Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 08.17.1999 MINI]TES OF THE (]iTY (]OUN(]!L OF ! kI RF, L August 17, 1999 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Chuck Rodgets at 7:00 p.m. on August 17, 1999. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Dirk Kroll Gary Temple Ken Olson Bud Johnson Bill Staudinger COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Miles Walton Norman Orr Gay Easton Mayor Rodgers asked the council to observe a moment of silence in behalf of the fantily of Miranda Feuner and the Easton family. MINUTES: Motion by Alderman Kroll to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 3, 1999, as presented, seconded by Alderman Olson. Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Alderman Olson to approve the minutes of the special meeting of August 10, 1999, as presented, seconded by Alderman Staudinger. Motion carried 5-0. CONSENT ITEMS: a. Clerk/Treasurer Financial Statements for the month of July. b. Committee Reports. --City Council Committee of the Whole minutes of August 3, 1999 were presented. --Budget/Finance Committee minutes of August 10, 1999 were presented. --Budget/Finance Cormnittee minutes of August 12, 1999 were presented. c. Recommendation by Budget/Finance Committee to call for requests for proposals for new computer system. The mayor asked if there was any separation of consent items. There was none. Motion by Alderman Johnson to approve the consent items as presented, seconded by Alderman Temple. Motion carried 5-0. SCHEDULED MATTERS: a. Confirmation of Appointments. Ambulance Director: Mayor Rodgers appointed Jan Stanford as the Ambulance Director. Motion by Alderman Johnson to confirm the appointment of Jan Stanford as the Ambulance Director, seconded by Alderman Olson. Motion carried 5-0. Assistant Ambulance Director: Motion by Alderman Olson to confirm the appointment of Jay Martin as the Assistant Ambulance Director, seconded by Alderman Kroll. Motion carried 5-0. Council Minutes of August 17, 1999 b. Proposal for Court Services. City Attorney Joe Leckie explained that the court has experienced problems after sentencing individuals, particularly minors in possession, to community service. In order to get the community service completed in the past, it has been necessary to send the individuals to Billings to agencies that oversee community service. The agencies in Billings are very busy and it has been difficult for the Laurel people to receive the necessary direction. A $5,000 grant has been received for purposes of contracting with a service corporation called CorpsLINK. This grant will provide for CorpsLINK to oversee community service for a one-year period. After the one-year period, no additional funding would be available. The City Judge has asked if she could assess an additional $1.00 per hour fine for community service and allocate the money to a fund that would make it possible to continue with a contract provider to oversee community service. From a legal standpoint, when the court collects any money from that type of source, it becomes general fund money. The court would like to propose a plan to the Budget/Finance Committee as to how this plan could be funded. There may be other ways in winch to fund this, and Joe asked the council for their ideas and suggestions. Joe is reviewing the proposed CorpsLINK contract that was received recently, and it appears that the contract language is acceptable. The grant will cover the first year's contract, and the collection of fees this year would fund next year's contract if the council approved the plan. There was a question regarding whether or not the City of Laurel would have to carry workmen's compensation on the community service hours. The contract is written to specify that CorpsLINK would provide workmen's compensation coverage. The coordinating link between the City of Laurel and CorpsLINK will be the City Judge. The sentenced individual would receive information as to how to register for their community service, an appointment to meet with the CorpsLINK volunteer, and information regarding what work they would perform. The necessary information would be returned to the court to show that the individual' s community service obligation has been satisfied. CorpsLINK will provide the city with an individual who will find projects and supervise the completion of those projects. The judge will be meeting with the department heads regarding available projects, and the CorpsLINK individual will be informed of those projects. There will be communication between CorpsLINK, the judge, and the various departments that have projects. Bud Johnson asked if the city would be bound only to projects within the city limits. Joe said that projects could be done at the cemetery and the container site. The only lin~itation for a project is that it needs to qualify as a community service project. c. Public Hearing - Hall Outdoor Advertising Special Review. Mayor Rodgers read a list of reasonable guidelines for the conduct of the public hearing. The guidelines were: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Length of time for this hearing will be 30 minutes. There shall be no discussion from audience or