFFECTS:N/A Attachments: 2024.01.11 INC Minutes.pdf 2023.11.09 INC Minutes.pdf 2023.10.12 INC MINUTES.pdf 2023.09.14INC Minutes.pdf Report compiled on: February 6, 2024 3 1 Inter-Neighborhood Council of Bozeman, Montana MINUTES Thursday, January 11, 2024 4:30-6:00 pm Present: Cynthia Evans, Chair/ Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Association Linda Semones, Vice Chair/Bogert Park Neighborhood Association Tonya Stevens, Secretary/University Neighborhood Association Emily Talago /Midtown Neighborhood Association Brad Bates/Bridger Creeklands Association of Neighbors Anne Thorpe/Kirk Park Neighborhood Association Brian Close/Hyalite Neighborhood Laurie McKinney/ Marwyn Addition Takami Clark, Interim Community and Engagement Manager Audience: Allison Sweeney One other person Meeting called to order by C. Evans at 4:30 PM Disclosures: None Changes to the Agenda: None Public Comment: None in an official capacity, but it was decided to allow Ms. Sweeney to make her remarks: Allison Sweeney of S 14th Ave, representing the Better Bozeman Coalition (BBC) states she submitted to her comments to current Mayor Cunningham and Deputy Mayor Morrison. She stated she was influenced by that process and school board process. She believes a charette style workshop should be done by the city along with city manager. She urges this INC board to ask for this. Also monthly meetings for public – (listen for this) Community engagement done as well as possible by Clark and Hess. E.1 Communications and Engagement Neighborhoods Work Session (Takami Clark, Interim Community and Engagement Manager) Dani Hess has left the City of Bozeman employment and is in Helena now. Takami Clark, community and engagement manager: they are looking to fill Dani’s position. Change it to focus on neighborhoods more. Slide presentation Discussion regarding the changing and increased role of INC and how to communicate to neighborhood residents. Suggestions: • Canvassing: door to door or coffee shop, etc. • Media engagement – Takami handles press releases, etc. • Tabling – events • Paid advertising, rely on other depts. for help with this. Can be on the radio • Paid mailing – need to get depts to budget for. • A prepared PowerPoint presentation that can be emailed. • Use the online NextDoor Neighborhood Forum, (although many are now ignoring as it has become aggravating sometimes.) ***Takami says she has seen a large increase from commission wanting to hear from INC, neighborhoods, etc. 4 2 Discussion about the fact that INC is a unique city advisory board in that we are not appointed, gives us a lot of independence. Communication strategies: suggestions about the need to update addresses in neighborhoods that have changed, news kiosks, city could use email lists that neighborhood associations have. Lamenting loss of Lindley Center as gathering place since its remodel is on hold. Takami: Still talking about city waiving fees for neighborhood assoc meetings in various halls. Cynthia: summing up this discussion and remember every neighborhood is different: 1. Best practice: neighborhood meetings taking place 4 times a year 2. Information regarding resident’s neighborhood association can be on utility bills 3. Social media news from the city and neighborhood forum (NextDoor) 4. Door to door education/information highly reliable 5. Get news out using organized charrette form E.2 Landscape and Irrigation Design Standards Presentation (Jessica Ahlstrom) Slide Deck, see attached pdf. Where our city water comes from: Bozeman Creek – 40% Hyalite Creek – 40% Lyman Creek– 20% Some highlights of talk: • 50-year plan requested that Water conservation fill 50% of the water gap that is anticipated in coming years. Water conservation as a technique is cost effective compared to importing water • Expect climate change to eventuate in rain instead of snow. • Hyalite Reservoir is Bozeman’s only storage. • We are in a “closed” basin: if we grow, we can’t just buy more water rights because they don’t exist. • Alarming trend: new single-family homes using more water even on smaller lots. • Promote not using KY bluegrass. Allowing for fescue blends and drought-tolerant grasses that can be instead of plants as 60% vegetative cover. • Longer hotter drier summers; future development must have more sustainable landscapes. • Changes are being made to turf grass removal and vegetative cover specs. E.3 City Liaison Update (Clark) • UDC survey open. 900+ surveys so far. All the results will show on Engage Bozeman. Everyone will have a chance to dig through the data. • Adopted the DEI plans • Ice rink at Bogert is open. Rest of the ice rinks will be open soon. E.4 Neighborhood Updates (INC Reps) Brian (New Hyalite View): nothing really. Addy: CIP got passed, so let’s get park improvements scheduled. 5 3 Brad (BCAN): second annual meeting in November, 25-30 people. Still development phase. Mailer seemed to bring out people Tonya (UNA): MAID, Montanans Against Irresponsible Densification, has filed suit against Gov. Gianforte to declare some portions of recent housing policy unconstitutional. Many members of UNA neighborhood in this group. Laurie (Marwyn/Lindley): They are meeting next Tuesday, missed the last one. Cynthia (Bozeman Creek): Neighborhood in hibernation mode. A parcel of land is for sale that is getting scrutiny by neighbors. Linda (Bogert): Feb 15th annual meeting, elected a new board, so this is last meeting for Linda Emily (MidTown): contacted by neighbors RE 5th and Villard project worries. Has sent out mailers to get some volunteers for leadership. MidTown is changing quickly, needs organization Anne (Kirk Park): November 27t first annual meeting went very well. 62 folks showed up, heard from the City about UDC changes. Adjourned by C. Evans at 6:35 pm Submitted by Tonya Stevens 2/06/2024 6 City of Bozeman Proposed Water Efficient Landscape and Irrigation Standards Jessica Ahlstrom City of Bozeman Water Conservation Program Manager January 11, 2024 7 Bozeman’s Water Supply 18 acre-feet/day (6 MGD) Hyalite Creek 40% Bozeman Creek 40% Lyman Creek 20% 8 Integrated Water Resources Planning & Conservation Water Conservation to fill 50% of gap between supply and demand over next 40 years •Limited supplies •Semi-arid climate •Surface water -snowpack dependent •Projected climate change impacts •Less annual precipitation (more rain vs snow) •Earlier peak runoff and drier, hotter summers •Drought prone •Limited storage •Closed basin •Cost effective •Immediate return •High population growth •High outdoor use “Water conservation and water-use efficiency should be the bedrock of the city’s water resource management” -IWRP Water