HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-13 ccmWORK
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION/AGENDA MEETING
OF THE CITY COMMISSION
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
November 13, 1995
*****************************
. The
Commission of the City of Bozeman met in work session and agenda meeting in
the Commission Room, Municipal Building, November 13, 1995, at 3:00 p.m.
Present were
Mayor Vincent,
Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff,
Commissioner Stueck,
Commissioner Frost, 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.
Presentation of awards to Terrv Baldus and Marv Bolina
City
Manager Wysocki stated that during the recent Recreation and Parks Association
annual meeting, Mary Boling received the award for being a professional
recreation program
. supervisor, and particularly for her excellence in the field of recreational programs for youth.
Also, Terry Baldus received the award for citizen board member, because
of her extensive work
with recreational groups and work on development of a park master plan.
The City Manager
noted that this represents two of the three awards which were given during
the annual
meeting.
Recreation
Superintendent Sue Harkin presented the plaques to the Mary Boling and
Terry Baldus.
Discussion - review of City Manaaer's recommended agenda for work session
Mayor
Vincent noted the Commission has just received a memo from the City
Manager, forwarding a recommended agenda for the work session.
. City
Manager Wysocki reviewed the proposed agenda, which contains essentially
three segments. The first is a presentation of specific sections of the
code which violate the
law, the second is a presentation of those provisions which reflect inconsistencies
or vagueness
or which his clients would like to see changed, and the third section is
a summary and final
comments. Incorporated into each section is a time for Commissioners to
ask Questions.
11-13-95
- 2 -
The City Manager noted that the information from Mr. Claus did not arrive until
Thursday afternoon; therefore, since Friday was a holiday, neither staff or the Commission has
had an adequate opportunity to review the information submitted. He then cautioned against
any discussion of the signs at the intersection of North 7th Avenue and West Main Street, due
. to potential litigation.
Planning Director Epple stated that he has discussed this proposed format with Mr.
Tom Burnett so that Mr. Claus is aware of the agenda prior to beginning his presentation.
Aaenda Meetina - for reaular meeting and Dublic hearinas to be held on November 20. 1995
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) Responding to Commissioner Stueck, Historic Preservation Planner Strahn
stated that he has been unable to find any historic photos of the Ranch House Motel sign to
. determine whether the reader board portion was a part of the original sign or not.
Commissioner Stiff stated his concerns revolve around consistency and precedence.
He indicated his intent to discuss those issues with the City Attorney prior to next week's
meeting.
City Manager Wysocki noted one suggestion which has been forwarded is that
deadlines for meeting conditions attached to sign exemption approvals be set for the same day
as the deadline for the Blue Sky Motel sign. He stated that under this scenario, staff has only
one deadline to remember, rather than trying to monitor several deadlines; and it would serve
to shorten the time allowed for meeting those conditions.
(5) The City Manager stated that a review of the questions and issues raised
during the public hearing has revealed no major changes in the draft plan are necessary.
. (11) Commissioner Youngman asked if the Commission is to take action on the
list of projects for enhancement monies at next week's meeting.
City Manager Wysocki indicated that "possible motion and vote" will be inserted on
next week's agenda.
11-13-95
-
....--..---.-----...------
-
3 -
( 12) Commissioner
Youngman thanked the Clerk of the Commission for drafting
the letters and advertisement. She then noted that wording for PSA's is
still needed and, if she
has an opportunity, she will work with the Clerk later this week to prepare
any revised drafts
for Commission consideration.
. (18) Responding to Commissioner Stueck, City Attorney Luwe stated that the
Attorney General's opinion on the legality of the land exchange between
Montana State
University and the Montana State University Foundation does not impact
the Commission's
decision on the requested rezoning. He noted that, no matter who the owner
of the property
might be, the Commission must base its decision on the zone map amendment
on the twelve
criteria set forth in the Montana Code Annotated.
( 19) Responding
to Commissioner Stueck, Assistant Planning Director Arkell
stated she will have additional information from the Director of Public
Service on his reasons
for asking to have the street through the development straightened out.
Commissioner Youngman asked if more current information from the various
reviewing agencies is available, noting that some of the material is dated
in April.
. The Assistant Planning Director stated that information from a new soils
survey will
be available later this week, and will be included in next week's packet.
She then noted that
no written response has been received from the Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks;
however, the minutes from the Planning Board contain testimony from one
of their
representatives.