among the audience during the hearing. If you have a written statement and wish not to speak, please hand statements to City Clerk. Speaker shall address comments to the Mayor and Council only. Council may ask questions of the speaker, speaker may respond but not engage in debate. Proponents (those for) to speak first. Time limit is 12 minutes total with no one speaker taking more than five minutes. Opponents (those against) will speak second. Time limit is 12 minutes total with no one speaker taking more than five minutes. Mayor Rodgets asked for a show of hands of the proponents and opponents who wished to speak. Mayor Rodgers continued with the guidelines: 8. There may be a rebuttal time of three minutes for each side. Council Minutes of August 17, 1999 9. The Council will then determine what course of action to follow. Possible actions for the council are: Continue the hearing to a date certain to allow for additional information. Close the Public Hearing and proceed to Council debate on the matter. Close the Public Hearing and continue to a date certain that the Council debate and vote on the matter. 10. A vote on this matter shall be at the next regular Council meeting unless this rule upon motion and second is unanimously waived by the Council. Mayor Rodgers asked if there was a motion from the Council to adopt these guidelines as the guidelines for this public hearing. Motion by Alderman Olson to adopt these guidelines for the public hearing, seconded by Alderman Johnson. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Rodgers opened the public hearing. Margy Bonner, an attorney with the Brown Law Fim~, stated that she represents Phil Keeter and Hall Outdoor Advertising. The two billboards in question are located in the highway commercial district east of Laurel on the property of Big Sky Nursery. Due to a misunderstanding and the belief that the location of these signs was not in the city limits, these signs were erected without a special review. Ms. Bonner stated that it was an honest, unintentional mistake by Mr. Keeter. These particular signs are right inside the city limits, and the landowners were also unaware of the annexation of their property. Mr. Keeter received the necessary permits from the State of Montana Department of Transportation. The signs were constructed according to what he believed were the proper standards established by the state. It is an unfortunate accident that he is here after the fact applying for the special review. Ms. Bonner asked the council to consider this with a fresh set of eyes. She asked the council to consider the quality of the signs, the desirability of the signs, and the appropriateness of the signs. The area is zoned highway commercial and is designed to bring people who are traveling on the interstate into the community. Signs are a permitted use in that district, albeit subject to the special review process. The city ordinance provides for special consideration of whether or not the signs would be disruptive to the area. This property is an open field area directly west of Big Sky Nursery. The neighbors were contacted and are not opposed to the billboards. This matter was previously before the City-County Planning Board, and they recommended denial of the application. Ms. Bouner stated that it is their position that the denial was made on inappropriate grounds. She understands the general plam~ing concerns regarding billboards. The denial was based on the fact that Mr. Keeter failed to get an application before erecting the signs. Their position is that the ordinance has provisions for people who take action without proper permitting. Those provisions state that the person is subject to being cited into civil court and fined or other options are available. She discussed this with Mr. Keeter. Although his actions were totally unintentional, he also understands the problem and would be willing to discuss the possibility of paying a fine for his actions. At this point, Hall Outdoor Advertising and Mr. Keeter have a significant investment in the property and they need to protect that investment. Ms. Bonnet stated that Lamar Advertising appeared before the City-County Planning Board in the past, and their application for special review was denied. After discussing this with Cat Cumin, she understood that the reason for denial was based upon the fact that the community is undergoing a very extensive study. Laurel is looking at community-wide development, not just in zoning and planning, and there is a concern as to how billboards fit into the big picture. She understands why the special review for Lamar Advertising was denied, but feels that the denial for this application should not be made on the same grounds. If the council really does not wm~t any billboards constructed in the community, there is a different and legal option. That option is to enact a moratorium. That has not been done and cannot be done after the fact. Ms. Bonner stated that "it is too little too late" if the council decided to enact a moratorium. The State of Montana has a law that specifies the proper process necessary to enact a moratoriun~, and it includes a public hearing, a field study process, and a second public