All right.

Thank you for bearing with us.

I'll call this meeting to order.

Today is August 28th at 5 39 p.m.

First, we'll take a roll call of members.

Mike McLeod, Matt Steitzer is present, Julie Jackshaw, Bart Riley, Josh O'Neill, Mark Garf, Margot Enns, and Maisie Salser.

All right, so we do have a quorum tonight.

Next we'll approve the minutes from the July 31st meeting.

If everyone had a chance to review the minutes, does anyone have any corrections?

Okay.

We'd entertain a motion to approve the minutes.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

Second.

Thank you, Mr.

Garf.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Meeting minutes from July are approved.

All right.

Um this is not a public hearing.

Uh this is a working set public working session meeting.

So for the folks out there tonight, um, we can't take your public comment tonight.

So moving on to other business.

The agenda item tonight is the zoning ordinance update.

The board consideration of public comments submitted to the planning department regarding GENAMD 25-1, an application by Butte Silverboat Planning Department to repeal and pull it replace Title 17 of the Butte Silverbow Municipal Code known as a zoning ordinance.

Uh this agenda item will include consideration of public comments, deliberation of a comment's merit and applicability, and direction to staff to incorporate proposed modifications into the code for further consideration.

So we've reviewed all the comments that we've received from the both the written comments submitted as well as the comments submitted in the public hearing.

So we've kind of loosely grouped those comments into um several buckets.

So the first bucket we're putting in is um suburban and rural related comments.

And then next we'll do um non-conforming use comments.

We we likely will not get to all of the the topics this evening.

So we're gonna we're gonna end tonight's meeting at seven o'clock, try to wrap up um co discussion about 10-2, and we'll like if we don't finish up.

We likely will not, and we'll uh set uh date for the for the next working session.

So tonight we'll consider rural and r suburban and rural related comments.

Um folks that had submitted comments related to those topics were Chris and Jana Sherrill, Mike and Jennifer Flannick, James Ayers, and Gail Hunt.

Um in the non-conformities bucket we have we had many comments, um, but specifically Jen Hansen, Holly Hansen, Lynn Joanhart, and Kim Wilson.

So at this time I would turn it over to Director Cranen's staff to walk us through the first bucket of suburban and rural related comments, thank you, Chairman Steitzer and members of the board.

Uh as you recall at last uh at our last meeting, uh there were significant comments that were provided by the public and many comments that have been shared with us in an informal way during the public process as it relates to um consideration of matters that are suburban or rural in nature.

And in the public comments that we received, we had approximately a hundred and ten pages of comments that we received in addition to um a petition by um the drive-in.

But we thought that it would be a good opportunity for us to begin to sort of parse through the comments that relate to the suburban and rural areas of Butte Silverbow to begin talking about some of the concerns that were mentioned in the last meeting and that we have received in our written commentary.

And there was an omission that was reflected in the code draft that does not permit the use of agricultural livestock in those zones that would be in the future rural residential or suburban residential.

And their letter in this particular category discussed the need to allow agricultural livestock as an accessory use in those rural and residential and suburban residential areas to maintain the existing uses of the neighborhood.

I think that some of the concerns that we have heard as it relates to the potential of this use being approved in those zones is that there might be a concern about the number of animals that might be on a property.

And to that end, we have a cross-reference within the code and collaboration with the Butte Silverbow Animal Control Department that would dictate quantities of animals that might be appropriate for certain sizes and scales.

To that end, um Mr.

Flannick offered similar commentary that I think we'll get to here in a while that discusses the need for those thresholds when determining the number of animals that might be permitted so that you are maintaining sort of the sort of pastoral landscape as opposed to it being a more commercial operation.

And so not insured of the procedural element here, I would open it back up to the council or the the board's concurrence of that position for staff to draft such a change or to hear comments from the board.

Okay.

So specifically on the agriculture topic and allowing that use in rural residential.

I guess is there any commentary from the board or any concerns?

Mr.

McLeod.

Mr.

Chairman.

Julia, a couple things correct me if I'm wrong, but in areas that they're concerned about livestock.

If covenants prohibit, restrict whatever, that would trump what we have, correct?

That is correct.

There is a provision within the code that directly addresses deed restrictions and covenants.

While Butte Silverbow cannot we cannot enforce based upon covenants because we're not in the chain of title for that property, the homeowners association or the covenants as sort of the jurisdiction of the neighborhood would apply.

And so we would likely double check those, but it would be up to that residential neighborhood to further reinforce the rules that they have for their subdivision.

Just a point of reference, and I I may be incorrect, but I my recollection is Butte Ski Club, for example, at Beef Trail, I think you have to have a minimum of 20 acres to have horses, for example.

So there's there's things like that.

Would you be able to share with share with us what their recommendation for how many animals or did they have one that the folks who made a comment?