Responding to Mayor Vincent, the Assistant Planning Director stated that
no new
information will be forwarded to the Commission except for the soils information.
City Attorney Luwe asked the Commission to address the issue of setting
time limits
for the public hearing, noting that this will allow for better planning
of presentations.
Following discussion, the Commission set time limits of 10 minutes for
the staff
presentation; 45 minutes for presentations by the applicant's team and
opponents' team; and
. 3 to 5 minutes for individuals testifying for, against or in a neutral position.
Discussion - FYI Items
City Manager Wysocki presented to the Commission the following "For Your
Information" items.
11-13-95
-----
-.--- ---..-------.--..-....-.- -- ..-..--- .--. .-- -.-
---
-
4 -
(1 ) Minutes
for the Cemetery Board meetings held on July 13 and October 12,
1995.
(2) Copy
of a letter to Nadia Beiser from Brian Gallik, dated November 7,
regarding the fire protection pond for the Fort Ellis Leisure Community.
. Responding to Commissioner Stueck, the City Attorney stated that since the fire pond
is on private property, the property owner incurs all of the liability.
(3) Copy
of a memo from City Attorney Luwe to Planning Director Epple, dated
November 8, regarding the draft ordinance for impact fees.
(4) Memo
from Planning Director Epple to the Commission, dated November 9,
regarding the number of illegal and/or non-conforming signs in the community.
(5) Agenda
for the Development Review Committee meeting to be held at 10:00
a.m. on Tuesday, November 14, in the Commission Room.
(6) Agenda
for the Design Review Board meeting to be held at 3:30 p.m. on
Tuesday, November 14, in the Commission Room.
(7) Agenda
for the County Commission meeting to be held at 1 :30 p.m. on
. Tuesday, November 14, at the Courthouse.
(8) The
City Manager submitted his weekly report, as follows. ( 1) Gave a
presentation to a political science class at MSU last week. (2) Announced that the Department
of Commerce met with realtors regarding subdivision law and potential legislation during the
1997 session. (3) Attended the Parking Commission meeting on Thursday
morning, where
discussions included directional signs in the parking lots and consistency of parking time limits
in the various parking lots. (4) Announced that Moody's rating
for the new water revenue
bonds is anticipated tomorrow. (5) Stated that City crews repaired a leak in the main pipe from
Lyman Creek Reservoir last week. (6) Stated that divers inspected the water treatment plant
facilities last week; and the facilities passed inspection.
(9) The City Manager announced that the Chamber of Commerce wishes to
. discuss impact fees with the Commission in a focus group setting.
The Commissioners concurred that the discussion could be set during the
work
session on November 27.
(10) Commissioner
Stueck submitted the following. (1) Spoke to the Exchange
11-13-95
..-..--..------------.--..
- 5 -
Club earlier today. (2) Announced that he must leave this evening's session
for approximately
a half hour to attend the School Board meeting.
(11 ) Commissioner
Youngman stated that the ad hoc cable television committee
has been meeting in preparation for the public hearing on November 27.
She noted that a fact
. sheet will be ready prior to the public hearing.
(12) City Attorney Luwe noted that at last week's meeting, Commissioner
Frost
raised a question about single-family residences in the R-MH zoning district.
He stated that
mobile homes, mobile home parks and mobile home subdivision are allowed
as permitted uses
in the R-MH zone; and single-family dwelling units are allowed as a conditional
use.
Responding to Commissioner Stueck, Planning Director Epple stated there
are two
types of factory housing. The first is manufactured homes, which are actually
the modern
mobile homes, and which are built to Department of Housing and Urban Development
standards. They are constructed on steel I-beams which are designed to
accommodate running
gear for some mobility; and they must be supported under those I-beams.
The second is
modular homes, which are built to Uniform Building Code standards. They
are constructed to
. sit on perimeter foundations, with the exterior walls supporting the weight. He stressed the
fact that neither modular homes nor stick built single-family homes are
allowed uses in the
R-MH zone; however, they, along with four-plexes, may be allowed under
the planned unit
development process.
Work Session - Dresentation from Mr. Jim Claus ra sign code Drovisions
City Manager Wysocki gave Mr. Claus a copy of his memo dated November 13,
which contains the agenda for this session. He also distributed copies
of the sign code, as it
appears in the Bozeman Municipal Code, along with copies of Ordinance Nos.
1374 and 1406,
which are not yet codified. After a brief review, Mr. Claus indicated acceptance
of the format.
