3.
Council Work Session
- Meeting Date:
- 11/02/2020
- TITLE
- Project ReCode - Zoning Code Amendment and Zoning Map Update - Session 2
- PRESENTED BY:
- Nicole Cromwell
- Department:
- Planning & Community Services
- Division:
- Planning
RECOMMENDATION
There is no action required by the City Council. This is a second Work Session on the overview of the Zoning Code Amendment and the Zoning Map Update. This session will focus on some of the major improvements contained within the draft code including implementing policy on locations and separations of casinos and bars, new commercial, mixed use and industrial zones and the sign code.
The City Zoning Commission met for a final public hearing on October 14, 2020 and is forwarding its recommendation of approval of the Zoning Code Amendment and the Zoning Map Update to the City Council for a public hearing and 1st reading on November 9, 2020.
The City Zoning Commission met for a final public hearing on October 14, 2020 and is forwarding its recommendation of approval of the Zoning Code Amendment and the Zoning Map Update to the City Council for a public hearing and 1st reading on November 9, 2020.
BACKGROUND (Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies, if applicable)
The City Council's first Work Session gave a complete overview of the recommended draft code update. Over the past two weeks, the City Council and other interested parties have submitted questions concerning the specific language of the code. This Work Session will first review those questions and answers (Council questions have been provided below) and then focus on several overarching themes and policies of the zoning code amendments including the new approach to zoning district structure especially as it relates to commercial, mixed use and industrial zone districts. Staff will also review the issue of non-reducible separations for casinos and bars, and the new sign code.
Council Questions and Answers:
The Council and others have sent questions over the last 10 days regarding the draft code. Here are those Council questions and answers:
From CM Boyett
Hi Nicole,
Randy Reger asked me to contact you as he believes an agreement was made so time ago which allows him to put signs up to 40 feet. Could you look at the section provided and give me you opinion? I didn’t know where to look without asking you.
Answer
Hi CM Boyett,
This was not an agreement per se. It was a code adopted by the City Council in 2005. The existing codes were all reviewed and the best parts of the existing codes continued forward in the new code. The Shiloh Overlay District is not continuing in the new zoning code, but some parts of this code were incorporated across other code sections. These overlay districts are being retired along with the separate sign code for those overlay areas. The new sign code (Section 27-1400), specifies what type of signs are allowed by zoning district including the height, area and illumination of those signs.
The new sign code recognized the need for taller signs within 660 feet of the interstate right of way but not on other local streets. A sign up to 40 feet in height is allowed within 660 feet of the interstate right of way. We also changed the way we will measure sign height. Right now we measure from the base of the sign up to top of the sign – without regard for the adjacent street elevation.
Mr. Reger's property at Shiloh/Hesper/Gabel/Zoo Drive is proposed to be zoned I1 - Light Industrial. The current zoning of the property is Controlled Industrial (CI). These are essentially the same zoning district designation without the Shiloh Overlay. There are many other requirements and allowances in the overlay district that were incorporated across the new zoning code for landscaping, site developments and signs. We are also measuring height differently than current code for signs. We will be measuring the height of signs from the crown of the adjacent road. (Draft Section 27-1404.C) The new zone district allows these types of signs (Draft Section 27-1407.E)
We reserved the maximum 40 foot height for signs within the Interstate Corridor (660 feet either side of the ROW). The Sign Code Working Group believed the 25 foot height – measured in the new way – would be plenty of height for city streets and areas zoned for commercial, industrial and mixed uses.
There is always the option to apply for a height variance for a sign. There will be a few signs on Zoo Drive that exceed the new maximum height. These will likely all fall into the Major Nonconforming Sign category (See Draft Section 27-1403) because they will exceed the new height limit by more than 20%.
As we discussed in the sign code working group, the taller signs are not intended (or very safe) to read from local streets. These taller pole signs within 660 feet of the interstate right of way act more as “locator” signs similar to the balloons that car dealerships put up 50 feet in the air on weekends. Zoo Drive is not a high speed limited access freeway where a locator sign is needed for traffic to make a safe movement to turn, exit or slow down. I hope this explains the proposed new sign code for pole signs.
From CM Neese
Nicole,
Q. It was mentioned that the casino, bar/ increase would allow a 10% expansion but 0% toward the restrictive location. However, is there a limit on how much they can build up? Is the 10% only on the foot print or the gross floor space?
A. This is gross floor area not foot print (Section 27-1503.A)
Q. Chain link : You are correct I saw that in EBURD section only. They may want to change that. Chain link prevents being able to hide which I think would be safer for residents and police.
A. The EBURD code requires some transparency in front yard fences to maintain this good visibility. Where an opaque fence is required (next to a residential use) then a solid fence must go in.
Q. Sign Code. In commercial zones. Can the signs be allowed in the chain link with painted slates? I brought this to your attention about the storage property on the corner of Lake Elmo and Pemberton Ln that has a sign like this.
A. No. The proposed sign code does not allow business signs to be posted on fences. (Section 27-1402.E – Prohibited Locations)
Q. I understand the city attorney indicated the city did not need a full notification of a zone change as is required by state law because much of re-code is a minor change. While I disagree with that premise, the question I had was not in relation to minor changes. My question is in relation to major the adjustments or changes that through this re-code the existing zoning use is being changed from one use to another use without following MCA. State Law is specific on zone changes on what is required. I could not find an exemption for not requiring notification if the city chooses to overhaul of their code. A change of use through zoning is a zone change.
A. The zoning map update is not a zone change as contemplated by both the State Law (MCA 76-2-303-304), and the Local Regulations at BMCC 27-1502. The Zoning Map Update is to place each of the +62K parcels within the city limits in one of the newly created zone districts (as per draft Section 27-300, 27-400, 27-500, 27-600, 27-900). The City/County Board of Planning initiated the Zoning Code overhaul that includes this map update.
As stated at the Work Session and many other public presentations on the zoning map update, zoning district updates were done carefully and based both on current zone districts and actual uses of property whenever possible. The draft side-by-side comparison map was published in May 2019 and we have continually updated the draft map based on errors and corrections sent to us by land owners, neighbors, agents for land owner and by Planning staff. We still have a handful of small corrections for the final map. We have not “up-zoned” undeveloped property, but we have corrected zoning errors – some made back in 1972/1973 when broad brushes were used to zone “over” established uses. The established uses were already part of the neighborhood fabric and provide some essential services where none existed. None of these locations have “conformed” to the inappropriate zone district applied in 1972/1973. They have persisted – and become harder to finance and insure – and remain part of these neighborhoods. There were uses we did not consider for “right zoning” including auto repair or similar uses that are not really a good fit within a neighborhood.
Q. In these situations can we get the city attorney's opinion on notification requirements when the class in the zone is changing from their existing class to another class?
City Attorney is preparing a response.
Q. BTW, on the last map I looked at the parcels that where involved in the county Cherry Creek zone request a couple of weeks ago were zoned as R9600, that would should mean they would be zone N4 county like the county neighbors to the west. Why does the map show them as RR1, that appears to be a zone change that the nearby residents are expecting for years as R9600 or N4 type property development. What is the development difference if it is N4 vs RR1?
A. The Cherry Island LLC parcels (Lot 2) outside the city limits and west of the Cherry Creek MHP are scheduled to become RR1. County parcels that are not subdivided or developed, and they were zoned R-96, we placed these properties within the appropriate RR zone. The N4 zoning was applied to R-96 zoned lots in the County that were subdivided (lots created) based on the R-96 zone. So lots east of Cherry Creek Estates that were subdivided and built on were zoned both N4 and RR1 – based on lot area. N4 is 15,000 square feet minimum up to .99 acres. It is a Large Lot Suburban Neighborhood district. RR1 is a county rural residential zone requiring at least 1 acre lots. The lots could be as large as 2.99 acres. When the Cherry Island LLC property west of the Cherry Creek MHP is proposed for annexation and zoning, it will need to go through the Planned Neighborhood Development (PND) process since it is larger than 3 acres and is not developed. If the owners want to develop a County subdivision of lots less than 1 acre, a zone change would be required to go to the N4 zoning.
Thanks for your help. I'm still going through this and will have a lot more questions.
