APPROVED MINUTES
IN COMPLIANCE WITH MCA 76-2-307 a JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD was held on July 8, 2019 in Council chambers at City Hall @ 6:15 pm.
Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 6:15 pm by Council President Peggy Williams.
Present were Mrs. Williams, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Beach, Ms. Smith, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Dufficy as well as the Planning Board members Jennifer Nelson, Christian Montgomery, Gary Neff, Roberta McCants, Mark Andressen and Virginia Kocieda.
There was a conflict in the posting of the meeting times one posting said 6:00 pm and one posting said 6:30 pm, so meeting was started at 6:15pm.
Kristin Smith did a power point presentation on the proposed Downtown Business District (DBD) and the Highway Commercial District.
Ms. Smith: Ultimately the recommendation by the Planning Board/Zoning Commission is to rename the Main Business District to the Downtown Business District and adopt that recommended language that is in the draft. redefine the boundaries as depicted in the purposed map, create a Highway Commercial District, which would be a new chapter and adopt the recommended language and boundaries on the map. Also, we added some new definitions and would recommend that those be adopted and that we should adopt some changes to the non-conforming uses which came through the public comment process and rezone those certain areas identified in the map to be business residence.
Public Comment:
Michelle Swagger, 216 Mineral Ave., – Referring to page 3 of 5 section E – Residential Ground Floor states that there are to be none permitted on the store front on Mineral Ave. and California Ave., there already 2 right now. Council may have to close those down.
Ms. Smith responded: Just a reminder for everyone, anything that is currently existing if it becomes non – conforming through any change in regulation, may continue to operate. So, no one will be shut down.
Michelle Swagger: Loading & Unloading areas, like behind the dollar store right now, want to revamp that, was told that it wouldn’t be an issue doing that and not bringing it up to having to put windows and everything else in there. There is nothing in stating that and would prefer something in there to protect the business owners who have been told that they would not be affected.
Ms. Smith: That is covered in materials section on page 4, provision concerning issue was added.
Alfred Journey: Read aloud a letter sent to the board requesting property he owns at 820 Main be rezoned commercial/residential instead if being zoned just commercial.
D.C.Orr: Against this zoning effort. Objected to procedure, asked if he was addressing Council or Board.
Ms. Williams responded he is addressing the Council.
Public comment was closed.
Council Comments:
Ms. Smith apologized for the confusion regarding meeting times, the meeting was published 2 different times, also stated that legal counsel was sought on the structure of this process and advised that it was acceptable.
Mr. Zimmerman: Had questions on the Downtown District on permitted uses “B” auto, truck, trailer sales, why was it not expanded upon to include boats, atv’s, motorcycles if that that needs to be added or not.
Ms. Smith: That can be added.
Mr. Zimmerman: Page 3 of 5 drive thru’s in alleyways. Wonder, trying to foresee 100-year outlook and what if we take on any additional drive thru’s, do we really want to put that much extra on the alleys for the possible traffic that will not be allowed on Mineral and California? Is this something that you thought about?
Gary Neff (LPBM) commented: Primary Concern is safety factor.
Zimmerman: Was there any talk of making those outlets right turn only or to go with the flow of traffic for safety?
Neff: this was discussed, but the opinion was no one is going to pay attention and make the left turn.
Jennifer Nelson (Libby Planning Board Member LPBM) commented: Road cuts not only interfere with vehicle traffic, but also interfere with cycling traffic as well as pedestrian traffic. Road cuts are just not desirable on those two streets.
Smith commented: You just don’t see drive thru’s in downtown districts. Cuts interfere with the feel of downtown and pedestrian flow.
Mark Andressen (LPBM) commented: Not sure if it is possible to have egress in direction that it is or ingress as it was before off the state highway.
Mr. Beach commented: There is no “perfect” solution.
Mr. Andressen (LPBM): It is a suggested solution, there is a safety factor.
Mr. Zimmerman: The way it’s worded, that is not an option either.
Ms. Nelson (LPBM): That’s why it’s worded the way it is. Must access and exit drive thru form street or alley to be with general flow of traffic, so as not to interrupt the flow of traffic.
Zimmerman: How is that done unless a sign is put up? Still going to cross traffic coming out on side streets.
Nelson (LPBM): Traffic flow will not be as interrupted, more controlled entrance and exit on side streets.
Zimmerman: has concerns of all that traffic in alleyways.
Christian Montgomery (LPBM) commented: Taking that city blocks action and putting it on the side street so everyone else can keep flowing safely. Yes, they’ll cut traffic, but it is traffic for this business or that business not a whole street.
Zimmerman: All that traffic being put into the alleyway not being allowed onto the main drag, just alleyway.
Montgomery (LPBM): Do not think there is a real impact.
Zimmerman: Building Footprint: asks why a need for a public hearing regarding size.
Nelson (LPBM): Other downtown districts were looked at for configuration of shops. Did a pretty extensive analysis to determine size of buildings. A “mega store” type building is not conducive for downtown.
Zimmerman: Loading/unloading – no new curb cuts for garage doors permitted on Mineral or California. If existing building owner felt needed a 2nd curb cut (entrance) this would not be allowed?