Supply Planning Drought Management Planning Demand Management 9 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 POPULATIONDEMAND (AF)YEAR PROJECTED WATER DEMAND vs. RELIABLE SUPPLY DEMAND (AF)POPULATION 11,042 AF Reliable Supply 9,011 AF Reliable Supply 71,000 People 87,000 People 10 Outdoor Water Use Trends 50% of annual residential water use goes into lawns and landscapes EXISTING/FUTURE TRENDS: New single-family homes use water less efficiently outdoors More large development projects (multi-family & commercial) are expected to connect to City water in the future Climate models predict longer, hotter, drier summers thirstier landscapes 11 Existing Development –Landscaping Trends Percent turfgrass of total irrigable area: •Single family: 85% turfgrass •Multi-family: 45% turfgrass •Commercial: 35% turfgrass The City’s current code has no limitations on turfgrass. In Bozeman, 1 𝐟𝐟𝐟𝐟𝟐𝟐of turf requires 15 gallons of supplemental water each season Typical SF home in Bozeman 3,445 ft2 of turfgrass 12 Existing Development – Irrigation Performance & Design The City’s current code does not include irrigation performance and design standards. Without these standards, many irrigation systems: •Are not designed to achieve even coverage (head placement, hydrozoning) •Do not operate within optimal specified pressure ranges •Utilize less efficient irrigation technology (nozzles, controllers) These issues often lead to water waste and overwatering. 13 Goals of Proposed Landscaping Requirements •Limit turfgrass •Allow for functional turf areas •Ensure adequate topsoil (quality & quantity) •Increase installation of drought tolerant plants •Enhance tree requirements •Reduce plant coverage requirements •Provide flexibility in landscape plan development & approval via two compliance pathways Qualitative Benefits -Increased plant diversity -Improved watershed health -Climate adaptive landscapes during drought -Lower maintenance -Increased wildlife habitat -Reduced stormwater runoff -Increased shade -Reduced pesticides and fertilizers Ability for residents to landscape yards to align with values Best in class utility Leader in conservation 14 Goals of Proposed Irrigation Requirements •Ensure efficient irrigation components are installed in future systems •Reduce water waste, overspray and runoff •Ensure system performance is in line with manufacturers specifications •Hydrozoning •Matched precipitation •Increase installation of low volume, efficient drip irrigation •Ensure health & longevity of irreplaceable vegetation such as trees •Require irrigation design plan for large projects Photo credit: Netafim USA Photo credit: Rain Bird Corp. Photo credit: Hunter Industries 15 Project Cost •Estimate of existing requirements vs. proposed requirements •Cost increase ranges from $3,064 to $5,981 •This represents 14% -29% increase in cost of landscaping •Less than 1% of the cost of a SF home •Estimated savings of $234 on water bill annually (47% reduction in charges for outdoor use) •44% reduction in outdoor water use E X I S T I N G P R O P O S E D 16 Next Steps •Continue community engagement •Continue working with legal team •CD Board presentation: 1/22/24 •Parks Board presentation: 1/24/24 •CD Board hearing: 3/4/24 •City Commission first read: 3/19/24 •City Commission second read: 4/2/24 •Effective date: 5/2/24 Visit the project website! Water Conservation New Development Standards 17 Thank you! Jessica Ahlstrom Water Conservation Program Manager 406-582-2265 jahlstrom@bozeman.net 18 Indoor Rebates •WaterSense® Labeled Plumbing Fixtures •Toilets ($250) •Urinals ($300) •Showerheads ($20) •High Efficiency Clothes Washers ($150) •Free High Efficiency Faucet Aerators •Free High Efficiency Showerheads •Free Pre-Rinse Spray Valves •Free Indoor Water Use Assessments •Hotels •Restaurants •Multi Family WaterSense®: 3rd party performance tested & saves 20% more water than standard counterparts 19 Outdoor Rebates Image: explodedhome.com image: Hunter Industries image: nerdtechy.com Retrofit New Construction Weather based irrigation controllers $250 $150 Rain sensors $50 $30 Multi-stream multi- trajectory (MSMT) nozzles $6/ea.$4/ea. Drip irrigation Up to $250 n/a Drought tolerant plants $200 n/a Turf removal Up to $2,000 n/a 20 Free Sprinkler System Assessments Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditors perform assessments •Identify needs of sprinkler system repair •Identify opportunities for increasing system efficiency •Create a customized watering schedule specific to landscape water requirements and sprinkler system performance •Submit full report with recommendations and site map Sprinkler System Assessments (2018-2021) •320 residential assessments •Estimated reduction of 1800 gal/week/home through custom watering schedule –peak season •Estimated 1.8 million gallons saved –peak season •Many residents on waitlist for 2022 21 Customer Water Use Portal Water Use •Comparison to similar households •Comparison to efficient households •Efficiency goals •Water rate tier representation •Outdoor water use disaggregation Free Leak Alerts Rebate Information 22 9 November 2023 INC Minutes 1 Inter-Neighborhood Council of Bozeman, Montana MINUTES Thursday, November 9, 2023 4:30 – 6:00 pm Present: Cynthia Evans, Chair/ Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Association Linda Semones, Vice Chair, /Bogert Park Neighborhood Association Tonya Stevens, Secretary/University Neighborhood Association Emily Talago /Midtown Neighborhood Association Brad Bates/Bridger Creeklands Association of Neighbors Anne Thorpe/Kirk Park Neighborhood Association Laurie McKinney / Marwyn/Lindley Neighborhood Association Suzanne Held/Northeast Neighborhood Association Brian Close/Hyalite Neighborhood via Zoom Meeting called to order by Chair Evans at 4:35 pm Disclosures: None Changes to the Agenda: None Public Comment: None E.1. Model HOA Covenants Project Overview (Kira Peters, Jesse DiTommaso) City Manager Office was directed by the city commission to work on creation of these. They are in DRAFT mode now. Appropriate comments tonight will be incorporated into their work. They would appreciate the support of this document by INC A slide presentation was given regarding: Model Covenants background document Model covenant language Covenant language was written to provide resolution to problems with connectivity, childcare, water conservation, sustainability, public safety, solid waste, fire resistant models. Discussion: Questions from Suzanne and Tonya regarding DEI and short-term rentals. Brian didn’t think that this model language has run afoul of SB300. Had suggestions regarding making amendments, automatic expiration, renewal, and wondered who gets to vote – owners or apartment or renter dwellers? Emily asked who would adopt these? Jesse answered “Which of these suggestions are you most likely to adopt and why?” • Water conservation was chosen most. Thinks people who know how to change the rules will do so to pay less in water. • Developers said they have been copying and pasting same old development HOA rules forever, so some developers will accept the new model willingly. What is the percentage of the city made up of HOAs? Neither speaker knew for sure. Dani suggested: look at community development map online and find the HOAs, call property management firms, look up the Secretary of State. City doesn’t have a reliable map. Brian thought Parks and Rec might have list. Realtors would also be a great source for HOA existence. Suzanne asked for an education handout. Kira points out “Tools for HOAs” to engage with city programming. 