HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-26 Minutes, City Commission
.. -..
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION/AGENDA MEETING/SPECIAL MEETING
O
F THE CITY COMMISSION
B
OZEMAN, MONTANA
A
ugust 26, 1996
*****************************
. The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in work session, agenda meeting and
special meeting in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, August 26, 1996, at 3:00 p.m.
Present were Mayor Stueck, Commissioner Rudberg, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Frost,
Commissioner Youngman, City Manager Wysocki, City Attorney Luwe and Clerk of the
Commission Sullivan.
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence.
Agenda Meeting - for regular meeting and Dublic hearinas to be held on SeDtember 3. 1996
Since this is an agenda meeting, only those issues requiring staff action are contained
in the minutes.
. City Manager Wysocki briefly reviewed the background information which was included
in the Commissioners' packets.
(4) The City Manager stated that this
item is to be listed as a continued public
hearing on the September 16 agenda, per the Commission's vote at the August 19 meeting.
(5) Planning Director Epple briefly reviewed
the background for this request, noting
that it primarily pertains to sewer. He noted that the building plans were submitted prior
to the
March 23 deadline; however, the sewer service will not be extended to the subject site in
time
to obtain the building permit prior to the September 23 deadline. He stressed that staff
has
identified extenuating circumstances which apply to this project but do not seem to apply
to
any other pending projects, therefore, staff does not feel an undesirable precedent would
be
established by approval of this request.
. Responding to Commissioner Stiff, the Planning Director stated the applicant's inability
to meet the deadline is due to circumstances beyond his control, but not all of those
circumstances have been in the City's control, either. He cited, as an example, the fact
that
flows in the sewer line must be monitored, and accurate data cannot be gathered until the
University is back in session.
0
8-26-96
-
2 -
(7) City Attorney Luwe stated that this ordinance revision will give the Commission
some flexibility when it assesses the tree maintenance district for the fiscal year, and sets the
deadline the same as contained in State statutes. He indicated that, even
with this
amendment, the street maintenance district and tree maintenance district assessments will
. continue to be run together. This amendment, however, will give the Commissioners some
additional time to adopt the resolution of assessment if it is determined that a delay is
.appropriate.
Commissioner Stiff noted that a couple of the Commissioners have discussed backing
up the budgeting process by sixty days, to have it completed by the beginning of the fiscal
year, and asked if that would impact this proposed change in deadline from August to
September.
The City Attorney responded that a change in the budgeting time frame should not
impact the change proposed in this ordinance.
(9a) Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell stated that the applicant is concerned
about one of the recommended conditions of approval, and asked that this item be moved from
. the Consent Items to the regular agenda. She reviewed the condition of concern,
which
requires the applicant to extend the sewer line to the subject lots. She indicated that there is
no sewer main in South 20th Avenue, although there is a private extension of a sewer main
which serves the Cowdrey Apartments located across the street and slightly north of the
subject property. She stated that the City Engineer has indicated it would be appropriate to
extend the sewer line from the apartment complex to the subject property, even though its
earlier extension was privately done. She stated that, since September 3 is the
first day of
school, Ms. Woodhull will probably be unable to attend the meeting.
Responding to the City Manager, Assistant Planning Director Arkell stated that the
subdivision regulations require that every lot be served by City water and sewer, and the
. property owner is typically required to do that. She noted the exception has been the Roger
Smith project, under which approximately 100 acres were subdivided into five very large
parcels. She recognized that, until specific proposals for development of those parcels have
been prepared, it is not possible to determine where the water and sewer lines should be
located.
0
8-26-96
- 3 -
Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, the Assistant Planning Director stated that the
existing house is not connected to either water or sewer, although water is available.
Commissioner Stiff recalled that when the sewer trunk was extended to the Cowdrey
Apartments, the Woodhulls were given an opportunity to connect, and they chose to not
. extend the line.
Responding to Commission Rudberg, the Assistant Planning Director stated it is the
City Engineer's position that a main which has been privately extended is not in private
ownership, and others may connect to it since it is part of the City's system.
Mayor Stueck requested that this item be placed on the agenda as late as possible, to
give Mrs. Woodhull an opportunity to attend the meeting.
The City Manager indicated that the item will be moved to Item 7 A.
(9p) Commissioner Rudberg asked that Impact Fee Coordinator Chris Saunders
provide background information on this request. She noted that it appears this project
"dropped through the cracks", since it was approved by the Development Review Committee
several months ago. She stated it appears the plans for development of the site were sent to
. California for review, and questioned why the delay.
Assistant Planning Director Arkell noted that plans for commercial building permits are
typically sent to California for review, rather than being done in-house.
Responding to Mayor Stueck, City Attorney Luwe suggested that this item remain on
the Consent Items. He noted that if Commissioner Rudberg does not get satisfactory answers
to her questions by next week's meeting, she can then pull it for further discussion.
Mayor Stueck asked that all of the Commissioners receive, in their packets, copies of
any written information prepared in response to Commissioner Rudberg's questions.
( 12) Assistant Planning Director Arkell noted that Senior Planner Skelton will submit
the staff report at next week's meeting. She reviewed the location of the property, noting it
is owned by Harlan and Joal Olson, and lies adjacent to Bin Chang's property. She stated, in
. fact, that the drainfield for the Olson property lies on Mr. Chang's property. She indicated that
the subject property will be connected to City water and sewer services when the lines are
extended to Mr. Chang's property for his apartment project.
( 13) Historic Preservation Planner Derek Strahn provided a brief overview of this
application, noting it is for five deviations in conjunction with the two additions proposed for
08-26-96
---
- 4 -
the Senior Center to accommodate expansion of the dining room and the addition of a new
adult day care facility and Alzheimer unit. He characterized the requested deviations as minor,
except for the request to allow the use of on-street parking spaces instead of providing the
required off-street parking spaces. He recognized that in the next five to ten years, additional
. off-street parking spaces may be provided; however, one of the recommended conditions of
approval is that, in the meantime, the Senior Center enter into a long-term lease for use of 28
parking spaces at the Fairgrounds.
Commissioner Rudberg suggested that many of the people at the day care facility will
not be driving themselves to the facility. She also noted that the GalaVan is available for many
of those going to the Senior Center. She stated that, except for major holidays, the existing
parking lot is rarely full.
Historic Preservation Planner Strahn responded that the expansions could result in an
increased number of visitors, which is the underlying reason for the staff's concerns. He then
indicated that the development of a parking area in the park immediately south of the Senior
Center has been discussed. He proposed that if such a parking area is constructed, it could
. possibly be used as shared parking with the Senior Center.
Work Session -Discussion re dogs: ( 1) kennel licenses: (2) leash law: (3) doas in Darks: (8)
Discussion re community Dolicing Droaram: (C) Discussion re neighborhood watch Drogram
(A) Discussion re dogs: (1) kennel licenses;
(2) leash law; (3) dogs in
parks
City Manager Wysocki noted that, included in the Commissioners' packets were copies
of Chapter 6.04 and Chapter 12.26 of the Bozeman Municipal Code, along with a draft of a
proposed ordinance prohibiting dogs in the cemetery. Distributed just prior to the meeting was
a copy of proposed revisions to the animal control ordinance, for Commission consideration.
Chief of Police Larry Conner indicated a willingness to respond to questions from the
Commission after Animal Control Officer Lien's presentation.
. Responding to questions from Mayor Stueck, Animal Control Officer Connie Lien stated
that at the present time, there is no limitation on the number of dogs that can be kept under
a kennel license. She suggested that the Commission consider the creation of two different
types of kennel licenses, one for owners of three or four neutered or spayed dogs and one for
breeding operations. She also suggested that a limit be placed on the number of dogs that can
08-26-96
- 5 -
be kept under each type of kennel license. She proposed that the fees for kennel licenses be
adjusted, to reflect the number of dogs under that license. She noted that, with the increasing
number of dogs that are in the community, more problems are arising.