Smith: No. Curb cuts take away parking spaces.
Zimmerman: Used NW motorsports as a for instance, they have only 1 curb cut on California Ave, if they wanted a 2nd by their warehouse it would not be allowed.
Nelson: Correct, also stated, that is what the alleys are intended for.
Mr. Beach: Asked question regarding 17.24.0.80 does this apply to fire? Would business be able to rebuild in the same configuration as insurance may not pay for the new regulations.
Nelson (LPBM): You are referencing the building footprint? Planning board used the largest downtown building to gage side restrictions; this is really a moot point as there are no buildings downtown bigger that the 5,850 feet.
Beach: Asked in a hypothetical case, if there were a 6,000 sq. ft. metal building, could it be built the same way if it burnt.
Nelson (LPBM): Not possible based on what already exists.
Smith commented: Generally, the legal framework is that of something is destroyed by fire it may be rebuilt, provided it is done within a year.
Beach: Has a on page 4 of 5 section E of DBD packet, asks if it includes side street sidewalks.
Smith: Stated that it is for the whole district.
Mr. Taylor: Asked a question on Highway District 17.25.080 Loading/Unloading. Stated that no new curb cuts on highway 2 could greatly hinder new business or anyone that wanted to come in.
Nelson: Stated that that is correct, do not want to see new curb cuts for loading/unloading.
Smith: Stated that MDT (Montana Department of Transportation) would supersede, and the highway has very narrow sidewalks, so no buffer between sidewalks and street. Goal to keep pedestrian and vehicle traffic safe.
Taylor: Asked the intent of no stand-alone casinos on the highway. (pg. 1 of 4 Conditional A)
Smith: States that some of that comes from talking to people who live here, they do not want a proliferation of stand-alone casinos. Want to promote other uses.
Mr. Dufficy: States that if somebody wants to come here and invest and put up a stand-alone casino, he thinks it is good for the community. All for business coming into town.
Curb cuts do not sound like a big thing on Highwy 2, if the state approves it, it should be left alone
Nelson (LPBM): Stated that the State does have jurisdiction over highway and curb cuts, however the loading/unloading should be part of the business development plan and there are still variance processes if needed.
Roberta McCants (LPBM): Stated that pedestrian safety is #1!
Mr. Beach: Wanted clarification on Highway District – prohibited use – B, asked if it included campers.
Zimmerman: Highway District vs. Downtown Business District (DBD). The does not have a “grandfather clause”. Asks reason for that.
Smith: Stated that there was no reason other than the board got no comments. Comments were from people regarding DBD. It is covered in the codes non – conforming section.
Public comment:
Jay Moody: His comment was regarding the grandfather clause not being in the Highway District packet and the paving of parking lots.
Neff (LPBM): Regarding the grandfather clause he feels it is more for information. State regulations determine the grandfather clause. State law trumps city law and they are grandfathering everything.
Moody: “State says I don’t have to pave”. Moody also offered a piece of information regarding approaches, said he was told by the state that they must stay the way they are, if business owner wants to change them, they may do so at their expense and must be redone exactly as they are now.
Smith: Stated that the intent is not to make everyone pave parking lots. Council will probably add the grandfather clause to the Highway District to make it extra clear. Section 17.33 in current City code talks about non – conforming uses, anything that currently exists will continue. Smith also stated that the only thing that would supersede would be the Board of Health if they decided to make everyone pave due to air quality and they can do that.
Michelle Swagger, 216 Mineral Ave.: Asked if paintings could be used to break up the long walls. (17.24-100 Pg. 4of 5 DBD packet)
Smith: Stated that it was not something that the board had discussed but saw no issue with it. It would be something for the Council to consider as it is passed to them now.
Swagger: Asked about paint colors as an issue that was discussed a few months ago, thought it was being removed and now it is back in the DBD packet.
Smith: Stated there was never a restriction on paint colors but that they just must be a matte, no fluorescent colors. All fluorescents must be muted.
Mark Managhan: 403 Mineral Ave., Asked a question regarding existing curb cuts if purchasing another property on Mineral or California, if there was already a curb cut and wanted to redo the sidewalk, can the curb cut be left as is?
Smith: Stated that the intent is for no new curb cuts.
Managhan: Voiced a concern regarding the loading/unloading and that smaller trucks can get down the alleys to unload, but as for semi’s most to them cannot or will not due to parking on the side streets, telephone poles or other obstacles that cause them not to be able to make the turn safely and also du to potholes in the alleys. Also commented that there is n easy solution and he just wanted to bring that point up.
Dufficy: asked when this comes up for vote if it would be line by line or the document as a whole package.
Smith: responded saying that the planning board was done and now passes this information on to Council. During councils deliberations, where there are differences a vote can be taken on those individual differences and the document as a whole.
Adjournment
Mr. Dufficy MADE A MOTION to Adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Zimmerman SECOND the motion.
Meeting adjourned at 7:25pm
______________ Attest; ______________________________
Mayor, Brent Teske Charlotte Luedecke Deputy City Clerk