23 9 November 2023 INC Minutes 2 Emily: Possibly add into HOA models: encourage sustainability by including a maintenance group of sharing tools or contracted services so efficiency is gained. Discussion on INC vote on our backing this HOA Model: what we as reps from neighborhoods can and cannot vote on for our neighborhood. Brian points out we cannot vote on this as it was not listed as an Action Item on the agenda and there was no public notice. Brian states we can give Kira and Jesse encouragement, just no vote. Public Comment: Mary Whitser, Boylan Road, commented from online wondering about state regulations that could possibly “sunset” existing HOA covenants, thinks HOAs should be able to operate with a majority or quorum instead of all homeowners. Next step: City commission. Provide comment as usual at agenda@bozeman.net E.2. Managing human/bear conflict in Bozeman Rosie Costain, People and Carnivores, and Blakely Adkins, Greater Yellowstone Coalition A slide presentation was made. They also brought literature to hand out. • 10 bears have been killed in Bozeman this year because they became nuisances. • At issue is smell – garbage is the worst, pet food, bird feeders, hummingbird feeders, grills, compost piles. • Bear resistant trash cans pilot program started for city in winter of 2022. It’s been pretty successful so far. City has been messaging particular neighborhoods. Conflicts are reduced, but there are still conflicts. • All solid waste companies in the area have bear-resistant cans. Anyone can get one for an extra cost per month: Republic, L&L, City of Bozeman. All neighborhoods are now eligible for bear-resistant cans. • Go back to neighborhoods and spread the word!! Discussion: If bear becomes frequent and/or aggressive, a 3rd strike will result in removal. Laura: Saw a business with bird feeders and bears. She didn’t want to caution them, but could she have called FW&P to bring them to the situation? Answer: You can email offenders a packet we provide, or call FW&P. Use alternative ways to get birds to come to your yard, bird bath, native flowers/bushes and create habitat. Emily: Is unsecured trash in a bear zone a violation? Dani: HOA development is working on that. Tonya: How are you making bear maps? We don’t show up on your map, but bears are all over our neighborhood. Answer: they have discovered that bears are everywhere in town. This is just the beginning of this process of providing education. Bear zone map needs to be updated. The cans are expensive for the city to purchase, but now more are available, so all neighborhoods are eligible. Enforcing regs may have to come. Linda: You have to upgrade to a larger size to get the bear resistant one. Suzanne: How are the cans bear resistant? Answer: the cans usually open only by being lifted upside down for dumping. Brian: Can I tell my neighborhood to call for a can? Dani: Be strategic in your asks. City still doesn’t have a lot of BR cans. 24 9 November 2023 INC Minutes 3 Question via Zoom (Mary): Comments: please don’t have bird feeders or fruit trees. Use native plants instead as suggested. Talk to your neighbor about sharing the work of getting the garbage can in if folks aren’t around. Ask for Homeowner education folders for your neighborhood from Rosie or Blakely. E.3. City liaison update (Dani Hess): • The UDC process has been delayed so CDB and CC aren’t scheduled for meetings until next year. Staff will put out a survey for the Supplemental Engagement Phase. It will all be online on all the usual channels. Dani will forward this to us in the next couple of weeks. Emily: What about higher visibility? Does someone have a budget for a billboard? Dani: City is continuing to use the channels that gets the broadest reach. Direct mail is expensive, response not trackable, which is why it wasn’t used. Tonya: Much of what people are objecting to did not get reviewed in public meetings because engagement stopped at about the time of SB 382. Our neighborhood has people who have evolved into Better Bozeman Coalition. There is someone here tonight in the audience representing that group. • Facility management letter that Suzanne has been waiting for is available for signature now. The assumption is that this is a representative body that can advocate for this, as long as we show how the consensus was come to. Dani sent this letter around the dais to all members present today for signature. • City commission vacancy (I-Ho Pomeroy resigned due to health reasons): State law requires fulfillment in 30 days from that Nov 1 date. agenda@bozeman.net will take public comment and applications for the vacancy. At Nov. 28th normal city commission meeting they will vote who will be placed on the commission. E.4. No Neighborhood updates due to time constraints Public comment: Alison Sweeney, vice chair of BBC. Spoke briefly. They formed the group because there were so many neighbors who viewed the UDC changes as a threat. A lot of the concern comes from the core neighborhoods. She was not prepared to make comments tonight but appreciates getting to speak. Their mission is to help design a better engagement process and to coordinate across neighborhoods. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 pm 25 1 Inter-Neighborhood Council of Bozeman, Montana MINUTES Thursday, October 12, 2023 4:30-6:00 pm Present: Linda Semones, Vice Chair/Bogert Park Neighborhood Association chairing the meeting Jenny Cowan representing Bozeman Creek NA (for Cynthia Evans, absent) Emily Talago/Midtown Neighborhood Association Brad Bates/Bridger Creeklands Association of Neighbors Brian Close/New Hyalite View Neighborhood Association Anne Thoreson/Kirk Park Neighborhood Association Tonya Stevens,Secretary/University Neighborhood Association via Zoom Amy Kelly Hoitsma, sitting in for Suzanne Held/Northeast Neighborhood Association Dani Hess, Community Engagement Director Chris Saunders, Community Development Manager 4 members of the public including 1 on Zoom Meeting called to order by Linda at 4:40 PM (late due to technical difficulties) Disclosures: None Changes to the Agenda: None Public Comment: people in the audience were invited to speak; they declined. Brian reminds us that public comment at this time in the meeting is only for non-agenda items. E.1 UDC Discussion (Saunders, Hess) At the request of Brad and Linda of INC, we are continuing our discussion from last month’s meeting about the proposed UDC changes. Several INC members sent questions to Dani, who shared those with Chris prior to this meeting. Chris Saunders presented information and slides pertaining to the Community Development Board (CDB) meetings – summary of the document “Community Development Board Public Hearing Addendum – Public Comment to Date Response” and an aggregation of public comment received, categorized by topic. • More than 300 comments were analyzed by city staff and listed in an Excel document This will be updated for the CDB meeting of 10/16. • They want people to know they are listening but found some of the letters were not pertinent to UDC code changes. • Three areas are being addressed through separate initiatives/code amendment cycles: 1. Wetlands/Sensitive Lands 2. Water Conservation Dept. will likely add code revisions in spring 3. Short Term Rentals get their own presentation to city commission 10/17 • Most frequent public comments were regarding the creation of the R-A district through combing previous zones R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-S • Several modifications were proposed by letter writers • The Community Development Board did not get to review everything because of the great extent of public comment so they will continue on 10/16. They suspect they will not get finished even on the 16th due to more comment and discussion. 26 2 Previously emailed questions from Linda, Brad and Amy were addressed first: [Not verbatim]: Linda: CS has stated the many requirements to be met by the developer of a 3-story 8-unit building in R-A would make it close to impossible to build. Why then include this type of development in the new zoning? Need clarification of answer from last week. CS: (Points to map) There is so much variation with the proposed R-A zone. The yellow is R-A on the map, which includes areas outside the core old Bozeman. People could design a subdivision or site that would fit with the new standards. Planners included many requirements to limit future development in certain areas. If they show they meet all those requirements, we believe that those type of developments would “fit”. However, when you look at core Bozeman, R-A as now delimited is a better description of that area than the current zoning is, and at the same time includes restrictions meant to prevent a developer from blowing that up. Linda: (mic not on, couldn’t hear this question) CS: The answer to the second part of your question: Zone map amendment: upzoning: If someone goes through the whole 5–6-month process, it is thought they are looking for more than a tiny incremental change. City thinks the R-A parameters allow to redivide within the existing framework of a home. When Planning looked at 2020 census, they found 45% of residences in core BZN had an individual in them. Other parts of town, it was more like 20% of homes with only one person. That’s a lot of housing stock out there providing for just one person. If folks can redevelop those homes for more people, that’s a good thing. Ultimately that is a policy decision that the city commission has to make. Linda: A lot of people think the 3-story 8-unit development would lead to upzoning. Once an 8- plex is there, a developer could think that the area could handle a larger development. The City has never denied an upzone since I have been watching their meetings. CS: Admits that this is a concern of many. Emily: Seems like a considerable lot size is necessary for what we think of as the worst case scenario. What is the process whereby someone can merge parcels? CS: There are subdivision exemptions. No public involvement required. You can consolidate or reshape. You have to show that you are within the rules. This is a staff-level process. They get 6-10 apps per year. Lots of different reasons for boundaries changing. Brian: At what point is the public informed of zone changes? CS: Community development reviewer determines if they have a legitimate application, then the request goes to planning staff, then public notice. Then there are CDB public hearings, then city commission hearings. Brian: So those 9 steps on the previous slide. Linda: Still true under the new law? CS: Yes, plus the UDC change has more notice than required – 200 ft radius of notice to neighbors for zone map amendment info, now they are suggesting 300 ft. AMY: I know of an example that the city actually has denied upzone requests –(gave 2 examples of a changes denied in NENA). CS: Yes ,there have been denials, most do get approved. If a developer plans meet the criteria, then the city must approve. It’s a rights and responsibilities thing for landowners involved. The burden is on the landowner to show they can do it. Then the city must investigate to find what criteria could potentially cause a denial. 27 3 Questions from Brad: City should notify all residents of anything that goes beyond the state requirements. CS: We have to give people the information regardless of local or state. City often exceeds the notice regs. Amy: Is there still time for suggested revisions 10/3 sent regarding REMU. CS: We did not see that before presentation to CDB. The board has not closed the comment period, so even though that link did not work right, it’s not too late. Linda: Zone edge transitions: The city considers a street an appropriate separation that will not trigger a zone edge boundary situation. Other cities use other standards according to Code Studio. Provide some context. CS: Streets are visible and existing. They are usually 60 ft wide. That’s probably the biggest amount that would be used as a setback in another situation. Would there be a better outcome if we adopted something different? City thought the street is enough of a transition. They try to avoid a zoning change in the middle of a block, though some exist. Linda: What do you do when there’s a large B3 between the one story home, then a street, then a 7-story development. Other cities consider other