The Animal Control Officer recognized that there are several breeders in the community
. who raise and sell dogs. She characterized most of these as being small dogs in operations
where the number of animals may vary significantly. She suggested that the fee for this type
of kennel license should be different from the fee for a kennel license to allow three or four
dogs.
Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, the Animal Control Officer stated that breeding
operations are typically well run, although she has encountered a few problems with them. She
indicated that there are not many breeding operations remaining within city limits, although she
has seen operations with multiple pairs and up to thirty dogs at a time.
Responding to Mayor Stueck, the Animal Control Officer noted that if problems become
too significant, a kennel license may be rescinded. She noted that if problems do arise, she will
notify the Commission, so that the appropriate steps may be taken to do so.
. City Attorney Luwe stressed that a kennel license does not preclude the owner from
compliance with the provisions of the animal control ordinance. He noted that those provisions
include nuisance animals, which can be processed as a criminal offense.
Responding to City Manager Wysocki, the Animal Control Officer stated that she has
had some problems with birds in the past.
The City Manager suggested that the animal control ordinance be expanded to address
other types of animals and pets.
Mayor Stueck stated his support for issuing kennel licenses for a specific number of
dogs, rather than facing the potential of the number increasing during the year.
City Attorney Luwe noted that the proposed revisions to the animal control ordinance,
which were distributed just prior to the meeting, have not yet been reviewed by the Chief of
. Police or Animal Control Officer. He noted that a section on exotics has been included in the
revisions, which should address some of the problems with birds. He then reminded the
Commission that cats are also covered under the animal control ordinance and asked the
Commissioners to consider whether a kennel license should be required for a certain number
of cats or a combination of pets.
08-26-96
--- - ----
- 6 -
Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, the Animal Control Officer noted that
Bozeman's population is increasing and, with that increase, is an increase in the number
of
pets.
Commissioner Rudberg stated her main concerns revolve around health issues.
. Responding to City Attorney Luwe, the Commissioners concurred that kennel license
provisions should pertain to more than just dogs.
Animal Control Officer Lien stated that she has enjoyed the discretion allowed under
the current ordinance and enforcement procedures. She suggested that, through community
policing and educational programs, many of the problems can be addressed. She stressed that
this flexibility can result in a better community than might result from simply issuing
citations.
She then stated that she staggers and changes her hours to avoid creating a predictable
pattern
of patrolling. She suggested that, with the addition of a part-time animal control officer,
the
hours of enforcement can be expanded, which should help to address some of the problems.
She also forwarded her support for including sections for falcons and exotic animals in
the
animal control ordinance.
. Responding to Mayor Stueck, City Attorney Luwe stated that the penalties for failure
to comply with the animal control ordinance are under the general penalties provision, which
is a maximum fine of $500 and/or six months in jail. He recognized that a minimum penalty
could be established if the Commission so desires.
He suggested that if the Commission
wishes to provide for continued flexibility in enforcement, then they must ensure that the
ordinance is written to provide for that rather than being strict in its language.
Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, the Animal Control Officer stated that the
survey team distributed information pamphlets on animal licensing and animal control during
its canvassing of the community. She recognized that distributing similar pamphlets with
pet
licenses could be beneficial.
Responding to Mayor Stueck, the City Attorney stated that under the current
. ordinance, a dog must be under the leash control of a competent person. He noted that one
of the questions he had previously raised is whether dogs may be off leashes if they are
under
voice command, which is often a part of obedience training.
Animal Control Officer Lien noted that dog owners sometimes take them to the park
to play ball or frisbee. She recognized that they are not under leash control, although
they are
08-26-96
- 7 -
under the voice control of their owners, and she feels that is acceptable. She characterized
those as responsible pet owners, with animals it is nice to be around. She recognized, on the
other hand, that there are other pet owners who let their dogs run at large; and these animals
quickly become problems. She requested that she be provided the latitude to address those
. situations on an individual basis.
Commissioner Youngman noted that when this issue was discussed a couple of months
ago, a dog owner forwarded a suggestion that an area in a park be designated as an areas
where dogs could be taken to run free. She suggested that this could be advantageous, since
some people do not have a place to exercise their dogs. She noted that one of the areas
suggested was a portion of Peet's Hill.
Animal Control Officer Lien cautioned that, while the concept may be good, such an
arrangement may not be very practical.
City Attorney Luwe stated that staff needs direction so it can appropriately prepare an
ordinance for Commission consideration. He suggested that options include allowing dogs to
be under voice command in parks. He also suggested that different requirements could be
. established for improved parks and unimproved parks.
Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, the City Attorney stated that under the existing
ordinances, a dog owner is to pick up after a dog in the park.
Mayor Stueck stated the reality, however, is that dogs are allowed to run free and the
owners do not clean up after them. He cited the area around the playground equipment in
Bogert Park as a prime example.
Commissioner Youngman noted that at the present time, signs are posted in only one
park and plastic bags are available. She noted that those signs have served to increase
awareness and alleviate some of the problems.
Commissioner Frost stated that, in addition to tighter regulations, better enforcement
. is needed. He noted that, without better enforcement, the new regulations will do nothing to
improve the situation.
Animal Control Officer Lien noted that dogs downtown are a problem, particularly when
they are tied to a post and left alone. She stated that if someone is simply walking through the
downtown area, that is typically not a problem. She stressed, however, that a dog tied to a
post can create a traumatic situation for an elderly person or a small child.
08-26-96
.--.----..---..."..-..-....-..--..-
- 8 -
Chief of Police Conner stated that this conversation reflects the magnitude of this
issue. He noted that Animal Control Officer Lien sets her own hours and has done an
outstanding job of addressing the problems. He suggested that, with part-time assistance from
one of the parking attendants, it should be possible to provide better enforcement.
He
. cautioned that if this does not generate the desired results, then additional personnel may be
requested during the next budgeting process.
Commissioner Stiff noted that he observed a lady downtown with two large dogs on
leashes during an large event, and seeing those dogs from a wheelchair creates a significantly
different perspective. He recognized that small children in strollers could be frightened in this
type of situation. He suggested there are circumstances where dogs should not be allowed,
such as the sidewalk sales and Sweet Pea. He also expressed frustration that when attending
picnics this summer in Lindley Park, his group has been bothered by dogs running at large, even
when the owners have been close. He noted that during those occasions, he has seen
no
patrolling of the parks.
Chief of Police Conner noted that he encourages those with complaints to call them
. in, and the police officers respond to over 10,000 calls annually. He stated that if calls are
concentrated in a certain area, then patrol activities are focused on that area to squelch criminal
activities.
City Manager Wysocki reminded the Commission that the Bozeman Ponds have been
used for water training programs for dogs for several years, and suggested that retaining that
type of program may be beneficial. He then suggested that if an area is to be designated for
the exercising of dogs, it could be in an undeveloped park.
Commissioner Youngman suggested that the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board be
given an opportunity to review the proposed animal control ordinance prior to Commission
action.
City Attorney Luwe encouraged the Commissioners to review the draft ordinance and
. forward responses back to him by September 6. He encouraged them to specifically address
whether voice command is acceptable as an alternative to a leash, whether an area in a
developed or undeveloped park is to be designated as an area where dogs may run free,
whether dogs are to be prohibited in certain areas and during certain events, and whether a
minimum fine is to be established. He indicated that once the draft ordinance has been revised
08-26-96
-.--- ...--...
- 9 -
to reflect the Commission's input and staff comments, it could be forwarded to the Recreation
and Parks Advisory Board for review prior to being placed on the agenda for provisional
adoption.