Um if I refer to uh Mr.

Flanick's comment, he specifically provided suggestions in his, and he did provide quite numerous comments, which I think are very valuable to the discussion.

Um at establishing thresholds for rural residential development that would range in size from one, maybe zero acres to ten acres and then or nine acres or ten acres and then eleven acres to twenty acres and then and so on and so forth until you get to a hundred acres, at which point it would trigger agricultural use, which would be pretty intensive farming or ranching or other sort of uh industrial scale agriculture.

Um I don't have specific numbers, but in the current code, it is a one-acre minimum to keep horses or livestock, but there's no threshold that exists within our code.

I believe 20 acres for one horse might be too large.

Um, but we could work on establishing that.

And so that might be a good directive for us to integrate into our further research to make sure that we're establishing um a moderate scale where we're not preventing people from having you know four horses to an acre, if that makes sense from an animal management standpoint.

And just a point, I this isn't something we're gonna necessarily decide tonight, right?

No, that is correct.

It would be research.

Yeah, that's all I would say because I think we're all in our mind, we're thinking, well, how many horses could you have an acre?

But you know, there's cows and goats and what kind of animals you got out there, Bart at your place.

But you know, there I so okay, as long as we're gonna research it.

I think it I my opinion was there should be some allowance to make sure they have livestock to what amount I I couldn't say.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Garf?

Um Ms.

Crane, you mentioned that animal control has some thresholds already, or they will be right.

I maybe missed that.

They're recommending some thresholds.

Uh Chairman Steitzer, member Garf, uh, members of the committee, the current uh ordinances that we handle as it relates to animal control uh deal with chickens and bees, and the current requirement is 20,000 square feet to keep chickens and bees.

Um there is some discussion at the council level about potentially changing those ordinances to decrease the lot size minimums to keep those types of um I don't think you but insects and uh and fowl.

Um but I I am not familiar with the current code and how it relates to certain thresholds for uh hooved animals or livestock.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

There's no other discussion.

Um, Director Crane, I I apologize.

So you are you asking for this board um for a motion to approve that modification in those in those zoning areas related to livestock uh Mr.

Chairman, I think it would be more appropriate for you to just for us to take a note that we should do further research to help ensure that the code addresses the concern of the county of the the planning board.

Okay.

And I've made a note of that in my notes.

Okay.

Um I think we can move on to the next.

Okay, great.

Okay.

So there's a comment further articulated by the Cheryl family as it relates to passive recreation.

Um within the code, there are two types of uses.

They relate to passive and active recreation.

And what has been discovered through the Cheryl family review is that there is an inconsistency in the definition and the locations where those things could happen.

Um essentially, what was illustrated in the public meeting and the at the public hearing last month, that there are references in the definition of passive recreation that allow for hunting.

And within the use table, it also allows for passive recreation to occur in suburban neighborhoods, which would include many of the subdivisions south of Mount Highland Drive all the way to nine mile and generally the South Valley.

It is never the intention of our office to allow for hunting in an urban setting.

And I think one of the challenges is in moving the content from the comprehensive plan and into the zoning code.

Many of the future or intended uses in the growth policy or the comprehensive plan make reference to the need for a certain level of our economy which deals with outdoor recreation.

Talking about outfitters, uh floaters, people who are fly fishing or who are hunting recreationally in Silverbow County.

And we want to allow for those those types of activities to take place.

But when it comes to camping, there are very specific laws that are instituted by the state of Montana under Health and Hum Department of Health and Human Services jurisdiction as it relates to sanitation.

And the Cheryl family did express concern that there that 10 camping might be allowed as a passive recreation use in a suburban residential zone.

What that might end up being is that if someone were to come in to the office and say, I have a piece of property in a suburban residential zone, which would be on the East Ridge, or sort of in the valley itself, and they wanted to open a commercial RV park.

If that use were permitted there, and they were to go through the subdivision process in the licensure process with Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that there is adequate water and sanitation facilities available that we could permit that to occur there and then proceed with that subdivision and the use of the property for that purpose.

I don't I wanted, I think we need to be mindful, and I think we as staff look to the board for some guidance here about the potential of that being appropriate in our neighborhoods versus those type of uses maybe being more appropriate for working lands or publicly owned lands that are closer to our BLM forest service state of Montana owned lands or even near uh the Big Hole River, for example.

Um so I think we need to integrate, and I think it's on the staffs and to the staff's responsibility to address specifically how we and where we think can't camping is appropriate appropriate.

Um it's one thing for a family to let their kids stay in a tent in the backyard.

It is a different thing for uh a property to be renting out a tent in their backyard for a sustained amount of time.

And so the current language would indicate that that's allowed.

And I don't think that that is the intent of what we have drafted.

And so I think that staff will make an effort to modify that in forthcoming drafts.

I would be interested to hear from the board if they have any thoughts or concerns about that.