From CM Purinton:
Q. Nicole, in talking with some EBURD folks, we were wondering if the version online is the latest version which you presented. They thought that there were no changes from current regulations.
A. The EBURD code was updated by putting the sign code regulations into the new sign code section – 27-1400. These sign regulations were not changed in any essential way when we included the EBURD zone districts in the new sign code.
The “Use” section in the current EBURD code was incorporated into the new Use and Use Standards section 27-1000. There are five columns in the Use Table for the EBURD zone districts and the Use Standards for those zone districts were incorporated in to the text of new Section 27-1000.
The other pieces of the EBURD code were consolidated and updated into the new EBURD code section 27-900.
I have included all three code sections with this email. (www.project-recode.com/code-outline )
I have also included the current EBURD code Section 27-1800 .
From CM Ewalt:
Nicole, Here are some of my questions so far:
Q: 1. p. 3 "C" what does except one of every four lots in the development may be located on a shared open space mean?
A: This requirement appears in the draft Code Section 27-303. The current code requires every lot to have physical access and frontage on a public right of way (27-310.a BMCC). The proposed code has a similar requirement but it also will allow courtyard type arrangements of dwelling units. In order to keep the code consistent, this allowance is written so courtyard dwelling arrangements are possible. This is the diagrammatic plan shown as an example for the Mixed Residential Zone -1 (NX1)
Q: 2. p. 4 "G" the city is in the process of moving trash collection to front street of property why require trash to be in rear
of property then. Does this tell the owner they have to put their trash receptacle where code wants it?
A: This requirement for storage of trash receptacles is in Code Section 27-303.G. The current code at BMCC 21-210(a) allows trash receptacles to be out at curbside no more than 24 hours in advance of the collection day, and they need to be stored away from the street after collection day. This part of the zoning code relates to the storage of the trash containers and does not dictate where the trash is collected.
Q: 3. p.5 "J" requiring adding "interest" to the building facade goes against personal property rights and affordable housing.
A: This is not a question. This section of 27-303.J was crafted to ensure the standard of the existing neighborhood district. Not every new N district requires some of these elements. For example, N3 does not have these requirements. The other N districts do require some common elements such as doors and windows along the front of the building in the “build-to” area along the street. The requirement is intended to encourage compatibility in design for new structures in existing neighborhoods. Administrative relief can be requested when one of these elements cannot be met.
Q: 4. p.5 "K" What is the width in feet of an arterial street? Why not use property line for set back distances? If structure is 50'
from centerline of arterial then no vehicles can park on driveway because they'll extend into the 40' restriction.
A: Arterial streets have variable widths and it is based on when or how the street was designated as an arterial. In the subdivision regulations, the width of an arterial street could be 100 feet in total width or 130 feet in width (BMCC 23-406(b). The pavement, sidewalks, gutters are all contained within the right way but there may be additional area that is not yet constructed but still part of the right of way. This would look like it was part of the private property but would actually be part of the city’s right of way. The current code requires a minimum front setback to property line and a minimum setback to an arterial street centerline of at least 60 feet for commercial property and 80 feet for residential property. (BMCC 27-308, 27-309 and 27-602) The most restrictive requirement governs. This would be how this new reduced arterial setback is measured as well. The new code is intended to bring buildings towards the street in most cases and parking would be on the side of the buildings or in the rear.
Q: 5. p.8 What is the definition of a "fee simple configuration" not in the definition section of 27-1800.
A: We may have to add this to our definitions. A “fee-simple configuration” is referring to unit ownership versus fee simple ownership of property. Fee simple means how an owner owns property. Fee simple is how many people own their homes or businesses. A “unit ownership” can be a condominium or a townhome. The owner owns the unit (and the ground below for a townhome), but owns the ground around the dwellings in common with other owners.
Q: 6. p.8 "b" one entrance is permitted per street facade/what if a stacked unit residence has a entrance for main level and
a second entrance to enclosed stair on second level?
A: Designers could ask for an administrative adjustment or they could build a side entrance (door faces the side property line and not the front) to the enclosed stairwell.
Q: 7. section 27-305 N2 Why is it permissible to have front building width of 80' for single residence, but only 60' for a front
building width for a duplex?
A: The code requirement was based on the majority character of the existing Mid-Century neighborhoods in Billings and on the new Lot Width requirement for N2. The end-to-end duplex needs less building width on the street frontage than a side-by-side duplex.
Q: What is the difference between side-by-side and end-to-end units?
A: The main difference is the orientation of the duplex structure. The end-to-end units are oriented to the side or on separate street frontages (corner lot duplex). The side-by-side duplex is oriented toward the street with a “U” shape space between the units.
Q: Why only one entrance permitted off street?
A: The idea is to help the two-unit buildings blend in with the single family dwellings in the area.
Q: This N2 district was suppose to blend with existing construction in the area, but added restrictions mentioned above will not blend in.
A: This is not a question.
Q: Why is only 35% facade coverage for garages added to more restrictions for this area?
A: Most of the N2 zone district dwellings do meet this requirement. We only measure the width of the garage door – not the width of the interior space devoted to storage for cars or personal property.
Q: The only positive change to a property is the slight increase in total lot coverage, (I might be wrong but I think it went from 36% to 40%)
A: Most residential zone districts have 30% maximum lot coverage – exceptions are Residential 6,000 and Residential 8,000 with 40% lot coverage. The multi-family zone districts have higher lot coverage allowances and these will continue.
Q: 8. p. 16 "D-3" last line reads (comprised of multiple units, shall total the minimum regulations) This may have read (comprised of multiple units, shall meet the total regulations) if this a grammatical error then "D-3" on page needs correcting also.
A: I will need to look closely at the code language. It appears to have a grammatical disagreement. Both Code Section 27-307.D.3 and Section 27-308.D.3. This applies only to multiple side-by-side dwellings – townhomes. The idea is that each dwelling unit would meet the minimum regulations that apply to any dwelling in this Mixed Residential zone district (NX1, NX2 & NX3). I will apprise the Council of a grammatical change.
Q: 9. p. 19 "D-5" does this mean NX3 does not need open space?
A: This was an oversight in the drafting. Code Section 27-308.D.5 should include both zone districts NX2 and NX3.
?More to come later. Thanks
Frank
Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts
The draft zoning code was built using a structure that is modified from its current approach that is known as "Euclidean" or standard zoning. Euclidean does not refer to math (although the code structure is similar to a pyramid) but to a town in Ohio - the Village of Euclid. This town and its 1924 zoning code was the landmark precedent case before the Supreme Court challenging the ability of local governments to create and enforce zoning codes. The Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Village of Euclid, OH (Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)). Since this landmark case decision, cities, towns and counties throughout the US have implemented zoning based on the structure of this first zoning code: Uses in a low intensity districts are included in higher intensity districts along with any new uses allowed in the higher districts. So the structure is similar to an inverted pyramid. For example, all uses allowed in the Residential Professional zone (RP) district are also allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district along with additional uses. The first zoning code for Billings was adopted on July 15, 1930 and had five zone districts.
The primary difference between any of our current commercial zone districts is the added uses allowed in the higher district compared to the next lowest district. The proposed zone district structure is intended to separate districts into similar "classes" of use. In Section 27-1000 this is introduced in the opening paragraphs:
Primary Use Classification General Descriptions
27-1001.C To organize the uses in the Table 27-1000.1, Primary Use Table, land uses and activities are classified into general “use categories” that are based on common functional, product, or physical characteristics, such as the type and amount of activity, the type of customers or residents, how goods or services are sold or delivered, and site conditions. The use categories in Table 27-1000.1 are:
While updating the Zoning Map from the existing Controlled Industrial (CI) zone designation to the new Light Industrial (I1) zone designation we decided the default would be to the new I1 whenever possible. The new I1 zone district is not appropriate in every case. Planning staff re-checked the draft Zoning Map update in the past two weeks to ensure we had the correct zone designation for the current CI zone districts. We have updated several areas currently coded as I1 to the new Heavy Commercial (CX) zone district based on the predominate uses in the area including hotels, recreation, medical facilities and professional offices. These final zoning map updates will be presented at the November 9, 2020 public hearing.