Commissioner Youngman asked if licensing provisions would apply to other types of
. animals, such as rabbits.
Commissioner Stiff emphasized that the City "cannot buy its way out of this problem".
He expressed concern that, while an individual may have his dog off a leash and under voice
control, other people who do not have their dogs under voice command may let them off
leashes as well. He noted that this could make the Animal Control Officer's job more difficult.
Mayor Stueck raised the issue of whether dogs should be allowed in the cemetery,
noting the City Attorney has drafted an ordinance under which they would be prohibited.
Responding to Mayor Stueck, City Attorney Luwe affirmed that the cemetery is not a
park.
City Manager Wysocki reminded the Commission that there is a portion of cemetery
land, on the south side, that is currently undeveloped. He suggested that this might be one of
. the areas where dogs would be allowed to run free.
Commissioner Frost stated he believes in keeping dogs on a leash and under control.
He noted, however, the major problem seems to be that people do not pick up after their
animals. He expressed concern that, by prohibiting dogs in the cemetery, the only ones that
will be there will be at large; and they will not be picked up unless the Animal Control Officer
patrols the cemetery. He concluded by recognizing that people who control their
dogs and
clean up after them are in the minority.
Commissioner Frost noted that people recently testified that they visit graves with their
dogs, and he does not believe they should be penalized if the dog is on a leash. He suggested
that when one is visiting a grave, an errant child can be as disruptive as a loose dog.
He
. concluded by forwarding his support for a leash law and pooper scooper requirement in the
cemetery.
Responding to Mayor Stueck, the City Attorney indicated that, while a cemetery lot is
a deeded piece of property, it is not the same type of deed as for one's home. He noted,
rather, the cemetery lots actually remain in public ownership.
0
8-26-96
-.- .----.. -...
- 10-
Commissioner Rudberg stated she does not feel dogs should be allowed in the
cemetery.
Animal Control Officer Connie Lien stated she supports allowing no dogs in the
cemetery. She noted that some members of the public feel allowing dogs in the cemetery is
. a slap in the face.
Responding to the City Attorney, Mayor Stueck stated he feels the Cemetery Board
should be given an opportunity to provide input on this issue.
Mr. Carroll Henderson, Chair of the Cemetery Board, stated that the Board has
considered this issue and has voted unanimously to recommend that dogs be banned from the
cemetery. He noted that they create many problems, and he feels there is no reason for a dog
to be in the cemetery while there are many reasons they should not be. He stated that the City
employees who maintain the cemetery encounter dog waste while performing their duties,
noting it is not only unpleasant but unsanitary.
Mr. Henderson noted that approximately ten days ago, he was in Butte and took
pictures of their cemetery, which is completely fenced with a controlled access that is locked
. at dusk. He stated that dogs are not allowed in the cemetery.
Responding to questions from City Attorney Luwe, the City Manager suggested it
would be appropriate to allow dogs on a portion of the undeveloped cemetery land lying outside
the fenced area.
The City Attorney indicated that once he has revised the language in the proposed
ordinance, he will submit it to the Cemetery Board for their review and a recommendation, then
place it on the Commission agenda for action.
Commissioner Youngman recognized that a complete ban on dogs in the cemetery
would be easier to enforce than allowing those visiting a gravesite to take a dog if they so
chose. She noted, however, that if there is any way to accommodate that desire, she would
like to see it done.
. The Commissioners thanked Chief of Police Conner and Animal Control Officer Lien for
their input.
(8) Discussion re community policing program
Chief of Police Larry Conner stated that his Department has included the concept of
community policing in its overall plan for the past two years, although there is much about the
08-26-96
--------
- 11 -
program that he does not yet fully understand. He reminded the Commissioners that one of
the department goals established two years ago was being "people friendly". He noted that,
while the department may show compassion, it is to be accompanied by firm, fair and
consistent enforcement. He noted that two years ago, it was not uncommon to receive two
. to four complaints against employees on a weekly basis, recognizing that many of those
complaints were legitimate. He stated that now complaints are almost non-existent, and it is
not uncommon to receive three to six compliments on a weekly basis.
The Chief of Police stressed that law enforcement can be only as effective as the public
wants it to be. He noted that if the public is willing to share information with the Police
Department, enforcement can be very effective. He indicated that various steps have
been
taken to encourage the public to become involved. He also noted that last year the bicycle
patrol was implemented, and this year the motorcycle patrol was reinstated. He stated that
through these two programs, pOlice officers are more visible and more available to the public,
instead of being hidden inside the metal shell of a car.
Chief of Police Conner stated his department is encouraging the public to work out their
. problems on their own whenever possible, rather than calling the police. He noted
that
community policing is based on the concept of peer pressure, and resolving situations in a non-
confrontational manner. He noted that the neighborhood watch, which is the following topic,
is a part of the community policing concept.
The Chief of Police noted that members of his department have become involved in
working with children through various programs, including DARE, school resource officer,
Explorer Scout Post program and volunteer program with individual children. He stated that this
contact with the children can help to develop relationships which can be beneficial through the
years. He noted that some of the officers are also actively involved in youth programs, serving
as cub scout leaders, little league baseball coaches, T-ball coaches, soccer coaches, and den
. leaders for Webelos scouts. He also stated that the officers are willing to make presentations
at schools or to community groups when asked to do so.
Chief of Police Conner announced that on Wednesday and Thursday, mandatory
sessions for all Police Department employees will be held. These are day-long sessions, and
the Commissioners are invited to attend, on parts of two days or for one day, or for just a
0
8-26-96
-
.------ .--
- 12 -
portion of the session. He stated
that this training should help to ensure that everyone is
moving in the same direction.
The Chief of Police stated that, at random, he will back up one of his officers on a call.
He noted that this allows him to observe his officers as they interact with citizens, and
those
. observations have revealed that today's officers interact in a significantly different way than
the officers of days gone by. He stated that if a concern is perceived in a specific area,
then
additional attention is paid to that area to ensure that it is adequately addressed.
Mayor Stueck noted that the concept of community policing was discussed at the
National League of Cities last year.
He stated that during a presentation on the Portland,
Oregon, program, it was noted that police officers don't just address organizations, they
go out
into the community and talk to individuals.
The Chief of Police recognized that is also an important part of the program. He then
noted that the availability of police officers has been greatly increased through the bicycle
patrol program and patrolling on foot in the downtown area, since the officers are then
"rubbing
shoulders" with the public.
. The Commission thanked Chief of Police Conner for his presentation.
(C) Discussion re neighborhood watch program
Chief of Police Larry Conner stated the concept behind the neighborhood watch
program is to "tear down the fence, rip out the hedge, walk to the neighbors on both sides
of
you and introduce yourself".
He recognized that one of the important components of the
program is getting to know your neighbors, their families and their routines. He stated
that at
the present time, approximately 70 percent of the residents do not know their neighbors
or
anything about them.
The Chief of Police stated that, as a police officer, he tried to push the neighborhood
watch program in the community.
He characterized that effort as a failure, recognizing that
for the program to be successful, it must be requested by a neighborhood. He noted that
a
. neighborhood will often become interested when it recognizes that a problem exists which
impacts them directly. He cited a successful neighborhood watch program, in an area south
of Westridge where there were no street lights and people were concerned about their safety.
To address the issue, the neighbors decided those with odd-numbered addresses would leave
their outside lights on on odd-numbered nights, and those with even-numbered addresses
08-26-96
. ------- -,,-
-
13 -
would leave their outside lights on on even-numbered nights.
He stated that the criminal
activity which had begun in the area all but diminished within a very short period of time.
He
noted that even though street lights have now been installed, it is not uncommon to see
some
of the outside lights on all night long.