Uh I'll give my comments um I agree with the hunting modification, obviously that makes sense not in urban areas.

Um the camping topic, certainly that would also make sense not in in kind of more residential areas.

I guess it's hard to say without looking at a map, I guess, where that might make sense.

Um I guess my comment is I don't have a good recommendation on that, but would maybe look to staff.

Um does anyone else have any comments on either the hunting topic or the urban camping topic.

Mr.

Riley.

I agree that the camping shouldn't be in small area residential, it should be out farther, and then no hunting in residential areas.

Thank you.

So I guess without any further comments, I think we agree with staff recommendation to to look into the camping areas further and modify the hunting language in the recreation definition.

Um, the next uh comment relates to chapter eight, which uh discusses restricted materials in fences.

And the comment was specific to again sort of the character of rural or suburban property as it relates to the utilization of electric fences.

Um this particular topic has resulted in some spirited conversation because I think people living outside of town know that if they are gardening or they have specific landscaping on their property that that can be quite vulnerable to deer or elk or other um animals that might come in and damage those crops.

And so we had made a statement that in the code that electric fences should be prohibited in these types of neighborhoods.

Um I think that the thinking is electric fences do pose a potential risk when they are in a fairly dense neighborhood.

Um for example, in Warren Heights, which is a suburban area of our community leading closer to rural areas, um, those are pretty dense neighborhoods, and there would be deer that would impact those properties.

But there also are kids that are running through the neighborhood, and they could come into interaction with an electric fence.

And I think that we are trying to balance both the interests of the um the property owner and also the protection of human health and well-being when they are in their neighborhood.

And so staff has thought a bit about this, and I think that there are certain locations or instances where electric fences need to be used or maybe appropriate if it's keeping deer out of a garden or keeping horses or other livestock in their specific area.

Um, but it is not necessarily something that should be used as perimeter fencing for a residents along the front or side property lines.

And so uh staff has discussed uh the utilization of this particular mechanism that it might be appropriate when keeping animals in a specific area of their property, um, but that it may not be permitted along the side property edges.

And so within the use conditions for electric fences, we could put those requirements in place that they cannot be within a certain setback of a side or front property line, and that they need to be labeled as electric fences just to protect those who aren't familiar or aware of the potential risks of interactions with those things.

Um we're basically trying to strike a balance there.

I think that is reasonable, seems like a well-struck balance.

Any other comments from the board?

Agreement.

Okay.

Okay.

Great.

Um so in the forthcoming draft, we'll put some conditions together for you to consider.

Um the next is related to development RV part of RV parks or campgrounds in the suburban residential zone in a conflict on table five-one.

Um essentially saying that RV camping is not permitted in suburban residential or detached residential or mixed residential zones.

Um there is a general interest on the part of this resident uh to prohibit those types of uses for their potential to devalue existing properties.

Um I think that just touching back to the previous discussion, Chairman Steitzer.

I think that we need to be mindful that you know, Butte is familiar with previously the location of the KOA in our community, and that that was a location where many travelers from across the country have stayed when they are traveling between uh Glacier National Park and Yellowstone National Park, and it provides uh an economic development opportunity for our community to provide space for those types of things.

And having those types of uses, whether it be an RV or campground, RV park or campground in the urban area is also an area where they have proximity to the general services that are affiliated with our commercial core.

And I think that we need to strike that balance there is that they are looking to locate near the exits for interstates, and also in places where they can you know unhook their car and drive for dinner or visit uh tourism locations in the community.

And so uh I don't think we'll be able to make any decisions about this tonight, but I think the consideration that we should take in as we move forward with um where these should or should not, these uses should or should not be permitted in our community.

Uh suburban residential zones may not be the most appropriate, or if they are located there, we may propose certain use conditions that prohibit them within certain distances of residential development, um, so that they do tend to maybe be located in commercial areas adjacent to those zones.

I may have missed it, but um strictly prohibiting suburban residential um instead of in and just um making that a permitted use in commercial uh we just not sure of that impact yet or I would say so, and the reason I say that is um we'll use the example of Mount Highland Drive and I-90 as the example.

Uh that is an area that is adjacent to the East Ridge, the East Ridge being more residential in character, but Mount Highland Drive having much more mixed uses available and already present, three bears, uh, the high altitude, Harley Davidson, uh, the church, the veterans home, all of those more commercial uses may be more compatible with a an RV park that would be used for travelers as opposed to trying to nestle them into a neighborhood where there are you know single family homes currently present, uh, which we would like to probably keep some distance between those.

And so I I think it would be too early to say that the suburban residential zone is an area where we should prohibit that, um, but there might be the utilization of a mixed zone that makes sense adjacent to a suburban area that could help facilitate the development of such a such a use.

I see.

Okay.