architectural design elements. I do not understand why a street is sufficient to transition. Most likely in the older areas in town. CS: There will be a dissimilar situation. City commission will Linda: Any hope of getting that changed? CS: Get your city officials to understand. For example: in a case where farmers thought they should be protected, so burden on non-ag properties, but then the non-ag people said there’s no benefit for us, so they won the day. Linda: Who would shoulder the responsibility in that case? CS: B3 property is taking all the hit, the other people are getting all the benefit. So the landowner of B3 is saying they are being penalized to benefit the other person. Dani: Thinks the UDC does a really good job on horizontal transition. It introduces another type of transition that includes introducing the vegetation. Linda: but that doesn’t include a transition across an alleyway. Dani: City says this might affect sun or views, but they want to prioritize infill development in town. It’s at trade-off. Linda: What if folks have solar? Emily: you can negotiate a solar easement CS: There’s nothing in state law that requires developers to consider that. That’s why the height restrictions. They are always looking for a balance. Inherent in urban living. Brad: For those properties that share a long property line, the City Comm takes a more conservative approach? Dani: you are asking if there are two zones on either side of a property line, the transition restrictions are stricter. Emily: My wheelhouse is landscaping. Based on light exposure, it would be difficult for north and east side shading to a landscape that can allow plant growth. Is there coordinated development – how does the city manage? CS: We can’t control to that degree. Currently 3 stories is allowed. You will see a bunch of different 3 story buildings in older and newer areas. Not common. Code looks more closely at wall height concept design. Thye are working on that. Even if the code allowed it, that has not happened much. Emily: anything in the UDC addresses the limits in NCOD or historic district. CS: It’s location will aesthetic and design characteristics have to conform to the historic recognition. No protective effect if there is a Historic District. But it does not prevent scraping 28 4 them out. There are some requirements that trigger a series of evaluations. The city can invoke up to a 2-year stay on a building permit. That’s the most they could find in the nation. Folks over-expect what a historic designation can do. Brad: What is the relationship between HOA and city zoning? CS: fascinating and difficult to answer. Title 76 zoning, title 70 is contracts. To the best of my knowledge, it has not been explored whether the city is mandating something, or covenants Dani: Marwyn Lindley is a good example – HOA convenants prevent ADUs, fences, but those exist. The neighbors are not very litigious, obviously. Brian: City will not enforce covenants. The city rule would normally trump. CS: Will come down to the language in the covenants, whether it was legal in the first place. It will be case by case. Dani: City priority is the model language for HOAs. They have no influence, but city suggests they take into account legal city priorities. EX: in-home daycare, drought tolerance plants. AMY’s questions: Regs pertaining to NEHMU did not get changed. CS: Chris said city wanted to keep it largely as is. Amy: we (NENA) proposed specifically things with developers to have consensus around changes. They are tired of erosion to B2M. At the urging of Andrus and Madgic they made recommendations 20 nonresidential, 80% residential of …something. I noticed a ft requirement changed to a story requirement. 5 stories will exceed 50 ft likely. She wondered if someone considered the math on that to be purposely vague. If you have 10-ft floor package with 2 ft in between, you have 68 ft instead of 50. So a max of 4 stories might fit the 50 ft, but 5 stoires very likely will exceed. Emily: Zone map amendment (ZMA) changes are on hold until after text is done? CS: no. They were specifically asking about adjustment to NCOD boundary, but they did not reach that in their conversation. Emily: why did they want to take out NCOD properties out of the 7th street corridor. CS: There is an urban renewal plan that overlaps. Resolve the conflict. They decided to move boundary to Emily: given the looseness of the “protection” of the NCOD, how does that change what is allowed? CS: “Use” is not changing, must be in keeping with underlying zoning. The aesthetic design is what is affected by the NCOD. That is what will be Linda: study groups and outreach events were categorized per group. Developers different than public. Why? CS: Thought that interests would be similar but that public would not want to hear the development language. They had to limit group size based on something. Dani: Every community meeting was open to everyone. The design professional communities, etc., content presented is the same, but input is different. We held and hosted our own meetings – intercepts, e.g., then other engagement is going to standing meetings, e.g., realtor meetings, neighborhood meetings. Brad: At CDB we learned that public is now engaged, they are asking for the process to be slowed down. There is a great desire to be able to comment and get another commissioner on the council. 29 5 CS: City commission had adopted the schedule. If they say ok, then the process can slow down. Part of the process is for getting out to the public. But when there is substance, we find the public is more capable of conversing within and to the city comm. The next meeting on 10/16, and they have still been in active listening mode. Next steps of the process: Monday 10/16 City Commission intro 10/24 CS says it is just a presentation meeting, no discussion Planning is still working on stuff with the CDB so they have not advertised the city commission meeting. 