Bars, Casinos and Non-reducible Separation Distances
Since 2006, the City Council and several neighborhoods have expressed concern with the expansion and re-location of casinos and bars in the community. The current code allows the City Council to grant a waiver to the required 600-foot separation distance to parks with playgrounds, schools and churches, and the distance is measured property line to property line. There is no separation requirement to residential neighborhoods and this has caused a decrease in the safety and livability of many neighborhoods that are close to existing locations. The City Council asked the Project ReCode Steering Committee and the Working Groups to specifically look at crafting a regulation to address these concerns.
The proposed regulation will require a non-reducible separation of 600 feet from casinos with 10 or more gambling machines (or tables) and churches, schools and parks with playgrounds. The new way this separation is measured is from the building or occupied space of the casino to the property line of the protected use. The proposed regulation also adds a new non-reducible separation distance of 350 feet to a residential neighborhood. This will be measured in the same way as the 600-foot separation requirement. Bars will be defined as a location that has more alcohol sales than food sales. Bars will also be required to maintain a non-reducible separation distance of 600 feet from a park with a playground, a school or church and a non-reducible separation of 150 feet to a residential neighborhood. The same measurement method applies to all of these new separation requirements.
The proposed amendments also includes zone districts where these separation distances will not apply for casinos or bars. For the new casino separations, this includes the Central Business District (CBD) that is already exempt from separation requirements, the East Billings Urban Renewal Districts (EBURD), and the new Light Industrial (I1) zone district. For bars, the exemption from separation distances will apply in the CBD, EBURD, I1 and Downtown Support (DX) districts. A restaurant with a bar will not be subject to these separation distances if the location sells more food than alcohol. Bars and casinos will also be subject to special review approval even if they meet the separation requirements.
These changes will result in many nonconforming locations for existing bars and casinos. These locations can continue in their current locations but if the use were changed to a conforming use - such as a restaurant with a bar and with fewer than 10 gambling machines, then just a bar or casino could not be brought back at a later date. Remodeling and normal property maintenance and updating can occur as long as it does not increase the nonconformity of the location. If the location were to be destroyed by any means that results in more than 50 percent of the replacement cost it cannot be re-established or rebuilt except in conformity with the new code.
Sign Code:
Two concerns have been received from property owners on the proposed sign code. These concerns are in regards to sign height and operational restrictions of Electronic Message Display (EMD) signs. The City currently supports seven different and distinct sign codes. The Sign Code Working Group consolidated all seven sign codes and took the best features of each code to use in the proposed new sign code. There are several parts of the existing sign codes that are not carrying forward into the new sign code including some site specific height allowances in the South Shiloh Corridor and the wide-open animation allowances for EMD signs.
Sign height has a direct effect on legibility of signs and safe readability of signs by travelers on adjacent streets. The current sign code height limit is 30 feet for freestanding signs in many commercial zone districts. The working group agreed after many hours of discussion and examples, the current 30-foot height limit was 5 feet too tall to ensure legibility of a pole sign. The proposed height limit for pole signs in most areas is 25 feet as measured from the crown of the adjacent road. Some of the seven sign codes allow signs taller than 30 feet in specific locations - in a certain zone district and within the interstate corridor for example. Taller signs in general are used in locations where information is conveyed to a nearby high-speed limited access interstate and travelers need to recognize where they need to prepare to exit the interstate. These are commonly known as "locator" signs. In the correct locations and height they can be very effective. More than 660 feet from the interstate, locator signs become less effective and more distracting to local traffic. The new sign code will not allow a sign taller than 25 feet except within 660 feet of the interstate right of way. The South Shiloh Corridor district currently allows 40-foot tall pole signs along the Zoo Drive frontage from the interchange all the way to the Shiloh Road intersection. Allowing these taller signs more than 660 feet from the interstate was not considered by the Sign Code Working Group or by the City Zoning Commission. A taller sign along the Zoo Drive street frontage west of the Gabel Rd intersection will not be visible from the interstate and will not act as a "locator" sign.
The current sign code for EMD signs allows animation on these signs in all districts where they are located. The exception to this allowance is for billboard signs with an EMD sign face. These are restricted to a "static" display with a minimum six seconds between message changes. There are some operational restrictions for animations such as no flashing, no traveling lights, no video (faster than 20 frames per second), and no scintillating lights.
Prior to 2008, EMD signs were not clearly allowed within the code. An ad hoc committee was formed by the City Council and staffed by the Planning Division to investigate and propose regulations for this new technology. These are the current requirements in the code. The enforceability of the current operational restrictions is nearly impossible since the operation of the sign is via a computer on site. Any person within the business can program the sign to operate in any way almost instantly - either in compliance or in noncompliance with the sign code. A report to Code Enforcement of a flashing EMD sign can be made on Sunday afternoon, and by the following day, the sign is back to compliant operation when the Code Enforcement Officer goes to inspect the sign. There is no evidence the sign was ever used inappropriately or in noncompliance with the code. The working group considered this information along with the potential for future technology to replace some of these current EMD signs. The working group and City Zoning Commission are recommending that most EMD signs become "static" message signs with changes allowed every six seconds. Animated EMD signs would be restricted to two zone districts - Central Business District (CBD), Downtown Support (DX).
The six second message display time for static EMD signs is an effective length of time for moving traffic to receive the sign information without distracting drivers. This allows signs to be legible from the adjacent street. Animation or scrolling messages across the sign face tends to pull driver's attention away from the road. Some of the multi-lane arterial streets in Billings demand all of the driver's attention due to traffic volume and speed. The requirement for static display on EMD signs will also increase the city's ability to enforce a uniform code across most commercial zone districts. EMD signs located near controlled intersections will still retain the same ability the signs have now to convey multiple messages to traffic waiting at the intersection. Traffic traveling at speed through these intersections would not receive more than one single message on an EMD under the current or proposed regulations.
Council Questions and Answers:
The Council and others have sent questions over the last 10 days regarding the draft code. Here are those Council questions and answers:
From CM Boyett
Hi Nicole,
Randy Reger asked me to contact you as he believes an agreement was made so time ago which allows him to put signs up to 40 feet. Could you look at the section provided and give me you opinion? I didn’t know where to look without asking you.
Answer
Hi CM Boyett,
This was not an agreement per se. It was a code adopted by the City Council in 2005. The existing codes were all reviewed and the best parts of the existing codes continued forward in the new code. The Shiloh Overlay District is not continuing in the new zoning code, but some parts of this code were incorporated across other code sections. These overlay districts are being retired along with the separate sign code for those overlay areas. The new sign code (Section 27-1400), specifies what type of signs are allowed by zoning district including the height, area and illumination of those signs.
The new sign code recognized the need for taller signs within 660 feet of the interstate right of way but not on other local streets. A sign up to 40 feet in height is allowed within 660 feet of the interstate right of way. We also changed the way we will measure sign height. Right now we measure from the base of the sign up to top of the sign – without regard for the adjacent street elevation.
Mr. Reger's property at Shiloh/Hesper/Gabel/Zoo Drive is proposed to be zoned I1 - Light Industrial. The current zoning of the property is Controlled Industrial (CI). These are essentially the same zoning district designation without the Shiloh Overlay. There are many other requirements and allowances in the overlay district that were incorporated across the new zoning code for landscaping, site developments and signs. We are also measuring height differently than current code for signs. We will be measuring the height of signs from the crown of the adjacent road. (Draft Section 27-1404.C) The new zone district allows these types of signs (Draft Section 27-1407.E)
We reserved the maximum 40 foot height for signs within the Interstate Corridor (660 feet either side of the ROW). The Sign Code Working Group believed the 25 foot height – measured in the new way – would be plenty of height for city streets and areas zoned for commercial, industrial and mixed uses.
There is always the option to apply for a height variance for a sign. There will be a few signs on Zoo Drive that exceed the new maximum height. These will likely all fall into the Major Nonconforming Sign category (See Draft Section 27-1403) because they will exceed the new height limit by more than 20%.
As we discussed in the sign code working group, the taller signs are not intended (or very safe) to read from local streets. These taller pole signs within 660 feet of the interstate right of way act more as “locator” signs similar to the balloons that car dealerships put up 50 feet in the air on weekends. Zoo Drive is not a high speed limited access freeway where a locator sign is needed for traffic to make a safe movement to turn, exit or slow down. I hope this explains the proposed new sign code for pole signs.