Um so I'll ask for discussion, but I guess you're thinking you're gonna come back with um maybe this proposed use condition or or some other recommendation.

Yes.

Okay.

Any comments from the board on that topic?

I have a question.

Yes, member ends.

Thanks.

Um Director Crane and members of the staff, I'm just curious um if you could help us under help me understand the distinction between the consideration for camping in this zone or like a commercial campsite um versus an RV park or a mixed-use campground with RBs or tents.

Um, just thinking of uh that benefit of folks being able to be closer to city center, go to restaurants, um, pull off on the side uh if we're thinking about trying to encourage folks to stop and stay over in our community that might not stay in a hotel.

I just want to make sure I understand uh the kind of difference between those, and I think it might just be that definition of passive recreation versus RB parks and that commerciality of it.

Uh Chairman Steitzer, member and members of the board without having without looking at the definition within the draft code.

I think what we're looking at here are the people who are hauling campers or are driving a motor home across the country, and they are specifically doing that as sort of a tourism activity as opposed to someone that is interested in going into the forest or into the wilderness where they're seeking the solitude of that type of landscape to recreate within, whether they go side-by-side riding and go fishing or floating or something along those lines.

However, I think what we don't want to do is we and what we cannot do is we cannot promote like not like dry dock camping or boondocking in our in our urban area because of the sanitation concerns.

And so while that may make sense if you're hike camping in the Pintlers, it does not make sense in the urban area.

And so we'll want to be really mindful of that, that there is a scale of camping, that there's like what can happen in town and what cannot happen in town.

Thank you.

That makes a lot of sense.

Appreciate it.

Chairman Sweitzer, the next comment relates to a a concern by the Cheryls, and it's a it's something that they picked up on that a traditional neighborhood is allowed in the suburban residential zone.

And the traditional neighborhood is what we call an overlay zone, and there will be overlay zones that are provided for throughout the code and throughout the community.

In a suburban residential zone, the traditional neighborhood overlay would allow for more dense development in a suburban area.

So if the suburban area says you need to have a minimum of half an acre to develop in an area that is generally zoned suburban, we could have a traditional neighborhood overlay where it says you can develop a quarter acre lot or smaller.

And then would have the traditional neighborhood calls for pedestrian connectivity.

And so rather than having a gravel street set that would not have pedestrian connectivity via sidewalks, you could put a traditional neighborhood in in an area where they would normally not be permitted.

And it would also allow for some commercial development, and that would allow for small scale uh services to be instituted in those areas.

And I think a traditional neighborhood overlay would make a lot of sense in the area of like the Buffalo Estate subdivision, where when that was originally platted, it included in the future the potential for the establishment of commercial centers in that area.

And it would be like you know, a small grocer or a small place to meet your needs.

Um it would not be outright saying that the uses, those commercial uses that could be permitted in a traditional neighborhood would be appropriate for say on the slope of the East Ridge.

Um so that's just one of the things that I wanted to clarify there that there might be in having these traditional neighborhood overlays in some of our less densely developed urban area, particularly if we are hoping to generate greater pedestrian connectivity in those areas or support commercial use development in those areas without having a separate zoning district established there so that the prevailing use, the majority of the land would be suburban in nature.

Okay.

That thanks for that explanation.

I think I'm following any questions.

Okay.

Okay.

Um the following comment also discuss sort of neighborhood serving retail, small offices, live work spaces, auto-oriented businesses, and they really talk about the changes that that would make to the character of the East Ridge specifically.

Again, I think that they're being reasonable and questioning this because it is not appropriate.

Uh we may hear comments otherwise from the public, and I think we need to be mindful of that.

But generally, I think that they are illustrating some of the internal conflicts in the code that we can address as we continue through drafting.

Uh and then there is a the final element that they did address was the requirement for ramp access for wheelchairs and walkers on new sidewalks.

Um the sidewalk is the public ride-of-way in Silverbow County, and some instances, particularly in the uh platted uptown in new areas, it is the responsibility of a commercial development to meet the requirements of Title III on their property.

Uh, but we can do what we are able to require wheelchair and walker access uh into businesses.

And so in our office, we do that review to make sure that the ADA requirements are being met.

Uh but we are proponents and believe that access is important across the board.

Member Garth, uh I have a question about that, Director Crane.

Um I did I understand correctly you're saying that the zoning code can't uh can't require um people to put in curb ramps uh in street ride-of-ways.

That's a is that a different part of the code or is that a state requirement?

The right-of-way is under the Chairman Steitzer, Member Garf, the the right-of-way is in the purview of the public works department.

Um but when the planning department is facilitating a development proposal on a parcel, we of course always require that the ADA parking locations are those that are closest to the main point of entry, and we do require the appropriate slopes to access both the sidewalk to enter the building and the building entry as well.

Okay.

So when let's say, for instance, you permit a brand new development and they put in new sidewalks.

