The Butte-Silver Bow Planning Board met on Thursday, September 24, 2026, at 5:38 PM, with Chairman Matt Steitzer presiding. The meeting focused on continued discussion of Zoning Ordinance Update 25-01 (Gen AMD-25-01), the application by the Butte-Silver Bow Planning Department to repeal and replace Title 17 of the Butte-Silver Bow Municipal Code, and included a working session on proposed revisions to the historic overlay zone. No public hearing was held, but public comment was accepted. Members present: Mike McLeod, Julie Jackshaw, Bart Riley, Josh O'Neal, Mark Garf, Margot Enns, Stephen Co., Macy Sulser, and Chairman Steitzer.
One speaker voiced opposition to the proposed prohibition of shipping containers, connexes, and similar storage units. The speaker argued that requiring a permit each time a container is placed would be burdensome and questioned the practicality of foundation requirements, noting that freight containers are built to withstand moving under full weight, with a standard 8-by-40 container holding 67,000 pounds. The speaker stated that such requirements would 'drastically limit the public's access to storage,' expressed concern about what drove the need for the prohibition, and noted a container sitting outside the meeting building.
Staff presented a summary of changes since the board's previous meeting on August 26, 2026. Additional map adjustments include a designation change from attached residential to mixed residential and, in the current draft, to a suburban mix classification that would allow local commercial uses in addition to residential development. The change recognizes existing lot sizes in the area and was made in response to feedback from a member of the public. The adjustments will be posted on the zoning ordinance update website.
On data centers, the Council of Commissioners has opted to pursue an interim zoning ordinance that would place an immediate pause on data centers. The interim ordinance will be pursued separately from the update, the relevant content will be reserved in the code, and planning staff will serve the Council of Commissioners and the Judiciary Committee as they consider the matter.
On shipping containers and signage, staff reported that the city received three public comment letters concerning the proposed prohibition, with themes generally opposing an outright prohibition and requesting that shipping containers be allowed in some form. Staff also presented signage-related changes in response to public comment: the proposal would allow businesses to consolidate signage on a large, tall structure at the street while also requiring signage on the facade, helping ensure that every business in a multi-tenant location is identifiable. Staff confirmed the board would not vote on the shipping container and signage suggestions that evening, since it was not a public hearing; the board will vote on those proposed changes in aggregate with the rest of the zoning update in October.
On timing, Chairman Steitzer asked how well the October target could be met. Staff responded that the first three bullets regarding the historic overlay and building features would be discussed during the evening's working session. Staff explained that adjustments are being developed in the background but the package will not be one-hundred-percent final when it comes before the planning board, in order to reserve room for public comment during the council public process. A board member acknowledged the legislative process, noting that only so much more modification from staff is needed and recognizing the board cannot make the update perfect.
The board received a packet of three documents: proposed boundaries of the historic overlay zone, draft design guidelines, and a chapter addressing building types and the architectural features that would be required or desired for each building type in the district.
Staff explained that the public has repeatedly expressed a desire to preserve the Uptown district, and Butte-Silver Bow is a certified local government because of its historic past. Under the proposal, demolition applications would trigger review in collaboration with the historic preservation officer to assess the integrity of structures. Projects in the county come before the Historic Preservation Commission when property owners seek public funding support, such as urban renewal area funds, and review and approval by the commission are required for all projects receiving city-county financial support.
For redevelopment on vacant lots in Uptown, applicants would demonstrate what is 'visually related' to the district. The zoning officer and historic preservation officer would review the proposal and provide feedback to the applicant on compatibility; once guidelines are met, the applicant would receive a historic overlay certificate of approval, valid for 18 months. A maintenance condition requires that resources be maintained in accordance with property maintenance ordinances, nuisance abatement ordinances, and the ordinance itself.
During discussion, a speaker referencing earlier remarks by Julia noted that the Montana Legislature removed historic preservation commission review tied to zoning in most other Montana communities. The speaker observed that Butte-Silver Bow is unique because its Historic Preservation Commission retains the ability to approve or deny projects, since that authority is tied to funding rather than zoning.
Chairman Steitzer asked for clarification on the application process, noting the proposal could add another layer of review beyond life safety and zoning for building permits in the district, and questioned whether more than two people might be needed for review. Staff explained that building permits are routed to the building plan reviewer and the planner, and to the fire marshal for commercial projects. Residential projects currently do not receive this level of review unless they involve historic preservation or urban renewal area dollars, so the proposal represents a change for residential projects.
Board members discussed the design guidelines, emphasizing that the intent is not to prescribe quantitative requirements but to ensure that applicants take surrounding context into account. Staff noted the review would draw on planning, architectural, and preservation expertise, while acknowledging resource constraints (the building team consists of one plan reviewer and two outside inspectors). Staff invited Member Sulser, in her capacity as an architect, to identify what was too nebulous in the draft for her to do her work efficiently and effectively for her clientele.
Board members suggested that prescriptive requirements such as front stoops may not be appropriate for small apartment buildings on Uptown lots, though they may make sense for fourplexes in central Butte accessed via a central entry from the main street. Board members also raised the question of whether the community wants to continue allowing unique architectural elements to be eliminated from rebuilds, noting these are defining features of the district, and emphasized achieving complementary design without being prescriptive to applicants. A board member acknowledged the draft 'may not be ready to go' but is an attempt to provide additional protections for the district, and thanked staff for their work.