From CM Neese
Nicole,
Q. It was mentioned that the casino, bar/ increase would allow a 10% expansion but 0% toward the restrictive location. However, is there a limit on how much they can build up? Is the 10% only on the foot print or the gross floor space?
A. This is gross floor area not foot print (Section 27-1503.A)
Q. Chain link : You are correct I saw that in EBURD section only. They may want to change that. Chain link prevents being able to hide which I think would be safer for residents and police.
A. The EBURD code requires some transparency in front yard fences to maintain this good visibility. Where an opaque fence is required (next to a residential use) then a solid fence must go in.
Q. Sign Code. In commercial zones. Can the signs be allowed in the chain link with painted slates? I brought this to your attention about the storage property on the corner of Lake Elmo and Pemberton Ln that has a sign like this.
A. No. The proposed sign code does not allow business signs to be posted on fences. (Section 27-1402.E – Prohibited Locations)
Q. I understand the city attorney indicated the city did not need a full notification of a zone change as is required by state law because much of re-code is a minor change. While I disagree with that premise, the question I had was not in relation to minor changes. My question is in relation to major the adjustments or changes that through this re-code the existing zoning use is being changed from one use to another use without following MCA. State Law is specific on zone changes on what is required. I could not find an exemption for not requiring notification if the city chooses to overhaul of their code. A change of use through zoning is a zone change.
A. The zoning map update is not a zone change as contemplated by both the State Law (MCA 76-2-303-304), and the Local Regulations at BMCC 27-1502. The Zoning Map Update is to place each of the +62K parcels within the city limits in one of the newly created zone districts (as per draft Section 27-300, 27-400, 27-500, 27-600, 27-900). The City/County Board of Planning initiated the Zoning Code overhaul that includes this map update.
As stated at the Work Session and many other public presentations on the zoning map update, zoning district updates were done carefully and based both on current zone districts and actual uses of property whenever possible. The draft side-by-side comparison map was published in May 2019 and we have continually updated the draft map based on errors and corrections sent to us by land owners, neighbors, agents for land owner and by Planning staff. We still have a handful of small corrections for the final map. We have not “up-zoned” undeveloped property, but we have corrected zoning errors – some made back in 1972/1973 when broad brushes were used to zone “over” established uses. The established uses were already part of the neighborhood fabric and provide some essential services where none existed. None of these locations have “conformed” to the inappropriate zone district applied in 1972/1973. They have persisted – and become harder to finance and insure – and remain part of these neighborhoods. There were uses we did not consider for “right zoning” including auto repair or similar uses that are not really a good fit within a neighborhood.
Q. In these situations can we get the city attorney's opinion on notification requirements when the class in the zone is changing from their existing class to another class?
City Attorney is preparing a response.
Q. BTW, on the last map I looked at the parcels that where involved in the county Cherry Creek zone request a couple of weeks ago were zoned as R9600, that would should mean they would be zone N4 county like the county neighbors to the west. Why does the map show them as RR1, that appears to be a zone change that the nearby residents are expecting for years as R9600 or N4 type property development. What is the development difference if it is N4 vs RR1?
A. The Cherry Island LLC parcels (Lot 2) outside the city limits and west of the Cherry Creek MHP are scheduled to become RR1. County parcels that are not subdivided or developed, and they were zoned R-96, we placed these properties within the appropriate RR zone. The N4 zoning was applied to R-96 zoned lots in the County that were subdivided (lots created) based on the R-96 zone. So lots east of Cherry Creek Estates that were subdivided and built on were zoned both N4 and RR1 – based on lot area. N4 is 15,000 square feet minimum up to .99 acres. It is a Large Lot Suburban Neighborhood district. RR1 is a county rural residential zone requiring at least 1 acre lots. The lots could be as large as 2.99 acres. When the Cherry Island LLC property west of the Cherry Creek MHP is proposed for annexation and zoning, it will need to go through the Planned Neighborhood Development (PND) process since it is larger than 3 acres and is not developed. If the owners want to develop a County subdivision of lots less than 1 acre, a zone change would be required to go to the N4 zoning.
Thanks for your help. I'm still going through this and will have a lot more questions.
From CM Purinton:
Q. Nicole, in talking with some EBURD folks, we were wondering if the version online is the latest version which you presented. They thought that there were no changes from current regulations.
A. The EBURD code was updated by putting the sign code regulations into the new sign code section – 27-1400. These sign regulations were not changed in any essential way when we included the EBURD zone districts in the new sign code.
The “Use” section in the current EBURD code was incorporated into the new Use and Use Standards section 27-1000. There are five columns in the Use Table for the EBURD zone districts and the Use Standards for those zone districts were incorporated in to the text of new Section 27-1000.
The other pieces of the EBURD code were consolidated and updated into the new EBURD code section 27-900.
I have included all three code sections with this email. (www.project-recode.com/code-outline )
I have also included the current EBURD code Section 27-1800 .
From CM Ewalt:
Nicole, Here are some of my questions so far:
Q: 1. p. 3 "C" what does except one of every four lots in the development may be located on a shared open space mean?
A: This requirement appears in the draft Code Section 27-303. The current code requires every lot to have physical access and frontage on a public right of way (27-310.a BMCC). The proposed code has a similar requirement but it also will allow courtyard type arrangements of dwelling units. In order to keep the code consistent, this allowance is written so courtyard dwelling arrangements are possible. This is the diagrammatic plan shown as an example for the Mixed Residential Zone -1 (NX1)
Q: 2. p. 4 "G" the city is in the process of moving trash collection to front street of property why require trash to be in rear
of property then. Does this tell the owner they have to put their trash receptacle where code wants it?
A: This requirement for storage of trash receptacles is in Code Section 27-303.G. The current code at BMCC 21-210(a) allows trash receptacles to be out at curbside no more than 24 hours in advance of the collection day, and they need to be stored away from the street after collection day. This part of the zoning code relates to the storage of the trash containers and does not dictate where the trash is collected.
Q: 3. p.5 "J" requiring adding "interest" to the building facade goes against personal property rights and affordable housing.
A: This is not a question. This section of 27-303.J was crafted to ensure the standard of the existing neighborhood district. Not every new N district requires some of these elements. For example, N3 does not have these requirements. The other N districts do require some common elements such as doors and windows along the front of the building in the “build-to” area along the street. The requirement is intended to encourage compatibility in design for new structures in existing neighborhoods. Administrative relief can be requested when one of these elements cannot be met.
Q: 4. p.5 "K" What is the width in feet of an arterial street? Why not use property line for set back distances? If structure is 50'
from centerline of arterial then no vehicles can park on driveway because they'll extend into the 40' restriction.
A: Arterial streets have variable widths and it is based on when or how the street was designated as an arterial. In the subdivision regulations, the width of an arterial street could be 100 feet in total width or 130 feet in width (BMCC 23-406(b). The pavement, sidewalks, gutters are all contained within the right way but there may be additional area that is not yet constructed but still part of the right of way. This would look like it was part of the private property but would actually be part of the city’s right of way. The current code requires a minimum front setback to property line and a minimum setback to an arterial street centerline of at least 60 feet for commercial property and 80 feet for residential property. (BMCC 27-308, 27-309 and 27-602) The most restrictive requirement governs. This would be how this new reduced arterial setback is measured as well. The new code is intended to bring buildings towards the street in most cases and parking would be on the side of the buildings or in the rear.
Q: 5. p.8 What is the definition of a "fee simple configuration" not in the definition section of 27-1800.
A: We may have to add this to our definitions. A “fee-simple configuration” is referring to unit ownership versus fee simple ownership of property. Fee simple means how an owner owns property. Fee simple is how many people own their homes or businesses. A “unit ownership” can be a condominium or a townhome. The owner owns the unit (and the ground below for a townhome), but owns the ground around the dwellings in common with other owners.
Q: 6. p.8 "b" one entrance is permitted per street facade/what if a stacked unit residence has a entrance for main level and
a second entrance to enclosed stair on second level?
A: Designers could ask for an administrative adjustment or they could build a side entrance (door faces the side property line and not the front) to the enclosed stairwell.
Q: 7. section 27-305 N2 Why is it permissible to have front building width of 80' for single residence, but only 60' for a front
building width for a duplex?