Um at that point, I believe ramps are required just as part of the Americans with Disabilities Act, right?

Yes.

It's a federal requirement.

That is correct.

Um Chairman Steitzer, Member Garf, that is correct.

Uh and they are a requirement when uh establishing a new neighborhood or a new development to meet the requirements of the ADA.

And we have a an ADA coordinator here at Butte Silverbow who does measure the slopes of those facilities to ensure that they meet the requirements.

Okay.

Thank you, Director Crane.

Member States are the next uh comment letter that we received is from Mike Flanick, and it's uh there are quite a few um comments here.

I wanted to take the opportunity to discuss.

Uh one of the recommendations, and I I would I think it's an interesting concept that was proposed, and I would be looking to the board to kind of to hear their opinion on this.

Um it's a recommendation that when commercial or industrial development is proposed on unzoned land, that a application would be required to the planning department, and that the proposed development could not proceed until that land became zoned.

Um typically in our work and under our jurisdiction, lands that are not zoned do not have are not our jurisdiction.

And the proposal puts forward a fairly well-thought process about the applicability and the zoning process requirement that would essentially say that if there is a proposal to do something on unzoned land, that it could not proceed until the land was zoned.

And so by moving forward with an industrial or commercial project on that property, it would essentially be making a request to zone that land as either whatever the the type of zone might be.

Um I've been kind of thinking about this a lot, and I think it's an interesting concept.

Um I think I'm I I want to know more about the intent of this of this comment.

Um, because it does contemplate an expansion of our jurisdiction that we are not you know currently staffed for.

Um it would essentially be triggering a requirement to consider all land that is not zoned, which is the majority of land in Silverbow County, to then require our administrative process, and it would have to go not just from the application process to do a commercial or an industrial development, but what it it would require the staff and this board here as the planning commission of the Silverbow County Council Commissioners to consider whether or not the location warrants zoning, and then that would be either the permission or the prohibition of that commercial or industrial development to take place.

And I think that I think that there's I think without knowing the full intent of that, if it is to protect residential development that is adjacent to unzoned land, or if it is to protect residential development that is on unzoned land, is this the appropriate mechanism to protect those individuals while leaving those residences unzoned and then triggering a zoning process?

As you can see, I'm having all of the thoughts about it because I I don't I don't know what the unintended consequences might be.

Mr.

Chairman.

Just listening to that, I think the first thought I have is I I would sit down with the county attorney and say if we're in this situation, can we do that?

And maybe you can.

Not if if we, but if it becomes a practice where we're going to take for lack of better term, force zoning on somebody.

I I think that's more of a legal question initially.

For what it's worth, that's be my suggestion.

Yeah, thanks, Mr.

Cloud.

Great comment.

Um I think there would also be, you know, we talked about it.

Would that provision apply to any unzoned land, or would it be um limited to you know neighboring zoned land that's just outside of any particular zone but still an unzoned?

Is there some sort of distance metric that that would be applicable to to extend a particular part of zoning?

Um but like you said, to maybe could talk with Mr.

Flannick and get a better understanding and come back with a recommendation or a good or better intent.

Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Garf.

Um I think in Mr.

Flannick's comments here zoning requirements for commercial or industrial development.

Um I guess it says or use on non-zoned land.

Is uh would an attempt to limit it to a certain kind of development help kind of move this forward?

Because I do think it's a good idea.

Um we had this came before the planning board about a year ago.

There was a subdivision proposed on unzoned land, and um the neighbors were very upset.

Um but it went forward because it was unzoned land and it was allowed by the state.

Um so I guess my comment is I think this is worth exploring.

Um but as you said, Director Crane, it does increase the county's you know jurisdiction or footprint um into what's currently been unzoned.

And I think until such a proposal comes forth, the people who live in the unzoned land are happy to live in the unzoned land and have no zoning.

So interesting conundrum, I guess.

I agree.

I I initially yesterday was thinking about this in terms of distance and I'm assuming a protection for residential development.

I think concerns also about spot zoning land, um, not keeping continuity in the types of uses that would be adjacent to it.

Um if we permit one, are we required to permit another?

There's a lot to to weighed through there, and so that will definitely be something that I'm happy to talk with our county attorney about, and I think maybe an administrative process that we consider in the future as and as you know, development continues in Silverbow County.

Um there was a lot of comment um provided that I think was pretty mindful by Mr.

Flannick as it relates to rural centers.

So there's this discussion in the code to create what we call rural centers, which are areas that would provide commercial opportunity or commercial development opportunity in rural areas, place where you could go and get, you know, how maybe there could be a tavern or a place to buy groceries or you know, a fishing license or any number of commercial uh sales.

Um but a concern about it being maybe too intense in some of the areas of the community.