hearing. This law is in Montana Code Section 76-2306. Council Minutes of August 17, 1999 In conclusion, Ms. Bonnet stated that it is their position that the special review application should be granted. If directed to do so, they would meet with the City Attorney, the Planning Director, or members of the council to look at the possibility of a fine as far as fairness in the process. Ms. Bomber thanked the council for their consideration and introduced Mr. Phil Keeter to present some information concerning the location. Phil Keeter is the owner of Hall Outdoor Advertising. In the summer of 1979, he constructed a 12 by 48-foot double-face sign on the vacant piece of property now occupied by Big Sky Nursery. Several years later, Mike and Sue Hoffman purchased the property and began a nursery business there. In 1985 or 1986, the sign was moved to about 50 feet to the west edge of the property from its original location in order to accommodate the expanding greenhouse operation. Paul and Lorrie Hanson have since purchased the property and business from the Hoffmans, and they have been kind enough to continue the relationship regarding the signs. In February 1998, Mr. Keeter met with the Hunsons to discuss the location of the sign and the inconvenience and safety concerns that it caused for the greenhouse operation. The sign was structurally sound, but it was getting old and there was a risk of being blown down in a strong windstorm. Mr. Keeter presented a photograph of the original sign. The Hunsons had recently purchased the property adjacent to them to the west, and Mr. Keeter negotiated a new' lease agreement with them. The agreement stated that he would remove the old sign and rebuild it and build another one on their property. Mr. Keeter presented several photographs to show the location of the signs. Mr. Keeter slated that he applied for and was granted the necessary permits from the Highway Department for the construction of these two new signs. He proceeded with the construction of these two new signs based on compliance with the rules and regulations regarding outdoor advertising as directed by the Montana State Department of Transportation and the local Yellowstone County Sign Code. He has used this code for over twenty years and was familiar with it. Construction was begun in March of last year and was completed in July. During this time, the old sign structure was removed. He had a sign at this location for over twenty years and has rebuilt it twice and moved it once. He never received a single complaint or comment from anyone regarding the sign. Mr. Keeter and the landowners were not aware of the recent annexation of this property into the City of Laurel, and theref6re did not believe that they needed to check with the city before starting construction of new signs or removal of the old sign. This was an honest mistake and was in no way an attempt to ignore or get around the regulations. Mr. Keeter offered his personal, sincere apologies to the City of Laurel. He stated that this oversight by Hall Outdoor Advertising is not reasonable cause for denial of their application. To be fair to everyone involved, he asked the council to consider the merits of the two signs regarding how they fit in and the benefits they produce. Mr. Keeter presented enlarged pictures of the old sign and the new signs for the conncil's comparison. Mayor Rodgers informed Mr. Keeter that the allotted twelve minutes had been used. Alderman Olson asked Mr. Keeter about a neighbor's complaint about the lights on one of his signs. Mr. Keeter explained the lighting system and stated that the problem would be fixed. Mayor Rodgers asked if there were any other proponents. Paul Hanson, owner of Big Sky Nursery and the land on which the signs am located, stated that he has nothing against the signs. The signs are well made and have been an asset to his property. He stated that they did not know that the property had been annexed into the city, and he apologized for the mistake. He presented a paper signed by his neighbors that stated that they had no problem with the sign and its location. Mayor Rodgers instructed Mr. Hanson to give the paper to the clerk- treasurer. Mr. Hanson thanked the council for letting him speak. Council Minutes of August 17, 1999 Alderman Temple asked Mr. Hanson for the amount of the lease income. Mr. Hanson stated that the yearly lease income of $2,000 helps to offset the taxes that tripled after the annexation. Alderman Temple asked Mr. Keeter about the cost of building the two signs. Mr. Keeter stated that he has $30,000 invested in them. Mayor Rodgers asked if there were any other proponents. No other proponents wished to speak. Mayor Rodgers asked if there were any- opponents. There were none. Mayor Rodgers asked if the proponents would like to have a three-minute rebuttal. Ms. Bonner requested that Mr. Keeter take the additional time to give some further information. She also asked that the neighbors in attendance have the opportunity for a show of hands in support. Aldermm~ Temple asked Mayor Rodgers to have the neighbors to give their name and address for the record. Mayor Rodgers agreed to this. The proponents present who gave their