A: The code requirement was based on the majority character of the existing Mid-Century neighborhoods in Billings and on the new Lot Width requirement for N2. The end-to-end duplex needs less building width on the street frontage than a side-by-side duplex.
Q: What is the difference between side-by-side and end-to-end units?
A: The main difference is the orientation of the duplex structure. The end-to-end units are oriented to the side or on separate street frontages (corner lot duplex). The side-by-side duplex is oriented toward the street with a “U” shape space between the units.
Q: Why only one entrance permitted off street?
A: The idea is to help the two-unit buildings blend in with the single family dwellings in the area.
Q: This N2 district was suppose to blend with existing construction in the area, but added restrictions mentioned above will not blend in.
A: This is not a question.
Q: Why is only 35% facade coverage for garages added to more restrictions for this area?
A: Most of the N2 zone district dwellings do meet this requirement. We only measure the width of the garage door – not the width of the interior space devoted to storage for cars or personal property.
Q: The only positive change to a property is the slight increase in total lot coverage, (I might be wrong but I think it went from 36% to 40%)
A: Most residential zone districts have 30% maximum lot coverage – exceptions are Residential 6,000 and Residential 8,000 with 40% lot coverage. The multi-family zone districts have higher lot coverage allowances and these will continue.
Q: 8. p. 16 "D-3" last line reads (comprised of multiple units, shall total the minimum regulations) This may have read (comprised of multiple units, shall meet the total regulations) if this a grammatical error then "D-3" on page needs correcting also.
A: I will need to look closely at the code language. It appears to have a grammatical disagreement. Both Code Section 27-307.D.3 and Section 27-308.D.3. This applies only to multiple side-by-side dwellings – townhomes. The idea is that each dwelling unit would meet the minimum regulations that apply to any dwelling in this Mixed Residential zone district (NX1, NX2 & NX3). I will apprise the Council of a grammatical change.
Q: 9. p. 19 "D-5" does this mean NX3 does not need open space?
A: This was an oversight in the drafting. Code Section 27-308.D.5 should include both zone districts NX2 and NX3.
?More to come later. Thanks
Frank
Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts
The draft zoning code was built using a structure that is modified from its current approach that is known as "Euclidean" or standard zoning. Euclidean does not refer to math (although the code structure is similar to a pyramid) but to a town in Ohio - the Village of Euclid. This town and its 1924 zoning code was the landmark precedent case before the Supreme Court challenging the ability of local governments to create and enforce zoning codes. The Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Village of Euclid, OH (Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)). Since this landmark case decision, cities, towns and counties throughout the US have implemented zoning based on the structure of this first zoning code: Uses in a low intensity districts are included in higher intensity districts along with any new uses allowed in the higher districts. So the structure is similar to an inverted pyramid. For example, all uses allowed in the Residential Professional zone (RP) district are also allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district along with additional uses. The first zoning code for Billings was adopted on July 15, 1930 and had five zone districts.
The primary difference between any of our current commercial zone districts is the added uses allowed in the higher district compared to the next lowest district. The proposed zone district structure is intended to separate districts into similar "classes" of use. In Section 27-1000 this is introduced in the opening paragraphs:
Primary Use Classification General Descriptions
27-1001.C To organize the uses in the Table 27-1000.1, Primary Use Table, land uses and activities are classified into general “use categories” that are based on common functional, product, or physical characteristics, such as the type and amount of activity, the type of customers or residents, how goods or services are sold or delivered, and site conditions. The use categories in Table 27-1000.1 are:
- Residential
- Public, Civic, and Institutional
- Commercial
- Industrial, Wholesale, and Storage
- Transportation, Utilities, and Communications
- Agriculture
While updating the Zoning Map from the existing Controlled Industrial (CI) zone designation to the new Light Industrial (I1) zone designation we decided the default would be to the new I1 whenever possible. The new I1 zone district is not appropriate in every case. Planning staff re-checked the draft Zoning Map update in the past two weeks to ensure we had the correct zone designation for the current CI zone districts. We have updated several areas currently coded as I1 to the new Heavy Commercial (CX) zone district based on the predominate uses in the area including hotels, recreation, medical facilities and professional offices. These final zoning map updates will be presented at the November 9, 2020 public hearing.
Bars, Casinos and Non-reducible Separation Distances
Since 2006, the City Council and several neighborhoods have expressed concern with the expansion and re-location of casinos and bars in the community. The current code allows the City Council to grant a waiver to the required 600-foot separation distance to parks with playgrounds, schools and churches, and the distance is measured property line to property line. There is no separation requirement to residential neighborhoods and this has caused a decrease in the safety and livability of many neighborhoods that are close to existing locations. The City Council asked the Project ReCode Steering Committee and the Working Groups to specifically look at crafting a regulation to address these concerns.
The proposed regulation will require a non-reducible separation of 600 feet from casinos with 10 or more gambling machines (or tables) and churches, schools and parks with playgrounds. The new way this separation is measured is from the building or occupied space of the casino to the property line of the protected use. The proposed regulation also adds a new non-reducible separation distance of 350 feet to a residential neighborhood. This will be measured in the same way as the 600-foot separation requirement. Bars will be defined as a location that has more alcohol sales than food sales. Bars will also be required to maintain a non-reducible separation distance of 600 feet from a park with a playground, a school or church and a non-reducible separation of 150 feet to a residential neighborhood. The same measurement method applies to all of these new separation requirements.
The proposed amendments also includes zone districts where these separation distances will not apply for casinos or bars. For the new casino separations, this includes the Central Business District (CBD) that is already exempt from separation requirements, the East Billings Urban Renewal Districts (EBURD), and the new Light Industrial (I1) zone district. For bars, the exemption from separation distances will apply in the CBD, EBURD, I1 and Downtown Support (DX) districts. A restaurant with a bar will not be subject to these separation distances if the location sells more food than alcohol. Bars and casinos will also be subject to special review approval even if they meet the separation requirements.
These changes will result in many nonconforming locations for existing bars and casinos. These locations can continue in their current locations but if the use were changed to a conforming use - such as a restaurant with a bar and with fewer than 10 gambling machines, then just a bar or casino could not be brought back at a later date. Remodeling and normal property maintenance and updating can occur as long as it does not increase the nonconformity of the location. If the location were to be destroyed by any means that results in more than 50 percent of the replacement cost it cannot be re-established or rebuilt except in conformity with the new code.
Sign Code:
Two concerns have been received from property owners on the proposed sign code. These concerns are in regards to sign height and operational restrictions of Electronic Message Display (EMD) signs. The City currently supports seven different and distinct sign codes. The Sign Code Working Group consolidated all seven sign codes and took the best features of each code to use in the proposed new sign code. There are several parts of the existing sign codes that are not carrying forward into the new sign code including some site specific height allowances in the South Shiloh Corridor and the wide-open animation allowances for EMD signs.
Sign height has a direct effect on legibility of signs and safe readability of signs by travelers on adjacent streets. The current sign code height limit is 30 feet for freestanding signs in many commercial zone districts. The working group agreed after many hours of discussion and examples, the current 30-foot height limit was 5 feet too tall to ensure legibility of a pole sign. The proposed height limit for pole signs in most areas is 25 feet as measured from the crown of the adjacent road. Some of the seven sign codes allow signs taller than 30 feet in specific locations - in a certain zone district and within the interstate corridor for example. Taller signs in general are used in locations where information is conveyed to a nearby high-speed limited access interstate and travelers need to recognize where they need to prepare to exit the interstate. These are commonly known as "locator" signs. In the correct locations and height they can be very effective. More than 660 feet from the interstate, locator signs become less effective and more distracting to local traffic. The new sign code will not allow a sign taller than 25 feet except within 660 feet of the interstate right of way. The South Shiloh Corridor district currently allows 40-foot tall pole signs along the Zoo Drive frontage from the interchange all the way to the Shiloh Road intersection. Allowing these taller signs more than 660 feet from the interstate was not considered by the Sign Code Working Group or by the City Zoning Commission. A taller sign along the Zoo Drive street frontage west of the Gabel Rd intersection will not be visible from the interstate and will not act as a "locator" sign.