And um the proposal was that we should be looking at some of the rural centers that exist now, Rocker being one of them, that because it is just within you know two miles of Butte, that it might be a place where we should just be looking at it as a regular zoning district of Butte and maybe stop maybe ceasing the consideration of those places being considered rural because they are generally much closer to the center of the community now.

Um I felt like that was a pretty um in my review of this, I felt like that was a pretty moderate thought that it wouldn't just be considered considered a rural center, but it would indeed just be a part of the community, a more urban area.

Um it does have the unique um element of being an interstate location, and so I think that we could probably capture similar uses without the rural center designation through the transportation gateway that might overlay that would be proposed in that area.

Um that's one of the suggestions that he had proposed as well.

Um he also made reference to the need we have the agricultural zone in the use table, but really zoning in on what the agricultural zone would use is that would be there, and that's really agriculture being livestock, uh ranching, farming, um, or silviculture, which is logging and forestry.

Um he also proposed the inclusion of a conservation easement zone.

I would consider a conservation easement to be a legal provision that would be applied to property.

Um I don't know that we would call it a zone, but it might be an interesting overlay that could be applied if someone chose to.

Um that's one thing that had been supplied as a suggestion.

Um I did think that there was value in his recommendation to look at rural residential in hierarchy of one to five-acre lot sizes, five to ten acre lot sizes and ten to ninety-nine acre lot sizes, and then subsequent to this comment suggests a hundred acres or greater would be an agricultural size lot.

I thought that was a reasonable suggestion, um, and I think that there's a nice way for us to maybe look at meeting the intent of the comprehensive plan to create buffer between a suburban zone and a rural zone, because as you get closer and closer to town, you generally want to see more and more density.

And so this might be an interesting way for us to accomplish that while also protecting the many residential areas that have sprung up in the rural areas over time.

Um I don't know.

Does the board have any thoughts on those two elements or two suggestions?

I would just say I think it's a good consideration.

I a hundred acres sounds like a lot.

I don't know, I don't know what a good number is, but I don't know if a hundred is the appropriate number.

Um agriculture to include commercial forestry, I think is a very reasonable suggestion to consider.

Um so that was one comment.

Um I want to say thank you, Mike, for spending the time looking at this.

We really appreciate it.

Um also suggested uh in this that we look at the development standards for these rural and agricultural lots as being a little bit less specific to an urban setting.

So instead of talking about it in terms of a city block or having setbacks, making some broader statements about the types of distances that we're looking for from a property line, but really knowing that if you have a large lot, you're probably trying to locate your home and your outbuildings or your shop buildings in the areas of your property that's going to be most opportune.

And I don't think we want to be overly prescriptive in the way that someone in a rural area is developing their property because they're going to know best how to cite things on their property to meet the obligations of their operations.

And so I think that we'll try to be more mindful when we rejaft this section so that we can get further input that might make sense from this perspective.

Um we've addressed the next comment, which was about intensifications over distance.

Um he made some really good comments about just sort of editorial using the words must and should appreciate that.

Uh there was a comment about mixed residential zones and access to those from a primary street.

So I thought this was an interesting comment, and I wanted to talk about it a little bit.

Umte is very has a lot of multifamily properties that are, you know, the th three-story or the two-story walk-up that's located on Park Street or Galena Street.

Uh, and we have some of those that are on the flats.

But when you get into these sort of larger multi-building complexes, there's this comment here that they should not have access from a primary street.

And I don't know if that is necessarily a reasonable statement or request, in so much as that it may not be appropriate to have that density of development having access from a local street or a collector street.

Um maybe a collector street is the more appropriate location.

I just would struggle with pushing that much traffic into a neighborhood if we were developing a multi-complex apartment building complex in a neighborhood where that's allowed.

And so I don't know what that looks like yet.

I'm trying to think of this in the context of Harrison Avenue.

A lot of traffic driving into an apartment complex off of Harrison Avenue might be a true disruption to the flow of that arterial, but still trying to figure out the ways to provide for that access so that if there were someone that wanted to build that densely in a mixed zone downtown that we're allowing that type of development to take place, we're not pushing too much traffic into a residential neighborhood, but we're not causing a disruption to flow on a primary street.

And so it's something to be mindful of.

So I think it was a good reminder to us.

Some further editorial comments on visitors and rural residences, and you know, really focusing on the commercial center for tourism, which I agree with.

So that deals with rural centers.

And then trying to think of anything else that might need input.

So there's a comment here on chapter four in the zoning districts, heavy industrial in the description on page 37.

He suggested adding light to the limited impact statement.

So with limited impacts to adjacent districts related to light, noise, dust, odor, and clutter.

And so currently it does not include reference to light.

And so this is a provision that was suggested to allow the outdoor drive-in theater along with other activities such as commercial breweries to take place in the heavy industrial zone, which is currently one of the economic driver place types.