. Mr. Claus began his presentation by stating that first amendment rights
have
increasingly protected the right of free speech over the years. Throughout the presentation,
he cited court cases pertaining to various points. He cautioned against
any type of regulation
in the code which attempts to control sign content, citing errors in the
current definition for
"incidental signs" as an example.
He further cautioned that the current code provides an
enormous advantage to franchises, while limiting the signs allowed for
smaller local businesses.
11-13-95
.---...
- _._. __.__.___.____n______
- 6 -
He cited the fact that the "M" is allowed on the entrance sign for McDonalds; however, local
businesses are not allowed to place any type of logo or other business marking on directional
signs.
Mr. Claus addressed the definition of "interchange zone", noting the intent is to allow
. larger and taller signage adjacent to the interstate interchanges. He expressed concern,
however, that the definition of the zone references off ramps. He suggested, instead, that the
definition should reference a more easily identified point, such as the right-ot-way line for the
interstate interchange.
Mr. Claus stated that when reading the sign code, he cannot get past the purpose,
intent and definitions without encountering contradictory language, characterizing this as the
"most internally self-contradictory document" he has seen, and stating that he would refuse
to administer it. He emphasized that an administrator should not be required
to interpret a
document to enforce it; and that is definitely required with this document.
Mr. Jim Claus stated that a sign code must abide by Constitutional Amendment Nos.
1, 5 and 14 to be legally sound. He also stated that the basis for the City's current sign code
. is a model code which was prepared by two planners operating on what, he feels, was an
invalid premise. That model code was never adopted or recommended by the American
Planning Association, although it was sold by the American Planning Association. Also, the
model code was not endorsed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, although
the disclaimer in the front did not clearly reflect that.
He also stated that, through court
rulings, it has been determined that signs must be time, place, manner and content neutral.
Mr. Claus stated that the intent section of the City's code needs to be rewritten.
Also, he reviewed the definitions of "signs" and "window signs", outlining their flaws and
stating that he has different definitions to offer. He noted
that the City is not currently
enforcing its limit of 25 percent of the window space for window signs, particularly because
the definition does not include a limit of 18 inches behind the glass. He also questioned the
. definition of "changeable copy signs".
The Commissioners expressed concern about the format of the discussion and the
apparent lack of specific proposals for change. Mayor Vincent noted that in the Legislature,
bills are marked up to reflect proposed changes, and suggested that would be the best method
tor addressing concerns and suggested changes in this instance.
11-13-95
.----..-.---.-- -.--
.-..---
. ---. .-----
-
7 -
Mayor Vincent then asked for suggested definitions for the various terms,
such as
"sign", which have been determined to be legally defensible and acceptable
in other
communities in the United States.
Commissioner Stiff expressed concern about what appears to be an adversarial
. position in this presentation; Mr. Claus responded that the adversarial relationship ha been
created by the City's enforcement of the existing sign code.
Mr. Claus stated there are five components to a sign code: the intent and
purpose,
definitions, administrative and regulatory, material and structure, and
fees.
Mr. Jim Claus returned to his presentation, addressing the definition of
"exempt sign",
noting that this definition is contradictory with other sections of the
code. He also addressed
the definition of "incidental sign". He cautioned that, through regulation
of building design, or
the lack thereof, a governing body may dramatically assist franchises to
the detriment of local
businesses without intending to do 50.
Mr. Claus noted that outdoor advertising is controlled by federal legislation.
He stated
that signs are addressed in the Uniform Manual on Traffic Control Devices;
and that manual
. provides the best source for determining the size of signs needed for various types of roadways
and various speeds.
Mr. Claus turned his attention back to definitions, stating that they reflect
a confusion
between animation and flashing. He also addressed the issue of neon versus
fluorescent tubes.
The definition of "sign area" discriminates against the use of individual
letters rather than box
signs. He suggested that, through bonuses for design, business owners could
be encouraged
to use individual letters instead of the standard box sign, to create a
more attractive result. He
then turned his attention to the definitions of "wall signs" and "freestanding
signs" as well as
the definitions for "awning sign", "banner", "beacon", "animated sign",
"canopy", and
"commercial message". He then indicated a willingness to forward revised
definitions for all
of the terms he has identified.
. Mr. Claus noted that in Beverly Hills, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada,
the sign code
has been essentially replaced with a comprehensive design format, under
which people are able
to build a better environment for their businesses.