The current sign code for EMD signs allows animation on these signs in all districts where they are located. The exception to this allowance is for billboard signs with an EMD sign face. These are restricted to a "static" display with a minimum six seconds between message changes. There are some operational restrictions for animations such as no flashing, no traveling lights, no video (faster than 20 frames per second), and no scintillating lights.
Prior to 2008, EMD signs were not clearly allowed within the code. An ad hoc committee was formed by the City Council and staffed by the Planning Division to investigate and propose regulations for this new technology. These are the current requirements in the code. The enforceability of the current operational restrictions is nearly impossible since the operation of the sign is via a computer on site. Any person within the business can program the sign to operate in any way almost instantly - either in compliance or in noncompliance with the sign code. A report to Code Enforcement of a flashing EMD sign can be made on Sunday afternoon, and by the following day, the sign is back to compliant operation when the Code Enforcement Officer goes to inspect the sign. There is no evidence the sign was ever used inappropriately or in noncompliance with the code. The working group considered this information along with the potential for future technology to replace some of these current EMD signs. The working group and City Zoning Commission are recommending that most EMD signs become "static" message signs with changes allowed every six seconds. Animated EMD signs would be restricted to two zone districts - Central Business District (CBD), Downtown Support (DX).
The six second message display time for static EMD signs is an effective length of time for moving traffic to receive the sign information without distracting drivers. This allows signs to be legible from the adjacent street. Animation or scrolling messages across the sign face tends to pull driver's attention away from the road. Some of the multi-lane arterial streets in Billings demand all of the driver's attention due to traffic volume and speed. The requirement for static display on EMD signs will also increase the city's ability to enforce a uniform code across most commercial zone districts. EMD signs located near controlled intersections will still retain the same ability the signs have now to convey multiple messages to traffic waiting at the intersection. Traffic traveling at speed through these intersections would not receive more than one single message on an EMD under the current or proposed regulations.
STAKEHOLDERS
The City Zoning Commission has held six topic focused public hearings on the draft code and zoning map update in the past four months. The Commission held a final hearing on October 14, 2020, and reviewed the code one last time before making a recommendation to the City Council. The Zoning Commission is forwarding a recommendation of approval to the City Council.
The public hearings were conducted in multiple formats to allow for maximum participation. The formats included in person attendance at the Senior Center, on line via live feed on Facebook and on the Zoom virtual meeting platform. Community 7 TV live broadcast the hearings on their Facebook page and on the Planning & Community Services Facebook page. We had a public comment call in phone for each hearing. The first three sessions in July had 32 people attend in person. The live broadcasts were viewed by over 170 people on July 21, and over 130 viewers for the July 22 and the July 23 hearings. The three hearings in September had fewer persons attend in person and lower numbers for viewers on the live broadcasts. All of the hearings are recorded and still available for viewing on the Community 7 TV and Planning Facebook pages.
Over the course of the 3 years of Project ReCode, the Steering Committee and Working Groups held over 100 advertised public meetings to review, critique and re-draft the new code sections. The consultant team held meetings in June and July of 2018 to gather public input on zoning and land use issues from more than a dozen community groups, elected and appointed officials, and neighborhoods. In October 2018, the consultant team held three days of open house meetings on the findings of the Code Assessment, a foundation document for the new code.
As the Working Groups completed their work at the end of 2019, many members of the development community began to "test" the proposed new code to learn the specifics and to see how the new code would serve their clients and property owners. The land development professionals were anticipating the code to be adopted in early 2020. Then the global COVID-19 pandemic took over. The draft was completed and uploaded to the Project ReCode website - https://project-recode.com/code-outline - in March and April of 2020. Developers and community builders are eagerly awaiting these new and improved zoning tools. We have several developers who could not wait out the longer process of adoption and have moved forward with subdivisions, annexations, zone changes and variances. These developers may switch gears when the new code is adopted.
In addition to the 100+ public meetings of the Working Groups, Planning staff has made over 20 public presentations just in the last 18 months (including some online during the pandemic) on Project ReCode. Those presentations were made to the following groups - some more than once:
Since the first Council Work Session on October 19, 2020, Planning staff has been receiving requests for information and clarifications of the proposed code from property owners, developers, Realtors and the general public. These have come int he form of phone calls, visits to the Planning Office and written email exchanges. Similar to the Council members Questions and Answers in the Background section above, below are some of the the written emailed questions and answers staff has received from the public:
From Pam Ellis:
Q: I am not able to find the maps on line for our home or Cherry Creek. We live at 2000 Outlook Drive 59105. What will be the new zoning for the proposed city/county area at Cherry Creek that the county turned down (a zone change) and the city allowed withdrawal?
Thank you,
Pam Ellis
Answer:
Hello Pam,
I looked at the final maps and it appears the update for the city piece of the Cherry Island property did not update correctly. It should be a P1 (Public 1) zone, but it appears it was updated to N2 (Mid-Century Neighborhood). The two zone district colors are very similar. The portions of the Cherry Island property outside the city limits are updating to RR1 or Rural Residential 1 (1 acre minimum) I am making a note of this correction for the city piece for the final map update. As discussed with Council at the Work Session on Monday night, some final map adjustments or corrections are being addressed. Your property outside the city limits is updating to the new County RR1 – Rural Residential zone. The pdf (final maps) are on the page link below. They are lower down on the page on the right. These are each large files but the map is broken into 6 sections. I believe the area around Cherry Creek you will find on the North East Map Section. The legend is a separate document also on the same page. https://project-recode.com/education-outreach The code sections are also on-line at https://project-recode.com/code-outline
From Pam Ellis
Q: Thanks Nicole. So I should conclude for Cherry Creek that P1 ( SECTION 27-501 PUBLIC DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS Public districts are intended to identify and allow for the establishment of public, quasi-public, and civic uses in the community. A. P1: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE The P1 district is intended to protect and preserve open spaces that are held in either public or private ownership. P1 districts may include parks, open spaces, trails, wetlands, floodplains, environmentally sensitive areas, and unique habitats and landscapes. To preserve access to clean air, pure water, natural recreation areas, and scenic natural beauty, the subdivision and development of land is restricted in P1 districts.) for the city section. And single family homes for the county section. If this was annexed into the city, would it most likely annex as N3: SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL The N3 district is intended for residential neighborhoods primarily with single-family homes. Characteristics include wide lots and attached garages typically located on the front building façade, often greater than 35% of the façade. Basic setback and height parameters apply.). I feel like I understand things when you're presenting, but it is a big big project and I get a bit overwhelmed.
Pam
Answer:
Hi Pam, Yes if the county section of Lot 2 were annexed under the new code provisions, it could be N3 (1/2 anyway) but we would require the lot go through a Planned Neighborhood Development (PND) zone change. This is because the lot is larger than 3 acres and under the new code, property larger than 3 acres that is not developed and wants to develop within the city limits has to have a better development plan than just one type housing choice or lot choice.
This new zoning tool is in draft Section 27-800 (attached). A PND can be mix of Neighborhood zone districts (N1 to N3) or what we are calling a Neighborhood PND. This would be an appropriate approach for this lot. Under the proposed PND section, up to 50% of the area could be N3 zoning. The remaining 50% would have to be other types of lots or housing choices. A site plan is part of this zone change approval process. This is a brand new type of development process and it would not be done as a County zone change. It would have to be done as a city zone change and concurrent annexation.
I hope this helps. - Nicole
Phone Inquiry from Lisa Gilberston of Western Security Bank on the new Sign Code and zone districts for bank locations. Ms. Gilbertson served on the EMD Ad Hoc Committee in 2007/2008 and help craft the current sign code on EMD signs:
Answer:
Hi Lisa,
Attached is the draft sign code update – new Section 27-1400. As you noted some districts that now allow an EMD may not have that allowance under the new code. If you find we have made an error in the zone district for a Western Security location – please let me know asap so I can add that to the list of final map corrections before it is adopted. The zoning for the banks (as currently drafted) are:
Wicks & Main – Corridor Mixed Use 1(CMU1)
495 Main St – CMU1
2812 1st Ave N – Central Business District (CBD)
2401 Grand – Neighborhood Office (NO) – as we discussed this is probably not the right zone for this parcel – a CMU1 would match the other 3 corners
2675 King Ave W – Corridor Mixed Use 2 (CMU2)
2845 Old Hardin Rd – CMU1
Response from Lisa Gilbertson:
Good morning Nicole,
Thank you for sending me a copy of the proposed sign code yesterday. I have reviewed it and have one immediate concern about using our current Electronic Boards in a compliant manner. Page 23 C. Electronic Message Display (EMD) Signs 5. Static Display EMD (c) Each static message on the sign shall be displayed for a minimum of six seconds in duration.