10/24 is the first of 5 meetings that public comment will be heard. Public comment on UDC discussion and presentation tonight: Angie Kociolek: Strongly suggested that since it was mentioned more than once by Chris Saunders that a large number of folks asked for the process to be slowed down, there should be a category on the tabulation of comments for exactly how many people requested such. She reiterates: please add a column that tallies those requests. Alison Sweeney: (South 14th) States she came to city some time ago to get a neighborhood association going. Since there is still not neighborhood association for her area, she feels she has not had adequate support. She also requests the process be extended so more folks can comment. E.2 City Liaison Update(Hess) • In the interest of pursuing more questioning, we decided to move this to the next INC meeting. • Dani had the Signatures Letter on the agenda, but we will wait until the next meeting. E.3 Neighborhood Updates (INC Reps) ) • In the interest of pursuing more questioning, we decided to move this to the next INC meeting • Amy: Shared screen for NENA for parade of sheds on Sunday 2-4 pm, then neighborhood potluck at the climbing wall or tinworks in inclement weather. Adjournment by Linda at 6:03 pm Submitted by Tonya Stevens 2 /06/2024 30 1 Inter-Neighborhood Council of Bozeman, Montana MINUTES Thursday, September 14, 2023 4:30-6:00 pm Present: Cynthia Evans, Chair/Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Association Linda Semones, Vice Chair/Bogert Park Neighborhood Association Tonya Stevens, Secretary/University Neighborhood Association Emily Talago/Midtown Neighborhood Association Brad Bates/Bridger Creeklands Association of Neighbors Anne Thorpe/Kirk Park Neighborhood Association Suzanne Held/Northeast Neighborhood Association Brian Close/Hyalite Neighborhood Dani Hess, Community Engagement Coordinator Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Association members in audience Meeting called to order by Chair Evans at 4:30 pm Disclosures: None Changes to the Agenda: None Public Service Announcements: None Public Comment: None Approval of Minutes: February - May 2023 minutes were combined in a packet. Motion to approve made by Suzanne H, seconded by ? All were in favor, motion approved. G.1. Presentation: Overview of SB 382 and Overview of Unified Development Code Public Review Process in Fall 2023. (Chris Saunders, Manager, COB Dept. of Community Development, with slide deck) Overview document at this link. Community Development Board met Monday night and saw this slide packet. These documents inform COB policy development starting in 2020: 1. Bozeman Community Plan 2020 2. Climate Action Plan 2020 3. Community Housing Action Plan 2020 In 2022, city started the UDC review process helped by outside firm Interboro. Another firm, Code Studio, helped with the actual drafting of the UDC changes. Then this year, a dozen different state bills changed land use planning, the most important of which was SB 382. Overview of Senate Bill 382 Montana Land Use Planning Act, June 2023: Biggest over-arching land use act in Montana ever. It replaces “whole cloth” the long-range planning processes, subdivision development processes, and zoning development processes and rolls them into one integrated whole. • Public Input. The legislature believes the time for the most effective public engagement is early in the planning process. Comment is allowed as issue plans (like the Park Plan) and growth plans are written (nonregulatory documents). The next best time is when moving into the regulatory realm, making sure to address a given range of issues identified by the state. Subdivision regs are subordinate to the zoning regs. Once specific projects are proposed, public comment ability is limited. • State edict on projects: If the development application “follows the rules”, the city must agree to proceed. Mr. Saunders: for these reasons it is important to become engaged during ANY rule-making phase. 31 2 The City felt they used a variety of approaches to reach out to the public, in-person and electronically. INC was approached twice for our comments. A report summarizes public engagement at Engage Bozeman website. UDC timeline: The city started gathering information in summer 2022, the Draft report came out August 14, 2023. Public hearings have already started with Community Development Board this week, then City Commission will start presentations in October, with public hearings in November. Anticipated completion of process in mid-December. See full timeline at Engage Bozeman. Mr. Saunders strongly encourages people to send comments about the Draft in writing to agenda@bozeman.net Mr. Saunders went over key features of the 532-page Unified Development Code document which are found outlined at Engage Bozeman website. Big changes incorporated in the UDC changes due to legislation: SB 382, Section 19. Encouragement of Development of Housing: Cities of a certain size (Bozeman included) zoning regulations must incorporate at least 5 of 14 recommendations (Sec. 19, (1), (a) - (n). Housing creation required by SB 382. SB 323: Anywhere there is a single-family dwelling, you can build a duplex now. New Zoning: Went from 16 to 20 zones. Thought they were a better fit for the community. Names were changed to make these less confusing. “RA” one of the most important changes, consolidating several existing zones. See Addendum for summary of lengthy Q&A period. G.2. 5:40 pm Neighborhood Updates - INC Reps BCAN (Brad): Explained BCAN boundaries. Annual meeting November 15th at the Bozeman Public Safety Center, working on how to grow membership. Kirk Park (Anne): just getting off the ground, started 2020 by Zoom, but they are working on that. Number of issues in the past 12 months. Hoping for a date for an annual meeting. NENA: (Suzanne) Monthly potlucks: Apr, May, Jun, July stroll, another in Sept. and Parade of Sheds Oct 15th, and potluck. Bogert Park (Linda): summer was quiet, but lots of discussion about UDC draft. They will kick back in this fall. Bozeman Creek (Cynthia): thrilled about flower planters calming on Garfield. Property along the Galligator that is now engaging New Hyalite View (Brian): Fiber Optic people are still digging, disturbing UNA (Tonya): lawsuit against city/fraternity house won, UDC letters written, neighbors are meeting privately about UDC concerns including the fact that UNA will need to re-ask for the change of in the grouping of fraternities and sororities in the group living category. Letter writing campaign in the neighborhood. MidTown (Emily): Has been out of town, end of October will try to meet and enlist new people in the community to get them involved. G.3. 5:47 pm City Liaison Update (Hess) Dani was working this summer on: • “Belonging in Bozeman” Plan. Supporting 3 new community liaisons to underserved, underrepresented communities (locations around Bozeman): Disability, LGBTQ+, and Hispanic communities. They had public engagement sessions to help with plans. 