. The Chief of Police stated that at the present time, two officers have been assigned
to the neighborhood watch program, and they are available to anyone interested in starting
such a program.
Responding to Commissioner Stiff, the Chief of Police stated it is important to have the
neighbors on both sides, behind and across the street involved in the neighborhood program
to ensure the safety of one's property.
He suggested that it is preferable to have an even
larger circle of protection.
Further responding to Commissioner Stiff, the Chief stated that once a neighborhood
watch program is organized in an area and people become involved, any criminal activity
that
may be occurring will decrease or cease.
He cautioned that if the people do not become
involved, the program will not work.
. Commissioner Stiff noted that the Commissioners have recently received a letter from
a lady asking about starting a neighborhood watch program, since she has become afraid to
go outside at night.
The Chief of Police asked that her name and address be forwarded to his office, so that
one of his officers may contact her.
Mayor Stueck asked how the City should deal with the congregating of students at one
of the business establishments or other parking lots in the evenings.
Chief of Police Conner noted that the place where youth congregate typically rotates
among Safeway, Buttreys, Heeb's, Arby's and McDonald's. He stated that the police typically
patrol those areas on a frequent enough basis to be disruptive and, hopefully, disperse
them.
He noted that the youth in the community are often bored because they do not have enough
. activities. He stated, however, that efforts to maintain a teen center have been unsuccessful
because any time a center has been opened, it has closed down because of problems with
alcohol and drugs. He then recognized that
cruising Main Street has been a pastime for
teenagers for many, many years.
08-26-96
- .~'~.....
- 14 -
Mayor Stueck stated his concern is triggered by the fact that those young people are
still out at 2:00 and 3:00 a.m., instead of being home by midnight.
Chief of Police Conner recognized that times have changed, and parent attitudes and
parenting skills along with it. He noted that in today's world, not all parents care about where
. or what their children are doing.
Responding to Commissioner Stiff, the Chief of Police stated it is not uncommon for
some residents in an area to not be interested in participating in a neighborhood watch
program. He noted that the neighborhood watch program can still be effectively carried out
despite those people.
The Commission thanked the Chief of Police for his presentation.
Recess - 5:30 o.m.
Mayor Stueck declared a recess at 5:30 p.m., to reconvene at 7:00 p.m., for the
purpose of conducting the scheduled special meeting.
. Reconvene - 7:00 O.m.
Mayor Stueck reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m., for the purpose of conducting the
scheduled special meeting.
5ianina of Notice of 50ecial Meeting
Each of the Commissioners, in turn, signed the Notice of Special Meeting.
Public Hearina - Zone Code Amendments - comorehensive amendments to several sections.
includina Chaoter 18.65. Bozeman Municioal Code. re arandfatherina oreviouslv oermitted
signs; oroviding for accessory dwelling units as conditional uses in certain districts; revisina the
membershio of the Design Review Board; and revisina the reauirements of the ADR staff
(Z-9663)
This was the time and place set for the public hearing on comprehensive amendments
. to several sections of Title 18 of the Bozeman Municipal Code, as initiated by the City
Commission under Application No. Z-9663, including a complete rewrite of Chapter 18.65, the
City's sign code; providing for accessory dwelling units as conditional uses in certain districts;
revising the membership of the Design Review Board; and revising the requirements of the
Administrative Development Review staff.
08-26-96
- 15 -
Mayor Stueck opened the public hearing.
Assistant Planner Christopher Williams presented the staff report.
He reminded the
Commission that these revisions were identified during a public comment period, and staff was
directed to bring back proposed amendments for consideration.
He noted that staff has
. reviewed these proposed revisions in light of the twelve criteria established for consideration
of amendments to the zone code, and the staff's comprehensive findings are contained in the
written staff report, which was previously distributed to the Commission. He stated that these
criteria and the staff findings were taken into consideration as the Planning Board conducted
its review and forwarded its recommendations on these amendments.
He indicated that the
City-County Planning Board considered these amendments at its August 6 meeting, and
forwarded recommendations on the amendments individually. He then reviewed each of the
proposed revisions individually, beginning with accessory dwelling units.
The Assistant Planner noted that this proposal is a reflection of the Commission's
desire to respond
to citizen concerns over the
inability to provide apartment-type
accommodations for elderly individuals who still enjoy living independently but need to be in
. close proximity to family members. He cautioned that the proposed amendment does not limit
accessory dwelling units to family members; rather, they could be occupied by anyone. He
forwarded staff's recommendation that accessory dwelling units be reviewed through the
conditional use permit application process, to ensure that impacts of an accessory dwelling unit
on adjoining properties are limited. He stressed that an accessory dwelling unit must clearly
be incidental to the single-family residence, or it may be the result of an internal conversion of
the existing structure or be located over the garage.
The Assistant Planner stated Chief Building Official Neil Poulsen has cautioned that
garages are often located close to the property line; therefore, building code requirements for
fire walls must be met. He concluded by indicating that the Planning
Board voted 9 to 0 to
. forward a recommendation for approval, subject to revisions which require that second story
additions must be compatible and consistent with the existing character and fabric of the
neighborhood; eliminate the requirement that the principal structure be a minimum of 1,500
square feet in size; and ensure compliance with the Fair Housing Act, as determined by the City
Attorney.
08-26-96
...----- --.-----.-----.
- 16 -
The Assistant Planner noted that Commissioner Youngman talked to him about the
requirement for a minimum 6,000-square-foot lot for an accessory dwelling unit. He recognized
that there may be a handful of lots in the "A-S", "R-S", R-1", "R-2" and "R-2a" zones which
do not meet that minimum lot size, and he feels it would be preferable to leave the minimum
. lot size as proposed and address those few lots through a deviation or variance process rather
than through a lower lot size. He noted that the minimum lot size for these zones is at least
6,000 square feet, and lowering the requirement could result in a potential for overcrowding
of the land.
Assistant Planner Williams turned
his attention to the proposed revisions for
composition of the Design Review Board (DRB) and the Administrative Design Review (ADR)
staff. He stated that under these revisions, the DRB membership will return to its previous
state, with the Planning Director serving in an advisory capacity only.
He noted that, along
with the proposed revisions, are revisions suggested by staff, including an increase in the
number of members required for a quorum and a slight modification in the qualifications of
members. He stated that at the present time, two qualified members are required to comprise
. the ADR staff, which would serve to speed up the reviews and approvals of sketch plans for
small projects. He stated that, while the Planning staff is at its full complement, there is only
one person who qualifies for the ADR staff; therefore, all applications must be reviewed and
acted on by the Design Review Board. He noted that under this amendment, only one qualified
staff member would qualify as the ADR staff, to expedite the review process for minor projects.
The Assistant Planner stated that, following its review of these two proposed amendments, the
Planning Board voted 8 to 1 to forward a recommendation for approval.
Assistant Planner Christopher Williams addressed the revised sign code, noting that it
generated a significant amount of public comment during the public hearing before the City-
County Planning Board. He stated that the sign code has been completely
rewritten, in
. response to comments that it must be simplified and made more .user friendly.. He feels that
this has been accomplished by reducing the length of the code and eliminating competing
provisions. He characterized the new sign code as containing few revisions to the
overall
requirements, although some of the provisions which were potentially unconstitutional or
unenforceable have been removed. He also indicated that the time restrictions on real estate
signs in residential areas and for political signs have been removed. He recommended a change
08-26-96
-.--.-.--...-.-.-- - ___._u____
- 17 -
from an amortization schedule, under which all non-conforming signs were required to be
removed or granted an exception, to a provision that all signs legally permitted prior to adoption
of the interim zoning ordinance are allowed to remain, except that they must be brought into
compliance with the new code in conjunction with any site modification which requires a
. Certificate of Appropriateness or a site plan review. He stated that this provision
applies to
nearly 700 signs in the community and, it is anticipated that over the years, those signs will
be slowly brought into compliance with the new sign code requirements. He indicated that the
Planning Board has also recommended the wall-mounted signage for home occupations in
residential zones be increased to 4 square feet from the current 2 square feet. He stated that,
following the public hearing, the Planning Board unanimously indicated support for the revised
sign code, except for the proposed grandfather clause; therefore, on a 5 to 4 vote, the Planning
Board forwarded an unofficial recommendation for approval.