He stated that this helps to avoid urban
deterioration and urban sprawl, and allows for better design of the building
and street
communication system.
11-13-95
---...---- . - _..n..._____
- 8 -
Mr. Claus stated that Bozeman has an exciting opportunity to change its perspective
and allow for comprehensive design packages which will enhance the community.
Recess - 5:30 D.m.
. Mayor Vincent declared a recess at 5:30 p.m., to reconvene at 7:00 p.m. for a
continued work session.
Reconvene - 7 :00 D. m.
Mayor Vincent reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of conducting
the continued work session.
Continued Work Session - Dresentation from Mr. Jim Claus re sian code Drovisions
Mr. Jim Claus continued his presentation by providing an overview of the impact
which retail sales have on the overall economy. He stated that $2 trillion is generated in retail
sales annually, nearly half of which is automobile-related. He noted
that signs are the only
. street communication system available to those businesses; and they attract not only the local
resident, but the traveling public as well. When developing a sign, it is important to ensure
readability and confisquity.
Mr. Claus forwarded his premise that there are four kinds of signs:
wall, roof,
projecting and freestanding. He suggested that definitions such as "low profile signs" should
be eliminated, since those are actually freestanding signs. He also identified "marquee signs"
as projecting signs. He proposed that the "master signage plan" be replaced with
"comprehensive design plan", to accommodate options such as those available in Las Vegas.
He cited several communities in Canada where this process has worked well.
Mr. Claus noted that "sandwich board signs" are currently allowed in the downtown
area, characterizing this as an innovative way to attract attention. He cautioned, however, that
. the code must be changed to eliminate the conflicts that presently exist. He suggested that
the term "non-conforming sign" be eliminated, and that the variance section of the ordinance
be used to approve signs that are not in compliance with the code. He noted that "pennants"
and "flags" should be combined, noting that they are actually incidental signs.
He then
addressed the definition of "portable sign", stating that vehicles should be removed from the
11-13-95
,-.'.----- -
- -
-
9 -
definition.
He stated that "principal building" should be removed, and that the definition of
"projecting sign" should be revised to reflect that it is a sign which
is perpendicular to the
street. He stated that the definition of "street" should be deleted; and
the definitions for "roof
sign" and "wall sign" revised. He concluded his review of the definitions
by encouraging the
. Commission to use industry standard definitions and revise the regulatory standards so they
are legally defensible.
Commissioner Stueck left the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Jim Claus turned his attention to the computation of sign area and height, stating
it could be better written. He also identified inconsistencies between
this section and some of
the other code sections. He reviewed the various tables in Section 18.65.050,
suggesting that
many of the footnotes should be deleted, as well as one of the tables.
Mr. Claus stated it has been determined 75 square feet in signage is the minimum for
a business, with that square footage being adjusted for further setback
from the street.
Mr. Jim Claus suggested that the City consider an annual fee for billboard signs. He
cautioned that those fees must be directly attributable to public safety
issues; and they should
. cover the costs of checking the signs to ensure that lighting is appropriate and that they have
been properly painted and maintained structurally.
He also suggested that the Commission
consider implementing a fee for incidental signs, such as the sandwich
board signs in the
downtown area. Also, he proposed that a fee be implemented for real estate
signs, with a
lesser fee being charged to individual homeowners than real estate firms.
He cautioned that
the fees generated cannot be greater than the costs incurred. He noted,
however, that the
City's records are in dire need of upgrading, and these sources of revenue
could be used to
develop and implement an adequate recordkeeping system for all signs in
the community. He
further cautioned that if a fee is set for one type of incidental sign,
it must be applied to all
incidental signs, or it can be challenged.
. Break - 8:00 to 8:05 D.m.
Mayor Vincent declared a break from 8:00 p.m. to 8:05 p.m., in accordance with
Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983.
11-13-95
---
- -.,-----.--
- 10 -
Continued Work Session - Dresentation from Mr. Jim Claus re sian code Drovisions
Mr. Jim Claus turned his attention to the regulatory segment of a sign
code. He
stated during a European conference on signs, he learned that in Europe,
they use lights as a
way of affecting people's movement patterns at night. He noted that in
the residential areas,
. where movement was to be discouraged, they used the type of lighting which people don't like;
and in the areas where they wanted to encourage movement, they used more
attractive and
brighter lighting. He stated in Las Vegas, it has been determined that
people will lose only so
much money in one casino before moving to another; and the strip graphically
demonstrates
how the use of lighting can effectively impact people's movements at night.