names were: Charles Holycross, 1611 East Railroad Street; Art Penny, 1503 East Railroad Street; John Strecker, 1411 East Railroad Street; and Lori Hanson, 1500 East Railroad Street. Mayor Rodgers asked Mr. Keeter to continue his presentation for an additional three minutes. Mr. Keeter stated that he understands that the City of Laurel is going through a study to see what can be done to revitalize the downtown area. Mr. Keeter said that outdoor advertising, specifically in these two locations, could play a major role in the revitalization. Some citizens in Big Timber leased a billboard, and it has been successful in drawing people off the interstate into downtown Big Timber. They have asked Mr. Keeter to find a billboard approaching Big Timber from the other direction. Mr. Keeter asked the council to weigh the benefits of the two interstate billboards. They fit exactly the definition of the type of businesses desired in a highway conm~ercial zone. They look great and improve the appearance of the area. They provide a viable source of income to the property owners and to him. They provide a valuable service to the local and area businesses. If used properly, they could play an important role in the revitalization of downtown Laurel by helping to draw people under the overpass and into town. Mr. Keeter stated that they want to continue to be a good neighbor and to be a positive part of this community. Alderman Johnson asked Mr. Keeter if there is a requirement regarding who can lease a sign. Mr. Keeter agreed that there are no restrictions, but he works with the local businesses before seeking advertisers from other areas. Bud Johnson asked for an estimate of the total signs owned by Hall Outdoor Advertising. Mr. Keeter estimated that he has twenty-five signs that are all located in commercial areas. Bud questioned whether the processes in other communities are different or similar to the processes used in Laurel. Mr. Keeter stated that the processes are different, as other communities do not have a special review process. Mr. Keeter has not been involved in a similar situation previously, and he did not know the particular aspects if a similar situation happened in another location. Mayor Rodgers asked the council if they had any further questions for the speakers. There were none. Motion by Alderman Olson to close the public hearing, seconded by Aldem~an Temple. Motion carried 5-0. Alderman Temple asked about the options available to the council. Council Minutes of August 17, 1999 Joe Leckie explained the two options available. The council could proceed and have discussion on the question, or the council could continue the discussion on the question to a later certain date. In no way could the council consider a decision on the matter beyond the next regular council meeting. Alderman Temple asked if the council could discuss it at the meeting and then vote at the next meeting. Joe Leckie further explained that the council could discuss it at the present meeting or could continue the discussion to the next council meeting, but a decision must be made by the next council meeting. Motion bv Alderman Temvle to open discussion at the present meeting and have the vote at the next meeting. Joe Leckie explained that the appropriate procedure would be to make a motion concerning a decision on the matter and open the matter for discussion and then to continue it to the next meeting. Alderman Temple withdrew his motion. Motion bv Alderman Otson to open the issue up for discussion, seconded by Aldennun Kroll. Motion carried 5-0. Aldem~an Olson asked Joe Leckie how the city notifies property owners of annexation. Joe Leckie explained that, at one time, the property owners submitted the property for annexation. Cal Cumin explained that this area was annexed into the city several years ago when the Entertainment Subdivision was proposed and approved. The subdivision was approved as an addition to the City of Laurel. The process included a public hearing and the propetty owners were notified by mail by the City of Laurel. The record of notification that is required by state law is the notification of record landowners in the courthouse. The Hansons were new landowners at the time and were not of record in the courthouse, so they were not notified. The law was met, but the Hansons were inadvertently not notified. Cal also pointed out that the issue is not particularly germane, because the zoning issue being discussed goes out one mile from the city limits. Alderman Temple stated that he is pro-billboards and uses billboards for his business. He talked with Rich Monger from the DeparUnent of Transportation in Helena, and also checked with the representative in Billings. He discovered that, if the city requirements are more restrictive than the state requirements, the city prevails. He does not have a problexn with the special review, but stated that the City of Laurel has no guidelines concerning billboards. A person can say that he does not like billboards, but we as a city do not have a sign ordinance within the city limits. Gary said that no one objects to the billboard across the street. He said that it is only a subjective decision regarding signs. Gary