City Attorney Luwe reminded the Commissioners that any changes to the zone code
must be made through adoption of an ordinance. He indicated that after the Commissioners
have conducted their public hearing and made their decision, staff will prepare an ordinance for
. Commission action at a future meeting.
Mayor Stueck asked that the public comment be divided into the distinct zone code
amendments under consideration in this public hearing.
Accessory dwelling units.
No one was present to speak in support of or in opposition to the proposed zone code
amendment.
Design Review Board (DRB) and Administrative Design Review (ADR) staff.
Mr. Ed McCrone, 2150 South Story Mill Road, member of the Design Review Board,
forwarded his support for the proposed amendment to the composition of the DRB.
He
recognized that the recent changes in composition were in response to concerns which had
been voiced; however, he noted that the Board itself has taken several steps to be more
. responsive to the community. He suggested that the addition of another non-professional
member will help address that issue even more.
Ms. Jennifer Smith Mitchell, 122 South Church Avenue, addressed the Commission
as a professional designer and someone who has had experience with the planning process
since 1990. She expressed concern that the qualifications for members of the Design Review
08-26-96
---------- --- -----
-- ---- - ..-.--- -..--.- ..-...
- 18 -
Board are still too limiting and too nebulous, suggesting the qualifications for non-professional
members be reworded to read"... individuals with an interest in urban design or historic
preservation." She suggested that, by filling out an application for the Board, the individual has
demonstrated an interest and a commitment to the process. She stated that the
non-
. professional members provide a common sense perspective which is sometimes overlooked by
architects and designers. She also indicated her support for removing the Planning Director as
Chair of the Design Review Board, characterizing that step as providing for "checks and
balances" in the process.
Ms. Mitchell turned her attention to the proposed revisions in the composition of the
ADR staff, beginning with a history of how the application process has evolved since adoption
of the interim zoning ordinance in 1990. She noted that it began with the sumittal of four
copies of a simple application, along with a fee of $40, and the application was then subjected
to a relatively simple review process which took approximately one week. That
process
allowed the applicant and neighbors to work together to develop an acceptable plan, if they so
chose, or the City would provide assistance in arriving at a plan which was acceptable to all
. parties involved. As a result of revisions to the code, an applicant is now required to complete
a much more detailed application, with multiple copies, and an application fee ranging from $40
to $180, depending on the type of application. She expressed concern that under this
proposed revision the various individuals and bodies who review the application are doing so
for design only, with no one being responsible for reviewing the zoning issues. She also noted
that under these amendments, the review process leaves the neighbors out of the process, and
the review process will take 3 + weeks. She suggested that under these revisions, the staff
will not have time to do any "real planning".
Ms. Mitchell forwarded her reservations about having one person serve as the
Administrative Design Review staff, particularly since design is often a matter of personal
preference. She expressed particular concern over the requirement that the color scheme be
. indicated on the elevations provided in the building permit application submittal. She suggested
that if the Commission chooses to approve this amendment rather than leave the language as
it exists, then the decision of the ADR should be appealable directly to the City Commission,
rather than through the Design Review Board to the Commission.
0
8-26-96
- 19 -
Ms. Jennifer Mitchell encouraged the Commission to reinstate the opportunity for public
comment, which will also incorporate some checks and balances into the system. She also
encouraged the Commissioners to simplify the review process rather than adding another layer
of bureaucracy to the process, noting that will allow the Planning staff an opportunity to work
. on other planning and zoning matters.
Mr. Bill Mitchell, 122 South Church Avenue, noted that a few years ago, when zone
code amendments were being considered, approximately 80 people signed a petition requesting
that property owners within 200 feet of a sketch plan review be notified and given an
opportunity to provide input, and to ensure that the qualifications of the ADR staff are met,
including the requirement for at least one of those members to hold a degree in architecture.
He encouraged the Commissioners to consider this petition during the current deliberations.
Sign Code.
Mr. Tom Burnett, 9375 Star Lane, forwarded his support for the format of the new sign
code, noting it is much simpler and easier to use. He noted that its length has been reduced
from 44 pages to 14 pages, and recognized Assistant Planner Williams' efforts to create a more
. readable and enforceable document. He also indicated his support for allowing existing
previously permitted signs to remain. -
Mr. Burnett turned his attention to the shortfalls in the document, stating that it is too
restrictive for new signs. He stressed that signage is important to businesses, and some types
of businesses require more or larger signage than other types of businesses may require. He
stressed that signage must be higher and larger if it is to be effective in generating demand and
attracting customers. He characterized signs as being much more effective than print, radio,
television or any other media. He stated that severe sign restrictions hurt not only businesses
and business owners; they hurt the customers as well.
Mr. Burnett expressed concern that under these proposed amendments, banners and
. flags are illegal. He also noted that the three signs for the Bozeman Public Library would be
non-conforming because only one sign would be allowed under this code. He expressed
concern that, while the code seems to apply to hundreds of smaller signs, some of the taller
signs on North 7th Avenue would remain untouched. He concluded by encouraging the
Commission to require further revision of this section of the code to make it more reasonable
and practical prior to adoption.
08-26-96
-- --- _._._.__..___._.u____
- 20 -
Mr. John Nordwick, 150 Sheridan Avenue, stated his support for the proposed
amendments to the sign code. He requested, however, that the Commission consider allowing
medical signs, particularly those for the Hospital, to be lit. He noted that, for those who are
in need of emergency medical services, having the signs lit could assist them in reaching those
. services in a timely manner.
Mr. Roger Berna, 225 Sacajawea Peak Drive, indicated that his main interest is in
petroleum retailing. He stated that the signs allowed under the sign code are not large enough
for all of the information that they need to contain, since gas prices are one of the most
important parts of their message. He characterized this as an extremely competitive business,
where customers tend to go to the place with the lowest price rather than patronizing a specific
establishment. He expressed concern that under the existing sign code and the proposed sign
code, unfair competition is allowed because one station may have a large sign which is 30 feet
tall because it was previously permitted while a station immediately across the street which has
just undergone a major facelift is left with a very small, very low sign that is visible only when
a driver is on top of it. He asked that the petroleum retail industry be allowed to have signs
. large enough and high enough to post their prices and to announce any other associated
services they may provide, thus providing for competition.
Mr. Berna cited his station on East Main Street as an example of his concern. He noted
that the old building has been updated and upgraded and, as a part of that upgrade, he was
required to install a sign no larger than 4-foot by 8-foot, at a height of no more than five feet.
He noted that when the State snowplow goes past his business at 45 miles per hour, the sign
is soon hidden by the snowbank. Immediately across the street is a convenience store/gas
station with a 40-foot-high sign that is visible from the interstate, and this situation results in
an unfair advantage. He also noted that the new sign at the Sinclair station on North 7th
Avenue is so small that one must be within three car lengths of it to see the price of their gas.
. He encouraged the Commissioners to carefully consider these issues as they make a decision
on the proposed new sign code.
Mr. Ron Bachman, sign construction and sales in Billings, submitted a paper forwarding
his comments on the proposed sign code. He indicated that the proposed ordinance is not in
the best interests of any part of the community. He recognized that an individual's
desires
must be tempered with the best interests of society, and that process involves compromise.