All right. Thank you. Oh. All right. Thank you for indulging our technical difficulties and welcome to tonight's planning board meeting. The time is 5 38, and I will call this meeting to order. Uh first we'll do roll call of members. Mike McLeod, Julie Jackshaw, Bart Riley, Josh O'Neal, Mark Garf, Margot Enns, Stephen Co., Macy Sulser, and I am Matt Steitzer. All right. We don't we do not have a um public hearing tonight, but what we'll do is go over the staff presentation and then we'll allow for public comment um being folks who showed up and Aaron Gage. So the first thing on our on our discussion item for tonight is zoning ordinance update 25-01, continued staff presentation of map and text modifications to the draft zoning ordinance. Gen AMD-25-01, an application by the Butesville World Planning Department to repeal and replace Title 17 of the Butes Robot Municipal Code, also known as the zoning ordinance. Thank you, Chairman Steitzer. All right, we'll be preparing a presentation this evening for you on just some of the most recent updates to bring the board up to date and then um we can have some opportunity for discussion. So tonight we'll talk about summary of changes that have occurred since August 26th, our last meeting, um, and again the outstanding elements that are in progress, and then um we have a summary of the final timeline, but I don't want to say that out loud anymore. So um we're gonna hold that one um and we can give a general guide. So just to provide information to the board in terms of additional map adjustments that have been made. Um we have modified the zoning map at the rocker area to modify the large lots that are located north of Grizzly Trail and east of the um road that is the primary entrance into the town pump facility to detach residential from attached residential, and what this does is it recognizes the existing lot sizes in that area, and this was a piece of feedback that I had discussed with a member of the public and had agreed to do, and I had not made that change um in the previous um we're gonna be modifying the zoning at four mile view road at Warren Avenue to align with the comm plan, modified to suburban mix. This has changed from attached residential to then mixed residential, and now we're looking at the suburban mix, which will allow for not just residential development, but if should someone have a local commercial type use that it would be allowed in that area. And then later on in the evening we'll be discussing discussing the historic overlay zone and we have established boundaries for that area as well. Um all of these map adjustments will be made to the zoning ordinance update map that's available on the zoning ordinance update website. Um probably the most impactful adjustment that we have made to the draft code pertains to data centers. Um as most of you are aware, uh data centers have been um of recent discussion with the local government and uh we have opted through our council of commissioners to um pursue an interim zoning ordinance that would place a immediate six-month moratorium on data center development here in suit in Buttsel Rebo. Um however this particular change um to account for that would remove references to data centers from chapter five, the use conditions, and then chapter 15, the definition section. And then the spaces where those sections were present will be reserved for future regulation pending the outcome of a ballot initiative. I wrote this PowerPoint yesterday, anticipating that there would be an the ballot initiative would be placed on the ballots this year, but the Supreme Court has overturned that decision as of this afternoon, and so that is no longer relevant. However, the interim zoning ordinance will continue to be pursued, and so the content will be reserved, and then we will participate in the planning department by serving the council of commissioners and the judiciary committee as they entertain the interim zoning ordinance, and it will separate this particular process so that we can continue to proceed and move this forward for uh approval. Um the other I think large summary of changes is shipping containers. Um I believe that we have a number of members of the public that are here this evening pertaining to this element. Um in the most recently published draft of the code, um, we had incorporated a section pertaining to shipping containers. Um section of the code provided prohibition on the placement of shipping containers in certain zones, and it was a change that was made to the code to reduce the incidence of industrial infrastructure in non-industrial zones. The language that was drafted established prohibitions in all residential zones, the historic and transportation overlay zones, the uptown core, and then provided it as a conditional or accessory use in the rural center, suburban mix, local commercial and central commercial zones. The language also provided for an amortization schedule to facilitate the removal of these structures from these zones. As part of the most recent public comment period, BSB received three comment letters pertaining to this prohibition that carried many themes, but generally bearing opposition to outright prohibition, requests to allow shipping containers as conditional uses in the uptown core, similar to the RC, SM, LC and CC zones, allowing shipping containers outright in the rural residential zone as they are similar in scale to the agricultural zone where shipping containers are continuing to be permitted, and then a modification to that amortization schedule to grandfather in established containers or establish use conditions that would allow for their complementary use. So to address the public comments that we did receive, if you'll go to the next slide, Aidan. Thank you. So we're talking about the detached and attached residential zones, the mixed residential zones, and then some of the mixed-use zones. And then if or establishing use conditions if a shipping container is going to be considered an accessory structure. Thank you. That we would ask that they be painted in or sided with a neutral color, such as black or white or gray or beige or tan or something that is relatively innocuous in tone. And then they would be required to meet all of the design requirements that any accessory structure would be required to fulfill, such as the setbacks from the side and rear property lines, the lot coverage requirements, the height requirements, et cetera, for whichever zone that they would be placed in. And then similarly, if they were to be used as an accessory structure in a commercial or mixed-use zone, very similar requirements that they would need to apply for a commercial building permit. They would need to place the shipping container on a permanent foundation. We would need to prohibit we would suggest prohibiting the placement in those front and side yards or adjacencies to public right-of-way with additional requirements for screening of the container, just as we would any of the storage facilities that we have in commercial or mixed-use zones currently in requ in rec in compliance with the screening requirements of the newly drafted landscaping chapter. And then again, that painting or siting in a neutral color and then meeting the design requirements of the zone. We have created a section for multi-tenant complexes and developments. An example of these would be something like the Cornerstone Plaza or the Tamarack Square, where you have sort of that strip mall design, which has many businesses all in one building, or many separate buildings that are on parcels that are adjacent to one another. And so what this does is it allows for the conglomeration of their signage on the street on a large tall structure, and then requirements for signage on their actual facade, which will help ensure that every business that's located in one of these types of developments has access and opportunity for signage of their business while also reducing the incidence of sign of too much signage because it does create distraction. We've just updated definitions to consolidate sign types such as pull, post, and freestanding. These are all examples of freestanding signs, or blade hanging and projecting signs, which are all projecting signs from a building.