And it's a it's a suggestion to protect the drive-in and its heritage is a vital part of the economy.

I think this is an important comment to be mindful of.

I think if we allow something like hunting and trapping to take place in an open space conservation or an open space developable zone, that we would include uh performance standards that make sure that there's appropriate signage because if you're riding um a bike or taking your children on a walk on the greenway and there's trapping happening in the adjacent areas, that would be potentially a very bad conflict to occur.

Additional editorial.

So if you own a hot plant or you own a construction company, we don't have any development types that address grain silos, uh a gravel pit and how that might be operated and the type of structures that might be integrated with it.

And I think that we need to be concerned a little bit about the fact that those were omitted, and so staff will work with our contract our consultant to integrate those building styles and types in so that we can allow not only for infill, but if you are in a zoned area and you are going to be building an industrial infrastructure that either is related to agriculture or related to development that we have those as available opportunities for you to develop in those areas.

So there's many of these.

I don't know if we want to go for through the rest of them, or do you want to how do you think we should?

I could keep, I think they're getting a little detailed where I might look at them and then do a red line of the code as it relates to particular use conditions.

So I might go through the ones that I think are most important for us to have comment on.

Yeah, I think that's a good idea.

I think it's gonna be tough for us up here to kind of have an opinion on the very detailed kind of points.

I think we'd still look to staff to provide their recommendation on.

So maybe the larger points would be more productive.

Okay.

Um I think we're gonna defer short-term rentals to the next meeting.

Um we've had a lot of comments on short-term rentals.

In um terms of the uses, I'm just gonna kind of look here.

Yeah, more editorial.

Um he does make a commentary on illumination.

Um, we through the public process realized that the illumination or the lighting set section of the code was omitted, and so that will be reintroduced with mind to pay attention to the feedback that we have received to this point.

Um again, reference to using the reference to Butte Silverbow rather than just butte alone.

Um agriculture, including chickens and poultry, and also livestock.

Um there was a conversation in this, and I think also provided by Mr.

Ayers on behalf of the neighborhood of Ramsey, that it is a historic district of itself with a character that is very distinct from some of the other rural centers that have been identified in Silverbow County, and that it is in general a much more residential neighborhood.

Uh, and so there is a reference to include the Ramsey National Historic Landmark District to the definitions of this Butte Silver Bow National Historic District, um, and then suggesting the definition of historically significant building or site.

Um I think that as we discuss zoning for Ramsey and its future development that we try to retain the generally the residential nature of that neighborhood and its unique sizes and setback and design nature.

Um then there's a bit more detail here that we can discuss in the next meeting.

Um moving into uh Jim's comments, Mr.

Ayres comments, um, he lives and resides on Laird Street in Ramsey.

Um he really did pay mind to ensuring um that we were aware of sort of the utilization or the way that the planning department had addressed the neighborhood initially in 1993, uh discussing its characteristics and how it as a rural center is distinct from an area like Melrose.

And I think as the planning staff further refines the code, these are going to be elements that we are going to be mindful of and try to ensure that the code matches the permitted uses match both the current nature of the community and also mindful that there is an interest and there is currently commercial use in the neighborhood or in the area, but there is a certain scale that is appropriate in that particular area that may not be at a scale that is too large.

And so it we can I think use either the zones that have been established through the draft and also some of the overlay zones to hopefully address some of their concerns.

He did make comment in this about the proliferation, I think, in the use table about the permitted the permission of or the permittiveness of bars and taverns in almost all zones.

I think when looking at the code and thinking about the character of our community, almost every neighborhood has or at one point had more than one bar or tavern located there.

And I think that that may be something as a board we need to ensure when we are reviewing the code that they are appropriate in all contexts, and also that there are appropriate use parameters around those.

And then just some general comments about the separation of grocery and convenience stores being small and supermarkets being large, which I think that we can further refine as well.

I think comments from Jennifer Flannick and Gail Hunt reiterate both of these sort of the comments of Mr.

Ayers and Mr.

Flanick just concerns about over-densification or over concentration in what are currently rural nature residential areas.

And I think that there is you know there's a concern here expressed by Ms.

Flanick that it appears that the intent is to change the zoning to allowing more harmful commercial development.

And so we can't always prevent harmful commercial development or commercial development.

I think we need to know what it what the concerns are in terms of harm so that we're appropriately addressing the nature of commercial development and the scale.

Um so that I think that not over-densification or over-intensification of commercial use in areas that have traditionally been residential in nature.

Um it was her perception that the current draft appears to have proposing primarily commercial uses in Rocker.

Um I think that we need to just be mindful that there are areas in Rocker that are commercial, but also significant historic residential neighborhoods and also um larger scale suburban residential adjacent to that.

Um so we can strike that balance, and that's where I think that those scales of rural development size will come into play and may be a useful solution.

Um all of this is to say that I think there's more work needed on the rural and suburban sections of the code.