He suggested that
this type of information and influence could be used in Bozeman, particularly
through a
comprehensive lighting plan and design that involves an area rather than
simply a site.
Mr. Tom Burnett, Citizens for Responsive Government, stated that he has
received
feed back from business owners throughout the community about their encounters
with the sign
ordinance because they have been aware of his position.
He noted that Planning Director
Epple's memo identifies approximately 1,300 signs in the community; however,
he suggested
. in reality there are many more than that, with the total possibly as high as 10,000 if all of the
signs were counted.
He suggested that, through the permitting process, every sign that is
permitted should be issued a sticker with a serial number. He also cautioned
that if reasonable
regulations are not implemented, the result will be tacky signs, which
is what the community
is trying to avoid. He suggested, rather, that existing signs should be
grandfathered and that
upgraded signage should be encouraged.
Mr. Burnett stated that one of the local sign builders has indicated that
he does not
know how to build signs that meet the existing code requirements, due in
large part to the way
the code is written. He encouraged the Commission to allow those legal
non-conforming signs
installed before 1990 to remain.
He also asked that the size and height requirements be
. amended to ensure adequate signage for individual businesses.
Commissioner Stueck returned at 8:20 p.m.
Mr. Jim Claus addressed the penalty section, as contained in Section 18.70.020,
characterizing it as extremely punitive, and actually encouraging litigation.
Mr. Claus stated that in San Diego, the sign code contained an amortization
provision;
however, that provision was eliminated because of problems encountered.
He characterized
11-13-95
-------..---
- 11 -
an amortization schedule as punishing people into compliance rather than
encouraging them
into compliance; and the result can be conforming but tacky signs. He suggested
that through
encouragement, signage packages can be upgraded and result in a much more
attractive
development than an amortization schedule will provide. He noted that in
San Diego, even with
. elimination of the amortization schedule. 85 percent of the signs which were deemed
objectionable were removed within ten years anyway.
Mr. Claus stressed the importance of considering the Uniform Manual on
Traffic
Control Devices as the only national sign code in the United States.
He stated the manual
controls all signs along the interstate and primary road systems; and its
standards ensure
adequate signage for all types of driving conditions.
Commissioner Stueck stated that, from today's work session, he has garnered
several
proposed wording changes and deletions to make the document legally defensible.
Mr. Claus concurred that the code needs revision, stating that it is based
on a model
that will not stand up to legal challenges.
Commissioner Youngman stated that, while she has heard references to changes
in
. definitions and elimination of contradictions in this presentation, she has heard nothing to
indicate that the fundamental elements of the code are not legally defensible.
Responding to Planning Director Epple, Mr. Claus recognized that some existing
sign
codes are more restrictive than Bozeman's. He cited an example in Washington,
where either
wall-mounted or freestanding signs are allowed, but not both on a given
site. He cautioned,
however, that the type of community involved must be taken into consideration,
since many
of those communities with more restrictive codes are the more affluent
suburbs in urban areas.
He stated that in Bozeman, it is important for businesses to attract people;
and that is generally
accomplished through the street communication system.
Mayor Vincent noted it is important to consider court cases when considering
revisions to the sign code.
He noted, however, that it is equally important to consider the
. needs of the community when making revisions.
Mr. Claus noted that the first comprehensive study on traffic control and
lighting
standards, being completed by a nationally recognized transportation engineer,
should be ready
for distribution in the near future.
He suggested that information could be beneficial when
revising the current code.
11-13-95
- .-. ..--
-
12 -
Responding
to Commissioner Stiff, Mr. Claus stated that the current sign code
inadvertently gives an advantage to franchises over small local businesses
because they can
utilize standardized building designs, lighting, landscaping and window
signs.
Further
responding to Commissioner Stiff, he stated that the Uniform Manual on
. Traffic Control devices would allow larger signs that the City's sign code allows. He cautioned
that signing deficiencies can be hazardous to the motoring public, particularly
the growing
elderly population.
The
Commission thanked Mr. Claus for his presentation.
Adiournment - 9:27 D.m.
There
being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was
moved by Commissioner Stueck, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the
meeting be
adjourned. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote:
those voting Aye being
Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner
Stiff and
Mayor Vincent; those voting No, none.
e =-~~
ATTEST:
~J~~
ROBIN L. SULLIVAN
Clerk of the Commission
.
11-1
3-95