stated that Cal Cumin is in total disagreement to what he says. The first thing said by the representatives for the mvitalization process is that signs are needed to promote the community. Gary gave an example of the eft~ctiveness of the billboards. An individual who saw his billboard came into Laurel to visit his gallery. Gary stated that many people make their living from these billboards. The area between Billings and Laurel is the busiest lane of commerce in the state. He said that it is not a scenic highway and he would not want signage on a scenic highway such as the Beartooth Highway. Gary stated that to say that we can arbitrarily use our city-county planner to have his way to treat people this way with his demeanor and presence is getting rather old. Alderman Olson said that Mr. Keeter's attorney stated that we would be in violation of Montana Code if we were to vote one way. Ken asked if them is justification for their decision and if Joe Leckie could defend the decision of the council. Joe Leckie said that Ms. Bonner stated that a moratorium could not be imposed retroactively. If the council decided to impose a moratorium, the correct hearing process would have to be followed. It would only be effective as of the appropriate date of passage. Joe said that if the council denied the sign on the basis of failure to get the special review, there would be a legitimate defense of the council' s actions. Gary questioned whether that is true when there are no guidelines. Joe stated that that question is not really the issue at this time. Council Minutes of August 17, 1999 Gary questioned whether we are becoming objective or subjective. If a decision is made, we have to have guidelines and there is not a set policy. Joe Leckie said that he would respond to defense of the council' s actions. Bud Johnson stated that he wanted to take a different approach. He said that some of the actions of the council in the recent past with regard to some of the signs that have come before them, in his estimation, do not represent a disapproval of billboards. He believes it represents that Laurel is starting to awake to what is happening. Bud stated that he very much objects to the billboard across the street, has objected for quite some time, and will continue to do so. With respect to the business that placed the billboard there, he stated that it was a very inappropriate use of our downtown area. Bud said that the question before the council is not whether or not they are in favor of billboards. The question is the process that can either grant or deny the possibility to place a sign, and we do have stated guidelines for that process. This particular situation puts us in the most uncomfortable situation of addressing whether it is easier to ask for forgiveness or for permission. As he sees the situation, Bud does not think that Mr. Keeter intentionally placed the council in these circumstances. Mr. Keeter coincidentally finds that he is not the first incidence, but one of several that have been here. Bud said that the council must now decide the consequences for someone who makes an investment of this size without following the stated guidelines. Everyone that is for the continuance of this situation recognizes the fact that it is not the billboards that are causing the problems. Bud said that Mr. Keeter and Ms. Bouner both admitted that a mistake was made, and they want direction regarding what could be done to resolve the situation. Instead of hearing personal thoughts regarding billboards, Bud suggested that the council find options that would allow proceeding in a positive direction that would send a message to the surrounding areas that Laurel has guidelines that must be followed. Mr. Keeter stepped in at the wrong moment, but now the problem has to be addressed. Bud encouraged the council to come to the next council meeting with some ideas for meaningful direction. Ken Olson stated that he applauds Alderman Johnson for his remarks. Ken said that Mr. Keeter is not in an enviable position, and he applauded him for his willingness to participate in resolving the situation. Ken stated that the present situation shows the definite need to develop guidelines to prevent this from happening again in the future. He encouraged the council to find options that would be applicable to the situation. Gary Temple expressed his agreement with Alderman Johnson regarding concern about the billboard across the street. Gary cautioned the city-county planner about retroactively taking on other billboards. He stated that we need to go forward and look toward the future for the city. Mayor Rodgers stated that he understands that the council wants to look for options instead of going back to the past. He said that it would be wise for the council to consider this and return to the next council meeting with a set direction. Cal Cumin disagreed with the comments stating that there are no guidelines. He stated that there are guidelines for billboards in the ordinance. They are covered under the special review process. As a professional in this field, he stated that using the special review process to consider billboards is a good way to do it. The City of Billings has problems