Um with that said, is there any other immediate feedback that the board would like us to consider before we move into discussions of nonconforming uses?

All right, seeing no concerns um related to those topics.

I would note the time is 643.

I don't know.

No, I'm just kidding.

Yeah.

I mean, I I'd look to you.

I guess do you want to do you want to kick it off or with only 15 minutes?

I wonder if we would be better to punt this to the next working meeting, this topic of nonconforming uses.

Mr.

Chairman, I think that uh punting to the next meeting uh is an appropriate thing for us to do because I do think that the uh nature on nonconforming of the nonconforming use section is probably of particular public interest.

Um as staff, I would also um make a commitment that maybe um as we come up upon that meeting that staff could review the comment letters as it relates to nonconforming uses to place in front of you their comment and then possibly the and we present them ahead of the meeting for you to consider some of staff's recommendations and maybe those recommendations would allow for a more substantiative conversation of the board.

Um, I think staff is trying to make a really good faith effort of uh working through the dialogue of the draft to be transparent and engage in that with the public.

Um I don't know how much value there is in me reading through them as opposed to giving you all the opportunity um to maybe grapple with some ideas before the discussion.

So I would I would ask maybe for feedback from that perspective Yeah, I I would say I agree.

Um I think that would I mean for for folks in the audience and folks that came for the last meeting, I think we have a good understanding of the concerns um how to implement those.

I uh you I think we still need to look for staff.

So if if you could bring maybe a red line or a suggested um modification, I think that would that would be easier, I think, for us to to kind of address and and talk through.

Any any additional comments on that?

Yeah, agreement, okay.

Okay, so we'll go forward with that.

Um so you know, we we made progress.

I don't know if we'll say we made a lot, but we definitely chip in away.

Uh for folks that I guess um are in the audience, just for your awareness, the the comments that Director Crane was going through tonight, they are posted on the planning board website.

It's a very large PDF file, so you're gonna need a high speed internet connection to to download it.

But it's it's 109 pages.

Um but anyway, if if I if any of the topics of that we discussed tonight are of interest to you that you didn't already submit um, those comments are posted on the website as well as as well as the agendas.

Um so I guess with that we can wrap up tonight's meeting.

Um Chairman Steitzer.

Yes, Director Garf.

Quick version.

Did we finalize the meeting or the date of the next working meeting?

Yeah, Director Crane.

Chairman Steitzer, Member Garf, uh, we have not, but staff uh believes that I think two weeks, so September Thursday, September 11th, um, we may need to meet at a more aggressive interval, probably every two weeks so that we can get through some of the red line to the code so that we can get a revision, a final revision out to the public for their subsequent review and comment.

Um I think over the course of the next two weeks that would give us ample time to redline or provide um proposed changes to the code to put in front of you as it relates to those sections of the code.

Um we would also make those available on the website for the public to review as well.

Okay, so we're going with two weeks from today.

Um Director Crane, we talked about maybe some red line staff suggestions for the non-conforming uses.

I do imagine that might take a fair bit of discussion.

But on kind of the grouping C, we have landscaping, lighting provisions sign in short-term rentals and urban zone related comments.

I guess do you do you know at this time would that same approach be appropriate for those topics, or do you want to kind of go through those details as well?

Chairman Steitzer, I I would agree with you.

Uh and I think in the term of two weeks that we could also provide those comments to the to you as well.

And so uh in that meeting, we would discuss not only the non-conforming uses, but the landscaping, lighting, signage, short-term rentals, and then any other urban zone related comments, which would include in some instances some of the comments we've uh gone over this evening.

Um we also have editorial suggestions that have been provided, which I think we'll just wait for the final red line to address.

I don't think we need to mull those over.

Um I appreciate the board's patience with this process.

Um I've never been through anything of this scale before.

Uh I don't know that any of you have been through anything this scale before.

Um and so figuring out a practical way to handle it has been a bit of a challenge for us.

So um I want to make it as easy for you as possible.

Um so thanks for your patience this evening, and think we can improve for the next one.

Yeah, sure.

Appreciate uh you know staff making it easy, but I mean, given the public kind of participation in this meeting in the last meeting, I mean certainly we'll take the time to to do it well.

So good balance.

Um also had some um questions she sent uh to me and and staff.

Um fortunately, I don't think we hit those topics tonight.

And if Julia will be here next um Thursday, we could let her speak on those questions as well.

Okay.

Any other comments from staff or the board?

Okay.

This time I think we can hear a motion to adjourn and reconvene at the next at Thursday, September 11th.

Motion second.

Second, all in favor?

Thank you, folks.

We apologize for not getting to maybe your topic tonight, but hope to see you in a couple weeks.

Thank you for coming.

Tuesdays, Tuesdays.

Don't apologize, they were so helpful.

Thank you.