0
8-26-96
... ..____ ,.. m.._ ......__.__. ...___..___.,.._. -
.. -...----
- 21 -
Mr. Bachman commended the Commission for its review of the sign code, characterizing it as
a festering wound. He viewed the existing code as being flawed with arbitrary formulas which
are not based on the best interests of the community.
Mr. Bachman forwarded concern about the number of architects on the Design Review
. Board, stating that they are not sign people and they do not have any advertising background.
He stated that they can typically visualize in scale, although getting them to visualize a sign at
a specific size can sometimes be difficult. He further noted that someone in the sign business
can often recognize potential safety problems which might not be readily recognized by those
with expertise in other areas. He concluded by encouraging the Commissioners to consider his
written comments as well as his verbal comments.
Mr. James Anderson, 212 Lindley Place, forwarded his support for the existing sign
code and encouraged the Commissioners to not adopt the new changes. He recognized that
the current sign code was opposed by many members of the business community who, he
suggested, "would rather trash the city than give up what they have". He characterized the
business community as a small percentage of the population, stating that as long as the
. constitutional rights of those individuals are not violated, he feels the wishes of the majority
of citizens of the community should be met. He concluded by encouraging the City to enforce
its laws, and require that the ugly signs be removed.
Mr. Les Rate, Less Rate Pawn, 204 North 7th Avenue, stated that he complied with
the sign code, and it cost him a lot of business because it meant eliminating the reader board.
He encouraged the Commissioners to require that all other signage in the community be
required to comply, rather than now allowing previously permitted signs to remain because it
creates an unfair situation for people like him who have complied.
Mrs. Dora Anderson, 212 Lindley Place, stated her concurrence with Mr. Rate's
comments, saying she feels everyone should be required to obey the code. She noted that
efforts are being undertaken to make the city more attractive, not just for the residents but for
. the visitors as well. She stated that, until all signs in the community are brought into
compliance with the code, she does not believe that can be accomplished, and encouraged the
Commission to retain the provisions of the existing code.
Mr. Bill Mitchell, 122 South Church Avenue, suggested that the signs in residential
areas could possibly be more attractively done if they could be hung from porches or installed
08-26-96
..---.-... ....--... ------------.-..
- 22 -
as a freestanding sign, rather than being limited to wallmounting. He also suggested that any
decisions about the sign code be made appealable directly to the Commission, rather than first
going through advisory boards.
Mr. Ed McCrone, 2150 South Story Mill Road, stated that under the proposed revisions
. to the composition of the Design Review Board, two non-professionals are to be included. He
stated that board members were concerned that "demonstrated interest" could be construed
as too restrictive; however, they felt it was also important to distinguish these positions from
the professional positions.
The Commissioners forwarded their questions and comments, addressing each
amendment individually.
Accessory dwelling units.
Responding to Commissioner Frost, Assistant Planner Christopher Williams stated that
the size of the accessory dwelling unit is to be based on the size of the living area in the
principal structure, not counting the garage. Further responding to the Commissioner, the
Assistant Planner stated that a separate entrance for the accessory dwelling unit is not
. required, rather, it is an option.
Commissioner Frost requested that the language in that section be revised to more
accurately reflect the intent.
Responding to Commissioner Youngman, Assistant Planner Christopher Williams
recognized that some lots in the "R-2" zone may contain less than the 6,OOO-square-foot
minimum. He once again forwarded staff's recommendation that the 6,OOO-square-foot lot size
minimum be retained to ensure that the appropriate review processes are undertaken to address
any potential overcrowding of the land that might occur from construction of a second dwelling
unit on that site. He assured the Commission that construction of an accessory dwelling unit
on a smaller lot would still be possible under this proposed amendment.
. Commissioner Stiff noted that when he lived on the south side, a property was nicely
redone, with a carriage house-style garage being constructed. He indicated that the
configuration of the carriage house would allow for living quarters on the upper level, although
the zoning would not accommodate that use.
Assistant Planner Williams assured the Commissioner that under this proposed
amendment, living quarters on the upper level of the carriage house would be allowed.
He
08-26-96
....-..--.--...- ....-.--....-.--.. -..
- 23 -
cautioned that if the carriage house is located close to the property line, however, building code
requirements for fire walls and other life safety issues must be met.
Responding to additional questions from Commissioner Stiff, Assistant Planner Williams
reminded the Commission that this zone code amendment was initially based on the
. Commission's interest in allowing residents in older neighborhoods to provide additional
dwelling units for relatives where there was ample space available. He indicated that if
the
Commission is now interested in expanding this provision, staff will review it in that light. He
then assured that Commission that under the amendment as proposed, there is no requirement
for a relationship between the residents of the principal unit and the residents of the accessory
dwelling unit.
Responding to Mayor Stueck, Planning Director Epple stated that under these proposed
amendments, dwelling units would be allowed on the upper level of a detached garage. He
indicated that a ground level dwelling unit would not be allowed because that area is typically
required to meet off-street parking requirements.
Design Review Board (DRB) and Administrative Design Review staff (ADR).
. Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, Planning Director Epple stated that the proposed
language for composition of the Design Review Board has been forwarded by the Board.
Mayor Stueck suggested that the word "demonstrated" be removed, suggesting that
the average citizen does show his or her interest by applying to serve on the Board.
Commissioner Frost forwarded his support for the term "non-professional", noting that
it eliminates the possibility of another architect being appointed under that category rather than
maintaining a balance with laypeople serving.
Planning Director Andy Epple suggested the language be revised to state".. .individuals
with interest in and knowledge of architecture, urban design or historic preservation." The
Commissioners concurred.
Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, the Planning Director stated that under these
. amendments,' if four members are present but not one of them is an architect, the Board may
make no decisions.
Responding to Commissioner Frost, the Planning Director stated that under these
amendments, ADR staff review of a sketch plan would take three to four days. He reminded
08-26-96
- 24-
the Commission that since the Planning staff does not meet the current code requirements
for
ADR, all applications must be forwarded to the Design Review Board, which takes three weeks.
Responding to Mayor Stueck, the Planning Director stated that under these proposed
amendments, the ADR staff would review simple projects with no deviations and act on those
. which appear to be compatible with the site and the neighborhood. He indicated that if the
applicant feels the ADR decision is improper, the appeal process is available. He then reminded
the Commissioners that when they initiated the amendment, they asked that the appeal be
forwarded through the DRB, so that they had both the decision of the ADR and the
recommendation of the DRB upon which to base the final decision.
Mr. Bill Mitchell expressed concern that under these amendments, as written, sketch
plans for any development up through four-plexes would be reviewed by the ADR, with no
notice to the neighbors.
Planning Director Epple assured the Commissioners that there are notice requirements
for any projects greater than a single-family residence, even for projects reviewed by the
ADR,
although the review would be conducted in-house.
. Responding to Commissioner Frost, the Planning Director stated that the review and
approval process will take a minimum of two weeks, since a ten-day notice is required.
He
emphasized that the actual review process will take two to three days.
Commissioner Frost asked if the processes should possibly be separated, with single-
family residential and smaller projects being included in one category and the more complex
projects in another.
The Planning Director responded that, for any of the projects, notice must be posted
and mailed to all property owners within 200 feet.
Responding to Mayor Stueck, Planning Director Epple stated that review of an appeal
of an ADR decision by the DRB before it is forwarded to the Commission was a previous
. Commission decision. He indicated there are no legal requirements for that review, if the
Commission chooses to have appeals of ADR decisions made directly to them.
Commissioner Frost stated he feels it is important to have a recommendation from a
board comprised of professionals, so the Commission can make an informed decision.