While WSB supports and currently uses a static display strategy, to hold a screen in place for 6 seconds assumes that a message in it’s entirety can be communicated on one single screen. Not all EMD signs are created equal. Larger EMD’s like have been put up on the east end of King Avenue have large displays areas that mimic a billboard and allow for many words to be used on one screen. Altana FCU has a board that is square in shape and allows for several lines of text. Unfortunately, the dimensions and resolution of our boards do not allow enough words on a screen at a time to communicate an entire message. See the example below. It’s purpose is to communicate to the community that our lobbies are restricted due to COVID-19. As you can see, it takes 3 screens to fully communicate this one sentence.
If I were to hold each screen for 6 seconds, the communication would be left either incomplete OR people will be slowing down in an attempt to see the rest of the message. This is a problem during non-COVID times but becomes a heightened issue during this pandemic. At a time when our lobbies are restricted, we are using our boards to communicate important and essential information to customers including; drive up hours, how to enroll in online banking when the lobby is restricted, how to make an appointment, etc. None of this will be possible if each screen that makes up a message must remain static for at least 6 seconds.
I can provide a number of examples. However, I offer just this addition illustration. Every year, WSB awards $20,000.00 and a $25,000 media package to 4 local charities. The example below is one way we communicate the application deadline to any and all charities so that they are aware that it is time to submit their application. The duration of this messaig is currently a 9 seconds. It moves fluidly enough for the viewer to read, but not so slow as to cause the viewer to pause or slow down to recieve the message. This 9 second message, under the proposed code would become a 24 second message. Viewers, will not receive the full communication without slowing down or stopping to do so. Given that our boards can only display a few characters per screen, we will not be able to effectively communicate this important message under the current guidelines.
I am requesting that the sign code committee reevaluate the requirement that each screen remain static for a minimum of 6 seconds. For boards like ours, this requirement will create undo hardship and leave our boards close to useless.
Thank you for any consideration you might give our request.
Sincerely,
Lisa Gilbertson
Senior Vice President, Director of Marketing
2812 1st Avenue North, Suite 324
Billings, MT 59101
406.371.8208
From Steve Zeiler via the Project ReCode webpage for more information:
Answer:
Hello Mr. Zeiler,
Thank you for reaching out on the proposed new zone districts. I believe I spoke with the agent for your property (Chuck Platt) on Mullowney Lane and South Frontage Rd. The property is currently zoned as Highway Commercial (HC). The proposed zoning is Corridor Mixed Use 2 (CMU2) for the smaller parcel with frontage on Mullowney Lane and the remaining acreage is proposed to be zoned Heavy Commercial (CX). I have attached the Commercial and Mixed Use zone district draft code section along with the draft Table of Uses and Use Standards. These start with “BIL”. These are still draft regulations. The Heavy Commercial (CX) zone is similar to both the Highway Commercial zone and the Controlled Industrial zone. The new CX district is not intended for any type of residential uses. The CMU2 zone district is intended to help build new commercial or mixed use properties along the transportation corridors in Billings. The CMU2 does allow residential uses if they are vertically mixed within the same structure as a commercial space on the ground floor. There is a proposed limit of 8 dwelling units per structure in the CMU zone districts. The CMU zone would not allow stand-alone residential dwellings or structures – the use has to be within a mixed use structure. The Mixed Residential (NX) zone districts do allow different configurations of multi-family dwellings on property. These include 1 to 4 unit buildings in the NX1 (Mixed Residential 1), 2 to 8 unit buildings in NX2 and 5 +unit buildings in the NX3 zone districts. If the intent for your property is to sell to a multi-family developer (not a mixed use developer) then one of the NX zone districts would be appropriate for the property. You may also want to consider updating the zoning to include two or more zone districts that can be described as applying to certain lots (Lot 1 or Lot 2 of Block 1 Zeiler Subdivision) or to a certain described area of the lots (easterly 500 feet of Lot 1 as an example). We can update the zone map based on your request. I have included the existing code for HC zones. These files start with “Sec”. The form of our existing code is a “layer cake” – in other words as the districts progress all uses in the “lower” district are included in the “higher” districts along with additional uses for that layer. In order to make our code more predictable, the draft code assigns uses in each zone district that better meet those district descriptions and are essentially unique to that zone district. This means the allowance for single family, two-family and multi-family uses will not necessarily be allowed in all commercial zone districts. I hope this answers your questions and please reach out to me if you have more questions on the draft code or on the zoning designation for the property.
The public hearings were conducted in multiple formats to allow for maximum participation. The formats included in person attendance at the Senior Center, on line via live feed on Facebook and on the Zoom virtual meeting platform. Community 7 TV live broadcast the hearings on their Facebook page and on the Planning & Community Services Facebook page. We had a public comment call in phone for each hearing. The first three sessions in July had 32 people attend in person. The live broadcasts were viewed by over 170 people on July 21, and over 130 viewers for the July 22 and the July 23 hearings. The three hearings in September had fewer persons attend in person and lower numbers for viewers on the live broadcasts. All of the hearings are recorded and still available for viewing on the Community 7 TV and Planning Facebook pages.
Over the course of the 3 years of Project ReCode, the Steering Committee and Working Groups held over 100 advertised public meetings to review, critique and re-draft the new code sections. The consultant team held meetings in June and July of 2018 to gather public input on zoning and land use issues from more than a dozen community groups, elected and appointed officials, and neighborhoods. In October 2018, the consultant team held three days of open house meetings on the findings of the Code Assessment, a foundation document for the new code.
As the Working Groups completed their work at the end of 2019, many members of the development community began to "test" the proposed new code to learn the specifics and to see how the new code would serve their clients and property owners. The land development professionals were anticipating the code to be adopted in early 2020. Then the global COVID-19 pandemic took over. The draft was completed and uploaded to the Project ReCode website - https://project-recode.com/code-outline - in March and April of 2020. Developers and community builders are eagerly awaiting these new and improved zoning tools. We have several developers who could not wait out the longer process of adoption and have moved forward with subdivisions, annexations, zone changes and variances. These developers may switch gears when the new code is adopted.
In addition to the 100+ public meetings of the Working Groups, Planning staff has made over 20 public presentations just in the last 18 months (including some online during the pandemic) on Project ReCode. Those presentations were made to the following groups - some more than once:
- Property Managers & Landlords
- Berkshire Hathaway Realtors
- Home Builders Association
- Billings Area Realtors
- Assistant Secretary of HUD
- Community Development Board
- Neighborhood Task Forces (Rimrock, West End, Heights & Central Terry)
- Adjacent Neighborhood Committee
- League of Women Voters - Local Government Sessions
- Downtown Rotary
- Yellowstone Bank
- Restaurant and Tavern Owners
Since the first Council Work Session on October 19, 2020, Planning staff has been receiving requests for information and clarifications of the proposed code from property owners, developers, Realtors and the general public. These have come int he form of phone calls, visits to the Planning Office and written email exchanges. Similar to the Council members Questions and Answers in the Background section above, below are some of the the written emailed questions and answers staff has received from the public:
From Pam Ellis:
Q: I am not able to find the maps on line for our home or Cherry Creek. We live at 2000 Outlook Drive 59105. What will be the new zoning for the proposed city/county area at Cherry Creek that the county turned down (a zone change) and the city allowed withdrawal?