32 3 NEW PROJECTS ON ENGAGE BOZEMAN: • Wetland code update hoped to be adopted by end 2023. Oct. 5th meeting presentations Suzanne: Did the recent change in EPA authority leave mitigation to locals instead of feds? Dani: Yes. Now it’s up to the local jurisdictions/cities to make rules. • Sensitive Lands Protection Plan tools and Draft Plan coming out later this month (Sept) • Water Conservation standards are being updated in the UDC, too. • Parks, Recreation, and Active Transportation Plan was adopted this week. • Black Avenue Bike Boulevard Pilot Project: a follow-thru of the downtown master plan bike corridors. Pilot planned this fall will set up a temporary version of bike boulevard. Linda: a lot of the changes on Black near the parking garage, why there? Dani: Black is a high-volume street, but not sure how they are mitigating interactions there. A local design and engineering firm is helping. This is a test. Public comment after the test. • Model HOA/POA recommendations coming up, see Engage Bozeman page. Brian asked whether housing like AirBnB would be incorporated into that, if these apply to new or existing HOAs, and whether SB 300 would affect language of the model HOA covenants. Chris Saunders was not sure about SB300, that the city was not diving into the model that much. That kind of background law the city is not tackling. He answered that the model covenants are for either new or existing HOAs. Dani: There is a model that we can comment on. There are two focus groups scheduled for HOA members, will send out information that will allow us to sign up. Needs Annual Reports from Neighborhoods. Meeting adjourned at 6:05 pm. Submitted by Tonya Stevens 2/05/2024 33 4 ADDENDUM TO 14 SEPTEMBER 2023 INCE MEETING MINUTES QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD (not verbatim) Suzanne: Concerned about ruining the value of the homes in now-RA neighborhoods where multi- family buildings can be built. What does Mr. Saunders think? CS: City may take the option to consider what type of multiple-family dwelling is being proposed– duplex v. triplex v. more unit apartments. Thinks if existing buildings are sold, they are not likely to turn the lot into large apartment complexes; believes there is not much history of that in town. CS: City wanted to investigate why our zoning didn’t allow us to build in the places people like the most. Core area tends to be diverse housing areas. City reviewed neighborhoods and found apartment complexes in a lot of places and thought there is a lot of precedent for allowing that flexibility. Physical design constraints now put on lots tend to force the units to be smaller. Thinks more units may not necessarily translate to more people. No guarantees, though. Brad: noticed in RA zoning “fixed height” changed to “story” designation. How will builders use this? CS: “Rules of Interpretation” addresses how those changes will be incorporated in construction. Wall plate height at 25 ft, then you must taper in. Combo of other required design elements will constrain building. Brad: So at 25 ft, the building has to change? CS: Yes. For ex, Baxter has some 3 story buildings. R5 would have 5 stories. The old R5 doesn’t have a wall plate limit so they went more straight up. New zoning would have a muting effect. Brian: If my neighbor tore down their current house and put up a duplex, the wall height would start at 25 ft? CS: That would be their maximum. Brian: I assume you could build a contemporary building, so you could build a Ziggurat shape instead of a roof edge. CS: Yes. For example a building on Main St. has wall height at 3 stories, then the 4th story must be pulled back 16’. Emily: Studs are still the same at 8’ but not many ceilings are 8’ anymore. Is there a trend in construction to higher ceilings? CS: Yes, the city made changes 2 years ago because 9’ was a new standard so they adjusted accordingly. Linda: In 382, Section 19, a-n describe housing methods for affordable housing, but nowhere does it say that cities need to eliminate or combine zoning. CS: Would like to clarify that SB 382 does not use the word “affordable”. It’s just production of more housing. State actually prohibits city from adding a price point. City chose the 5 options [from a-n] consistent with what they could do readily in Bozeman. Linda: Suggests because zoning is not prescribed in SB 382, that leaves room for compromise. Points out there are no penalties listed in the bill for noncompliance. CS: Yes, nothing in the bill requires the zoning. When we look city-wide it’s difficult not to pull in things like the R-1. Linda: Seems like there is room for compromise seems, CS agrees. 34 5 CS: Never saw a land use issue that didn’t have more than one solution. Does not want to think about consequences of noncompliance. Linda stresses a lot of changes can happen before the legislature ends session again in 2 years. 3 years for compliance. Hopes change can occur in that time. Hopes for compromise Brad: Please clarify when the city considers cash-in-lieu for parks, parking, or water. CS: If you have a project that doesn’t need a site plan, deal with that issue during the subdivision process. Cash-in-lieu has only been available for parking in the downtown area, so that’s limited. In the case of water rights: Cash-in-lieu applicable everywhere. You would pay that at the time of your final plat. If developing an office building site plan, at the time of your final plan approval and issuance of building permit. Brad: Cash-in-lieu water rights in a city running out of water? What does that mean? CS: Defines water rights. City is investigating options to expand the service amount of the current water pool. Cash-in-lieu is paid in an amount that the city can use to then buy other water rights. Measured by the number of homes if it’s residential, if commercial, I need to refer you to experts. Believes they still have “headroom” Tonya: Saw this presentation at the CDB meeting in which parking does not appear to be required in equal amounts for places that will increase density in neighborhoods. what kind of regulations will go along with CS: City revised parking regs in October and they are not proposing to make any substantive changes in that. There is a parking minimum based the number of bedrooms – 2. If a larger project, they can build a parking lot. Allowed mechanical systems apartment buildings (car lefts). For commercial city allows shared parking, off-site parking, adjacent business. Or a builder would need to demonstrate that there is sufficient parking in RA. Alley-parking could be included. Emily: Manufactured homes - REMU - not permitted in other districts. Was it considered to have that be integrated into other residential districts? If someone were to have a pad with a water/Sewer or water/power hookup so within other communities could exist. Such as urban camping integration? Like incorporating tiny homes into residential districts? CS: Yes. It was considered. (And, you can put a