Commissioner Rudberg stressed the importance of the Commissioners avoiding the
08-26-96
-.------
- 25 -
redesigning of a project when it is forwarded for decision or on appeal. She then expressed
her concern about the proposed amendment to provide for a one-member ADR staff.
Mayor Stueck suggested that a two-person ADR staff be created instead, with one
meeting the existing Qualifications and the other being the Planning Director or Assistant
. Planning Director. He stated that this would allow for a balanced review of an application,
speed up the review process, and possibly avoid some appeals in the future.
Planning Director Epple recognized that would be an acceptable alternative, stating he
feels that a professional and a non-professional staff member would work together effectively.
The City Manager suggested that the wording could be changed to "Planning Director
or designee", giving greater latitude on the second review position.
Mayor Stueck stated that if no neighbor complains about a project in a conservation
overlay district or if all the neighbors support it, he feels that input should be given substantial
weight.
Commissioner Rudberg suggested that the applicant could have the neighbors sign off
on the sketch plan if they support it, which would show the Planning staff that they have seen
. the plan.
Planning Director Epple cautioned that is outside the scope of the zone code
amendments that have been advertised.
Sign Code.
Commissioner Youngman suggested that in Section 18.65.010.8., changing the word
"flags" to "pennants" could avoid some of the confusion which has been expressed by
members of the public.
Assistant Planner Christopher Williams recognized that is an option. He then stressed
that the revised sign code is not designed to prohibit the flying of the American flag, the State
flag, or any other type of seasonal flag. He stressed that a flag is considered a sign only when
it contains or is a commercial message. He then recognized that a common sense application
. of this section of the sign code is required.
Planning Director Epple suggested that the definition of "sign" could be amended to
state "... or to communicate a commercial message of any kind to the public."
City Attorney Luwe forwarded the following alternative language: "
... or to
08-26-96
- 26 -
communicate certain information to the public."
The Commission concurred in the proposed
revised wording.
Responding to Commissioner Frost, Assistant Planner Williams stated that his
enforcement experience has revealed that enforcement of the amortization schedule is
. problematic. He stated that, from a legal standpoint, amortization schedules have been upheld;
however, from an enforcement perspective, they are very difficult.
He cautioned that if the
Commission wishes to retain the amortization schedule, it should be prepared for a lawsuit.
Commissioner Frost stated the Commissioners recognized that likelihood when they
approved the amortization schedule originally. He noted that under the proposed revisions
to
the sign code, the first reason cited for the code is "To preserve the Bozeman area's natural
scenic beauty," and he is concerned that allowing some of the existing signs to remain does
not meet that goal.
Commissioner Stiff stated that, while he recognizes the intent of Section 18.65.190,
he is concerned about those who have complied. He is also concerned about the petroleum
industry, particularly in light of the comments forwarded during this public hearing.
. Responding to questions from Commissioner Stiff, the Assistant Planner stated that
it appears to be the current Commission's position that the needs of current business owners
with non-conforming signs are sufficient to warrant grandfathering them.
Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, Planning Director Epple stated that the estimate
of 700 previously permitted non-conforming signs is based on a windshield survey conducted
a couple of years ago. He stressed that this figure is an estimate, rather than being based
on
a specific count.
Responding to Mayor Stueck, Assistant Planner Williams stated there are four
freestanding signs which have never been permitted and are non-conforming. He affirmed that,
whether the sign code is revised or not, they must be brought into compliance with the existing
code.
. At Commissioner Youngman's request, Assistant Planner Williams responded to some
of the questions and issues raised during the pUblic comment. He indicated that signs may
be
lit under the existing code, including medical signs.
He encouraged the Commission to be
cautious about considering different signage requirements for different types of businesses,
noting that several different types of businesses and industries could forward what appear
to
08-26-96
.-...--.- - --------
- 27 -
be valid arguments for increased numbers or sizes of signs.
He stressed that under these
proposed revisions, the size of a freestanding sign has been increased from 28 square feet
to
32 square feet. He recognized that this is not a significant increase in size, but it does
allow
for an increase.
. Mayor Stueck recognized the importance of keeping the sign code simple and
consistent. He asked, however, if there might be a justification for allowing higher or
greater
signage for a competitive business which is immediately across the street or adjacent to
a
business which is located within the interstate zone and has the advantage of those signage
provisions.
Mr. Roger Berna stated he has a 270-foot street frontage; and he feels a 4-foot by 8-
foot sign is not adequate for the site, particularly when the competition across the street
has
a tall, large sign.
Commissioner Frost stated his support for the lower signs, noting they are much more
easily seen than the tall signs.
Mayor Stueck forwarded his interest in allowing freestanding signs in residential areas,
. rather than requiring that they be wallmounted. He suggested that a freestanding sign can be
nicely integrated into the site.
Commissioner Frost stated he can support a freestanding sign, as long as it is installed
close to the building.
Planning Director Epple stated that if the Commission wishes, this section can be
rewritten to allow for freestanding signs.
He then indicated that the requirement for
wallmounted signage is contained in the current sign code; staff was simply proposing a
doubling of the allowable size.
Responding to Mayor Stueck, City Attorney Luwe stated that if a property owner has
been notified that the sign must be brought into compliance and fails to do so, the issue
may
be transferred to his office. He noted the property owner will be notified by his office,
and the
. individual has fourteen days in which to appear. If the owner fails to appear, then an injunction
will be sought and, if the Court agrees, the sign must be brought into compliance. He reminded
the Commission that if either party does not agree with the Court's decision, it may be
appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.
08-26-96
- 28 -
Mr. Ron Johnson recognized that many signs are not currently in compliance with the
sign code. He suggested, however, that
this does not make their owners bad citizens. He
stated, rather, that in many instances, the allowable signage may be only 1/1 Oth of the
existing
signage, and the property owners cannot afford what it would cost to convert the signage.
. Mr. Bill Mitchell noted that permits for encroachment of signs into the public right-of-
way may be acquired from the City Manager and asked if an appeal process should be included.
City Manager Wysocki noted that the process of issuing revocable permits for sandwich
board signs has been in place for several years, although this is the first time it has
been
incorporated into the sign code. He stated that the permits are issued only in the downtown
business district, and Main Street is located in Montana Department of Transportation right-of-
way.
Commissioner Youngman noted that the term "incidental sign" is used in Section
18.65.060.C.2., but it is not defined. She then asked if it should be, to avoid any potential
problems in the future.
Responding to Commissioner Stiff, the Planning Director cited the Darlinton Manor sign
. as a residential building identification sign.
With the concurrence of the Commissioners, Mayor Stueck continued the public hearing
to 3:00 p.m. on Monday, September 16.
Planning Director Epple stated that, prior to the September 16 meeting, staff will
update the draft code revisions to reflect the changes which have been discussed in this
meeting.
Ordinance No. 1427 - Appropriation Ordinance for Fiscal Year 1996-1997
Included in the Commissioners' packets was a copy of Ordinance No. 1427, as
approved by the City Attorney, entitled:
. ORDINANCE NO. 1427
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA, APPROPRIATING CITY FUNDS FOR VARIOUS BUDGET UNIT
EXPENDITURES, AND FURTHER APPROPRIATING REVENUE NECESSARY TO
OPERATE AND MAINTAIN CITY SERVICES FOR SALARIES, OPERATIONS
AND CAPITAL FOR EACH OPERATIONAL BUDGET UNIT OF MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1997.
The City Manager reminded the Commissioners that the Tentative Appropriation
08-26-96
- 29 -
Ordinance has been adopted, the hearing held, and the publication requirements met. He then
recommended that the Commission finally adopt the Appropriation Ordinance at this time.