Thank you,
Pam Ellis
Answer:
Hello Pam,
I looked at the final maps and it appears the update for the city piece of the Cherry Island property did not update correctly. It should be a P1 (Public 1) zone, but it appears it was updated to N2 (Mid-Century Neighborhood). The two zone district colors are very similar. The portions of the Cherry Island property outside the city limits are updating to RR1 or Rural Residential 1 (1 acre minimum) I am making a note of this correction for the city piece for the final map update. As discussed with Council at the Work Session on Monday night, some final map adjustments or corrections are being addressed. Your property outside the city limits is updating to the new County RR1 – Rural Residential zone. The pdf (final maps) are on the page link below. They are lower down on the page on the right. These are each large files but the map is broken into 6 sections. I believe the area around Cherry Creek you will find on the North East Map Section. The legend is a separate document also on the same page. https://project-recode.com/education-outreach The code sections are also on-line at https://project-recode.com/code-outline
From Pam Ellis
Q: Thanks Nicole. So I should conclude for Cherry Creek that P1 ( SECTION 27-501 PUBLIC DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS Public districts are intended to identify and allow for the establishment of public, quasi-public, and civic uses in the community. A. P1: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE The P1 district is intended to protect and preserve open spaces that are held in either public or private ownership. P1 districts may include parks, open spaces, trails, wetlands, floodplains, environmentally sensitive areas, and unique habitats and landscapes. To preserve access to clean air, pure water, natural recreation areas, and scenic natural beauty, the subdivision and development of land is restricted in P1 districts.) for the city section. And single family homes for the county section. If this was annexed into the city, would it most likely annex as N3: SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL The N3 district is intended for residential neighborhoods primarily with single-family homes. Characteristics include wide lots and attached garages typically located on the front building façade, often greater than 35% of the façade. Basic setback and height parameters apply.). I feel like I understand things when you're presenting, but it is a big big project and I get a bit overwhelmed.
Pam
Answer:
Hi Pam, Yes if the county section of Lot 2 were annexed under the new code provisions, it could be N3 (1/2 anyway) but we would require the lot go through a Planned Neighborhood Development (PND) zone change. This is because the lot is larger than 3 acres and under the new code, property larger than 3 acres that is not developed and wants to develop within the city limits has to have a better development plan than just one type housing choice or lot choice.
This new zoning tool is in draft Section 27-800 (attached). A PND can be mix of Neighborhood zone districts (N1 to N3) or what we are calling a Neighborhood PND. This would be an appropriate approach for this lot. Under the proposed PND section, up to 50% of the area could be N3 zoning. The remaining 50% would have to be other types of lots or housing choices. A site plan is part of this zone change approval process. This is a brand new type of development process and it would not be done as a County zone change. It would have to be done as a city zone change and concurrent annexation.
I hope this helps. - Nicole
Phone Inquiry from Lisa Gilberston of Western Security Bank on the new Sign Code and zone districts for bank locations. Ms. Gilbertson served on the EMD Ad Hoc Committee in 2007/2008 and help craft the current sign code on EMD signs:
Answer:
Hi Lisa,
Attached is the draft sign code update – new Section 27-1400. As you noted some districts that now allow an EMD may not have that allowance under the new code. If you find we have made an error in the zone district for a Western Security location – please let me know asap so I can add that to the list of final map corrections before it is adopted. The zoning for the banks (as currently drafted) are:
Wicks & Main – Corridor Mixed Use 1(CMU1)
495 Main St – CMU1
2812 1st Ave N – Central Business District (CBD)
2401 Grand – Neighborhood Office (NO) – as we discussed this is probably not the right zone for this parcel – a CMU1 would match the other 3 corners
2675 King Ave W – Corridor Mixed Use 2 (CMU2)
2845 Old Hardin Rd – CMU1
Response from Lisa Gilbertson:
Good morning Nicole,
Thank you for sending me a copy of the proposed sign code yesterday. I have reviewed it and have one immediate concern about using our current Electronic Boards in a compliant manner. Page 23 C. Electronic Message Display (EMD) Signs 5. Static Display EMD (c) Each static message on the sign shall be displayed for a minimum of six seconds in duration.
While WSB supports and currently uses a static display strategy, to hold a screen in place for 6 seconds assumes that a message in it’s entirety can be communicated on one single screen. Not all EMD signs are created equal. Larger EMD’s like have been put up on the east end of King Avenue have large displays areas that mimic a billboard and allow for many words to be used on one screen. Altana FCU has a board that is square in shape and allows for several lines of text. Unfortunately, the dimensions and resolution of our boards do not allow enough words on a screen at a time to communicate an entire message. See the example below. It’s purpose is to communicate to the community that our lobbies are restricted due to COVID-19. As you can see, it takes 3 screens to fully communicate this one sentence.
If I were to hold each screen for 6 seconds, the communication would be left either incomplete OR people will be slowing down in an attempt to see the rest of the message. This is a problem during non-COVID times but becomes a heightened issue during this pandemic. At a time when our lobbies are restricted, we are using our boards to communicate important and essential information to customers including; drive up hours, how to enroll in online banking when the lobby is restricted, how to make an appointment, etc. None of this will be possible if each screen that makes up a message must remain static for at least 6 seconds.
I can provide a number of examples. However, I offer just this addition illustration. Every year, WSB awards $20,000.00 and a $25,000 media package to 4 local charities. The example below is one way we communicate the application deadline to any and all charities so that they are aware that it is time to submit their application. The duration of this messaig is currently a 9 seconds. It moves fluidly enough for the viewer to read, but not so slow as to cause the viewer to pause or slow down to recieve the message. This 9 second message, under the proposed code would become a 24 second message. Viewers, will not receive the full communication without slowing down or stopping to do so. Given that our boards can only display a few characters per screen, we will not be able to effectively communicate this important message under the current guidelines.
I am requesting that the sign code committee reevaluate the requirement that each screen remain static for a minimum of 6 seconds. For boards like ours, this requirement will create undo hardship and leave our boards close to useless.
Thank you for any consideration you might give our request.
Sincerely,
Lisa Gilbertson
Senior Vice President, Director of Marketing
2812 1st Avenue North, Suite 324
Billings, MT 59101
406.371.8208
From Steve Zeiler via the Project ReCode webpage for more information:
Answer:
Hello Mr. Zeiler,
Thank you for reaching out on the proposed new zone districts. I believe I spoke with the agent for your property (Chuck Platt) on Mullowney Lane and South Frontage Rd. The property is currently zoned as Highway Commercial (HC). The proposed zoning is Corridor Mixed Use 2 (CMU2) for the smaller parcel with frontage on Mullowney Lane and the remaining acreage is proposed to be zoned Heavy Commercial (CX). I have attached the Commercial and Mixed Use zone district draft code section along with the draft Table of Uses and Use Standards. These start with “BIL”. These are still draft regulations. The Heavy Commercial (CX) zone is similar to both the Highway Commercial zone and the Controlled Industrial zone. The new CX district is not intended for any type of residential uses. The CMU2 zone district is intended to help build new commercial or mixed use properties along the transportation corridors in Billings. The CMU2 does allow residential uses if they are vertically mixed within the same structure as a commercial space on the ground floor. There is a proposed limit of 8 dwelling units per structure in the CMU zone districts. The CMU zone would not allow stand-alone residential dwellings or structures – the use has to be within a mixed use structure. The Mixed Residential (NX) zone districts do allow different configurations of multi-family dwellings on property. These include 1 to 4 unit buildings in the NX1 (Mixed Residential 1), 2 to 8 unit buildings in NX2 and 5 +unit buildings in the NX3 zone districts. If the intent for your property is to sell to a multi-family developer (not a mixed use developer) then one of the NX zone districts would be appropriate for the property. You may also want to consider updating the zoning to include two or more zone districts that can be described as applying to certain lots (Lot 1 or Lot 2 of Block 1 Zeiler Subdivision) or to a certain described area of the lots (easterly 500 feet of Lot 1 as an example). We can update the zone map based on your request. I have included the existing code for HC zones. These files start with “Sec”. The form of our existing code is a “layer cake” – in other words as the districts progress all uses in the “lower” district are included in the “higher” districts along with additional uses for that layer. In order to make our code more predictable, the draft code assigns uses in each zone district that better meet those district descriptions and are essentially unique to that zone district. This means the allowance for single family, two-family and multi-family uses will not necessarily be allowed in all commercial zone districts. I hope this answers your questions and please reach out to me if you have more questions on the draft code or on the zoning designation for the property.
ALTERNATIVES
The next meeting planned for this item where formal action may occur is the City Council first reading and public hearing scheduled for Monday, November 9, 2020.
FISCAL EFFECTS
The Planning Division budget should not be further effected by this project after it completes expending its approved budget for this project in the next few months. The project is near completion and ready for the adoption process.