because they have areas where billboards are allowed and areas where billboards are not allowed. They are finding out that it does not address the issues. Under special review, the issues, such as lighting issues, can be addressed. As far as the City of Laurel not having guidelines, Cal expressed his emphatic disagreement. He stated that the City of Laurel has very good guidelines. Motion by Alderman Johnson to place the Hall Outdoor Advertising issue on the agenda for the September 7th council meeting, seconded by Alderman Olson. Motion carried 5-0. d. Laurel Jaycees: Laurel Community Fall Festival. Chris Wester, President of the Laurel Jaycees, mentioned that Jim Eastman met with the Public Works Committee the previous night. Mr. Eastman received a copy of the guidelines for use of the park at that meeting. Chris delivered a copy of their insurance policy to Joe Leckie today. The insurance agent told Chris that the activity would be protected under their insurance, but it cannot be guaranteed that a person would not try to sue other entities if an accident occurred. Chris said that Council Minutes of August 17, 1999 the recommendation of the Public Works Committee was that the activity should be approved if the insurance policy met with Joe Leckie's approval. The Jaycees do not yet know which clubs will need electricity. Chi'is asked for information regarding the location of the power so that they can use it and pay for it. Ken Olson asked Larry for an explanation of the decision of the Public Works Committee. Larry stated that the committee recommended approval of the request if the insurance policy was approved by Joe Leckie. The park rules are not yet finalized, but Larry is waiting to discuss them with Alderman Walton. Motion by Alderman Johnson to grant approval for the application providing that the Laurel Jaycees follow the guidelines laid down by Larry McCarm, with a special provision that Joe Leckie approves of the insurance provisions before the event occurs, seconded by Alderman Kroll. Motion carried 5-0. Chris Wester thanked the council for their consideration of this request. UNSCHEDULED MATTERS: Laveme Ivie, of the Yellowstone Conservation District, recently contacted Larry McCann about a Yellowstone River Tour that is scheduled for August 26th. Gay Easton is on the Conservation Board but was not at the council meeting to inform them about it. The tour will provide participants with the opportunity to see several types of bank stabilization projects at various locations. Stops will be made at points of interest and the participants will be allowed to leave the boats and listen as a history of the site is given. By the end of the day, participants should leave with sufficient knowledge to recognize when stream bank erosion is natural, when it becomes a problem, and how to effectively and appropriately use the proper stream bank stabilization method to control erosion. The luncheon will be held here that afternoon, and Larry and Gay will be giving a presentation about our intake problem. Laveme Ivie said that there are three available spots to participate in the tour. Larry will use one and suggested that Cal Cumin and a councilman also attend the tour. Reservations need to be sent in promptly. Larry McCann mentioned that the meeting with the aide from Conrad Burns' office is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 1 gth. He encouraged the councilmen to attend the meeting. Alderman Olson mentioned the positive response regarding the Employee Appreciation Luncheon that was held in Thomson Park today. Ken expressed concern regarding the tearing up of the ground around the shelter. He stated that there is an ordinance that addresses use of vehicles in the parks and states that no vehicles are allowed in the parks. The penalty for violation of the ordinance is up to six months in jail or a fine of $50 to $500. Ken stated that it is time for us to take responsibility for our parks so that an individual cannot cause this type of destruction without the maximum penalty being imposed. Ken expressed this to the council with the idea that it would provide momentam for better control and accountability in the parks. Ken thanked the council for the forum to vent his concerns. Mayor Rodgers thanked Ken for his comments and said that he would not like to see things fenced in to prevent similar occurrences. Bill Staudinger expressed his concem regarding the expense to the taxpayers that is caused by people who do not have respect for public property. He said that people would get the message if one offender were held responsible. Cal Cumin stated that enforcement is a key issue, and he deals with this in the county park system all the time. He suggested that offenders who are given community service work in the parks through CorpsLINK would probably not destroy the parks later. Council Minutes of August 17, 1999 There being no further business to come before the council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Cindy Afll~,/,Secretary Approved by the Mayor and passed by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, this 7th day of September, 1999. Charles G. R~gers, Ma~dr~ Attest: Mary K~bleton, Clerk-Treasurer