It was moved by Commissioner Rudberg, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the
Commission finally adopt Ordinance No. 1427, the appropriation ordinance for Fiscal Year
. 1996-1997. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting
Aye being
Commissioner Rudberg, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman and
Mayor Stueck; those voting No, none.
Commission Resolution No. 3139 - settina mill levies for Fiscal Year 1996-1997
Included in the Commissioners' packets was a copy of Commission Resolution No.
3139, as approved by the City Attorney, entitled:
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3139
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA, ESTABLISHING AND AFFIXING THE NUMBER OF MILLS TO BE
CHARGED AGAINST THE ASSESSED VALUATION
OF ALL TAXABLE
PROPERTY SITUATED
WITHIN THE CORPORATE
JURISDICTIONAL
BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996-1997.
. City Manager Wysocki recommended that this resolution, which provides for levying
of the mills to fund the budget just adopted in the previous agenda item, be adopted.
It was' moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the
Commission adopt Commission Resolution No. 3139, setting the mill levies for Fiscal Year
1996-1997. The motion carried by the
following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being
Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Rudberg and
Mayor Stueck; those voting No, none.
Award bid - widening of Griffin Drive - JTL GrouD. Inc.. Beh;Jrade. Montana. in the total
bid
amount of $212.543.50 for base bid Dlus Alternate NO.1
City Manager Wysocki noted that, included in the Commissioners' packets, was a
. memo from Project Engineer Rick Hixson, dated August 21, recommending that the bid for
widening of Griffin Drive be awarded to JTL Group, Inc., Belgrade. He noted that the base
bid
plus Alternate No.1, which total $212,543.50, is less than the engineer's estimate for this
project, and concurred in the Project Engineer's recommendation of award.
Responding to Commissioner Rudberg, the City Manager stated he feels the $22,000
08-26-96
-.-----....-----
.. .......--.--
- .--.- ------- -----..-----.----- ----
- 30 -
for the railroad crossing is the City's share of that item, but he will check on it to ensure that
Montana Rail Link is also participating in those costs.
It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that the
Commission award the base bid plus Alternate No 1 for widening of Griffin Drive to JTL Group,
. Inc., Belgrade, Montana, in the total bid amount of $212,543.50, it being the lowest and best
bid received. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being
Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Rudberg, Commissioner Stiff and
Mayor Stueck; those voting No, none.
Discussion - FYI Items
City Manager Wysocki presented to the Commission the following "For Your
Information" items.
(1 ) Telephone message, dated August 26, from Mrs. Shirley Rice, Sheridan,
Wyoming, encouraging the banning of dogs from the cemetery.
(2) Letter from Mary Haglund, 1009 East Babcock Street, dated August 15,
. protesting the sewer rate increase.
(3) Memo from Assistant City Manager Ron Brey, dated August 22, forwarding
Mike Cavaness' frustration at the lack of parking in his neighborhood.
(4) Anonymous letter in opposition to the curb bulbs on Willson Avenue.
(5) Letter from Headwaters Cooperative Recycling Project, dated June 18,
announcing their next meeting for 10:00 a.m. on September 25 at the Gallatin County
Courthouse Community Room in Bozeman.
(6) Letter from Mike Hoey, Deputy Emergency Services Coordinator, dated August
20, noting that the Multiple Patient Incident Training sessions for the Gallatin County Disaster
and Emergency Services and the Gallatin Field Airport, have been rescheduled for September
14 and October 12.
. (7) Tentative agenda for the 65th Annual Montana League of Cities and Towns
Conference, to be held on October 9 to 11 at the Outlaw Inn in Kalispell.
(8) Copy of the Notice of Intent to Levy and Assess a Tax on Maintaining
Improvements within all Rural Improvement Districts in Gallatin County, from the Gallatin
County Clerk and Recorder.
08-26-96
- 31 -
(9) Letter from Dorothy Burkenpas,
1108 East Babcock Street, dated August 23,
expressing concerns about her neighborhood.
(10) Minutes of the 9-1-1 Administrative
Board meeting held on July 24, as
submitted by Mike Brown.
. (11 ) Agenda for the Development
Review Committee meeting to be held at 10:00
a.m. on Tuesday, August 27, in the Commission Room of City Hall.
(12) Agenda for the Design Review Board
meeting to be held at 3:30 p.m. on
Tuesday, August 27, in the Commission Room at City Hall.
(11 ) Agenda for the County Commission
meeting to be held at 1 :30 p.m. on
Tuesday, August 27, in the Community Room at the Courthouse.
( 12) The City Manager submitted
his weekly report, as follows. (1) Attended the
meeting of the Legislative Committee for the Montana League of Cities and Towns and the
MMIA Board meeting last week, both of which were in Helena. (2) Noted that street overlaying
projects are underway. (3) Stated that millings from the street projects are being stockpiled
and will be used to pave currently unpaved streets in the northeast sector of the community.
. (4) Noted that the Commissioners have received copies of the final report from the Bozeman
City Government Study Commission, dated August 19.
( 13) Commissioner Youngman noted
that the Commission has had a longstanding
tradition that if a Commissioner is out of town and requests that a decision on a specific
agenda item be held, the request is observed. She expressed her concern that at last week's
meeting, her request that the decisions on the annexation policy and the Phillips annexation
was not observed. She indicated that, if the process for having decisions delayed has changed,
she will place her request in writing in the future.
(14) Commissioner Rudberg stated that
she attended several meetings last week,
including the Development Review Committee, Design Review Board, Chamber of Commerce
. meeting and the focus group meeting in Belgrade. She also attended the open house for the
Triple Tree Ranch subdivision.
( 15) Commissioner Stiff stated
that the final report on the planning survey results
has been received, and he has discussed it with Ken Weaver and Judy Mathre, from the Local
Government Center at MSU. He characterized the report as well done and informative.
08-26-96
- 32 -
( 16) Commissioner Stiff noted that the Hospital has indicated its intent to construct
a new wing this year; however, City staff estimates on the length of time it will take to obtain
the necessary approvals will result in the project not beginning until next spring, which will
represent a significant delay. He asked about the possibility of allowing the Hospital to begin
. installation of footings and the foundation for the building while the infrastructure plans are
being reviewed and approved so that construction may continue through the winter. He also
requested periodic updates on the progress of this project, since it is important to the health,
safety and welfare of the residents in the community.
Commissioner Rudberg stated her support for Commissioner Stiff's request, noting that
breaking ground during this construction season is important to the overall project.
(17) Mayor Stueck submitted the following. (1) Noted he has received copies of
several letters, including a request to address the GIS Conference which is to be held on April
28 through 30, 1997, in Bozeman.
( 18) Mayor Stueck noted that copies of the survey on the planning process were
included in the Commissioners' packets and forwarded to the City Manager. He asked that this
. report be placed on an upcoming work session agenda for discussion.
City Manager Wysocki asked for permission to distribute the report to staff members
so they have an opportunity to review it prior to the Commission discussion.
Mayor Stueck indicated that would be appropriate. He asked that the report also be
distributed to the City-County Planning Board and Design Review Board members.
City Attorney Luwe asked about release of the document to the public. He requested
that, if the document is to be released, he be first given an opportunity to review it to ensure
that privacy issues have not been compromised. The Commission concurred with that request.
Adjournment - 9:38 D.m.
There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was
. moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that the meeting be
adjourned. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye
being
Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Rudberg, Commissioner Stiff and
Mayor Stueck; those voting No, none.
08-26-96
. -.-..---
.- .. ,..--.--.-........-.---..---
--. .. ---..-.., --. ----.
- 33 -
(el t!~~
DON E. STUECK, Mayor
. ATTEST:
~JJg~
R BIN L. SULLIVAN
Clerk of the Commission
.
.
08-26~96