manufactured home on any residential lot in town as long as you have the hookups and permits, it’s okay. If you can use driveways as access instead of requiring city streets between lots, that’s good.) Ultimately, the city decided there should be a discrete district for that. Emily: With lot size minimum shrinking, is there flexibility to subdivide, still bound by the 40% coverage? CS: Yes. The lot coverage varies by district. You can subdivide a parcel according to city’s water and sewer rules (not UDC controlled). There are a few homes in town like that (city has Tiny Homes building code). Emily: Foresees transition edge tension in community. Acknowledges work the city has done with regard to understanding the necessity of transitions. Thinks that because communities were unaware of the possible use allowed in areas that still only held single family dwelling, they are distressed to see changes. Stresses that the city needs to do work to help neighborhoods understand that they have always been zoned a certain way that was not built to the max. Linda: With 3-story, 8-unit, 10,000 sq ft building in R-A, what was the city thinking? Why didn’t that stay in R-B? 35 6 CS: When we looked at consolidating districts (RS, R1, R2, R3) we noted the allowable uses in each, we asked, “do we have a reason to exclude them?” and the answer was “No.” When we adopted “Apartment Buildings Limited” 2 years ago we established unique criteria that might allow the city to address some issues about big homes with tall wall plates. Example: 3000 sq ft townhomes allowed in an area may be more disruptive than other smaller denser units. They thought: how do we manage the Intensity of the development? Linda: So a builder that wants to build a large development, would parcels have to be joined Subdivision exemption for joining parcels to aggregate property, same total volume and same # people is spread over the area. There was a 5-acre parcel that did occur. A balancing process, why we have public hearings for feedback. Process is challenging but is done. If someone is acquiring a property to build a bigger building, Conversations can be had about original adoption of limited apartment building. Only one project like that has been done, and it was on a 4 Prospective – it only goes forward. The zoning doesn’t apply until a change is made. Once this is adopted, kicks in 30 days after second reading. Mid January 2024. Public comment can be submitted until December 19th. Dani: All of the information, past meeting reporting, notes, will be on Engage Bozeman. The Emily: what about questions? Dani: you can still draft questions, she is working on where those would go. 36 Memorandum REPORT TO:Inter-Neighborhood Council FROM:Takami Clark, Communications & Engagement Manager SUBJECT:Approve the Jandt Neighborhood Association as a City Recognized Neighborhood Association MEETING DATE:February 8, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Approve Neighborhood Association Application STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the community and stakeholders. BACKGROUND:The Jandt Neighborhood Association held their first meeting and adopted bylaws the evening of Jan. 22, 2024. The Jandt Neighborhood is located next to the Cooper Park Neighborhood Association and extends to 15th on the west side and Main/College St on the north and south. Residents of this neighborhood association describe their neighborhood as having "a small- town feel with human scale dwellings that are personal, approachable, even intimate, where families feel safe letting their kids walk to school and they say hi to their neighbors." UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:None FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: Jandt Neighborhood Packet.pdf Report compiled on: February 5, 2024 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Memorandum REPORT TO:Inter-Neighborhood Council FROM:Jesse DiTommaso, Economic Development Specialist SUBJECT:Tax Increment Financing (TIF) MEETING DATE:February 8, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Listen to presentation, ask questions STRATEGIC PLAN:2.2 Infrastructure Investments: Strategically invest in infrastructure as a mechanism to encourage economic development. BACKGROUND:Staff will discuss Tax Increment Financing (TIF) in the City and these funds are being used to build. TIF is a way for certain districts to use property tax revenue to fund new development. It works by separating taxable value into base and increment values so that revenue from the base value continues to go to the regular taxing jurisdiction, but as taxes increase over the years, that growth—the increment—goes to the TIF to pay for development activities within the TIF district. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:None FISCAL EFFECTS:None Report compiled on: February 5, 2024 54 Memorandum REPORT TO:Inter-Neighborhood Council FROM:Takami Clark, Communications & Engagement Manager SUBJECT:City Liaison Update MEETING DATE:February 8, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:No action required STRATEGIC PLAN:7.3 Best Practices, Creativity & Foresight: Utilize best practices, innovative approaches, and constantly anticipate new directions and changes relevant to the governance of the City. Be also adaptable and flexible with an outward focus on the customer and an external understanding of the issues as others may see them. BACKGROUND:Standing item on INC agenda - City Liaison provides an update on pertinent information for INC Reps and Neighborhoods. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:NA ALTERNATIVES:NA FISCAL EFFECTS:NA Report compiled on: January 12, 2021 55 Memorandum REPORT TO:Inter-Neighborhood Council FROM:InterNeighborhood Council Representatives SUBJECT:Neighborhood Updates MEETING DATE:February 8, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Listen to updates, ask questions! STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:Standing agenda item - pertinent updates from INC Representatives will be shared UNRESOLVED ISSUES:NA ALTERNATIVES:NA FISCAL EFFECTS:NA Report compiled on: September 1, 2022 56 Memorandum REPORT TO:Inter-Neighborhood Council FROM:Cynthia Evans, INC Chair SUBJECT:Recognition of New Members, Members Terming Off MEETING DATE:February 8, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Listen, ask questions STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the community and stakeholders. BACKGROUND:INC will recognize members terming off and new members to the group. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:None FISCAL EFFECTS:None Report compiled on: February 5, 2024 57