Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2015-02-10 Tuesday, February 10, 2015 TOWN BOARD 4:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION Rooms 202/203 4:00 p.m. Trustee Comments & Questions. 4:15 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items. (Board Discussion) 4:30 p.m. Sign Code 101 & Discussion of Code Revisions. (Director Chilcott) 5:30 p.m. Dinner Served. 5:45 p.m. Adoption Timeline & Process for 2015 International Building Codes. (Chief Building Official Birchfield) 6:15 p.m. 2015 Pride Awards. (Board Discussion) 6:30 p.m. Meeting Adjourn. “Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 3:45 p.m.” AGENDA                    February 24, 2015  Update on the Status of the Museum and Collection Storage Facility  Discussion of Proposed Bear (Wildlife) Ordinance Changes March 10, 2015  Review of Draft Policy on Public Forums  Proposed New Water Rates March 24, 2015  Amending Policy Governance 1.4, 1.6 & Policy 101  Discussion of Community Service Grants  ULI Report Discussion April 14, 2015  Possibility of Joining RTD  Discussion of 5 Year Plans for Infrastructure Projects April 28, 2015  Discussion of Town Owned Fish Hatchery Property Items Approved – Unscheduled: (Items are not in order of priority)  International Property Maintenance Code (Dangerous Buildings Code) and Adoption of New International Building Code Draft Reviews  Town of Estes Park Financial Policies  Downtown Development Authority  Discussion of How to Better Involve and Reach Out to the Hispanic Members of the Community Study Sessions Items for Board Consideration:  FEMA Community Rating System (Request for Approval to Engage Public in Discussions About Joining CRS Program)  Local Preference Purchasing Policy Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items February 10 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Wes Reichardt, Code Compliance Officer Date: February 10, 2015 RE: Sign Code 101 and Discussion of Sign Code Revisions Objective: Town Board’s 2015 Strategic Plan calls for revisions to the sign code to make it simpler and easier to understand, while retaining its basic intent. The purpose of this study session discussion is to establish the framework for the upcoming revision process by: 1. Introducing Town Board to the consultant, Randal Morrison of Sabine & Morrison, who has been selected to update Town Sign Code. 2. Providing Town Board and the public an overview of sign law and signs as a form of free speech (Sign Code 101 presentation) 3. Review Estes Park Sign Code Areas of Concern 4. Obtain input from Town Board prior to finalizing scope of work. Present Situation: Town Board’s Strategic Plan calls for revisions to the sign code to be completed in 2015 to make it simpler and easier to understand, while retaining its basic intent. The Town has budgeted $35,000 to complete this revision. The revisions will be completed by a consultant working closely with staff and the Town Attorney. Our consultant has recommended that an Ad Hoc Committee be formed to review and provide feedback on drafts to ensure the Town Board objective has been met. Staff will make recommendations at the Study Session. The bulk of the Town Sign Code was written in the 1980’s. The code will be completely re-written to address the following: 1. Organization and usability: Regulations vary from between tables and text that sometime have differing standards making it difficult to know which regulations govern. a. Split the code into two different sections. One for signs on public property and one for signs on private property. This allows for greater flexibility on public property and can still meet constitutional tests. b. Utilize new pictures and tables to allow for greater usability and organization to allow for clear answers to common questions. c. A single section for definitions. 2. Revise definition of a sign. a. Begin with a broad definition of a sign and narrow it down listing what is not a sign e.g. signature architecture, murals, federally recognized trademarks. This allows greater flexibility to allow art or other types of visual communication approved by the Town Board. 3. Content based restrictions: Review sign code for content based restrictions that could be removed or changed to avoid infringement of the first amendment. 4. Ensure the code meets due process rights of the customer for the issuance of sign permits and appeals. Currently appeals are heard by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustments. a. Change from a single board process to a multi-step appeal process with the Estes Valley Planning Commission and Town Board. 5. Revise code to address commercial condominiums and multiple tenant buildings to provide adequate signage rights to business or owners. a. Clarify the definition of building frontage and business frontage to allow signage rights to commercial condominiums and multi-tenant buildings (§17.66.040 Definitions-Frontage building, §17.66.100.d, & §17.66.110 Signs in nonresidential zones). 6. Banners: Sections are complex given the frequency of use, and could be simplified (§17.66.170 Large-scale community special event signs, §17.66.180 Town- sponsored special event signs, §17.66.190 Temporary banners commercial use, §17.66.200 Small-scale community special event signs, and §17.66.210). a. The 2010 Sign Code amendments created unclear regulations and doesn’t address new types of flags or air driven signs e.g. air crows, quill flags. 7. Illuminated signs, lights, and string lights. a. Update definitions to meet current technologies with light engineering terms. 8. Revisit creative sign design program removed from Sign Code in 2014. a. Creative sign programs are high risk for litigation if not all applicants are approved. Proposal: Tentative Schedule Subject Date Notes Sign Code 101 Presentation February 10, 2015 Town Board Study Session Form Ad Hoc sign committee February/ March 2015 Town Board Study Session Contract with Randall Morrison based on Scope of Work February, 2015 Public Outreach Meeting Early March, 2015 Draft Sign Code Presented to Town Board Early April, 2015 Randal Morrison or staff. Staff and Sign Code Committee Review of Draft 2 weeks April, 2015 Review with Greg White, Larimer County, etc. Revised draft based on staff review 2 weeks April / May 2015 Randall Morrison Present Draft Sign Code • Outcome: Schedule date for adoption, obtain feedback on revisions prior to adoption. May, 2015 Town Board Public Meeting Randall present Adoption of Sign Code June, 2015 Town Board Public Meeting, Randal present Publish and Codify June/July, 2015 Town Clerk Advantages:  Greater usability for staff and public.  Limit risk and increase legal defensibility. Disadvantages: Advantages far outweigh disadvantages. Disadvantages include upfront cost and staff time. However, the cost of litigation can easily exceed the cost of the revisions. Scope is limited to retaining basic intent, some members of the public may not support the basic intent, e.g. we have heard concerns such as:  Signage at the Stanley Park Fairgrounds.  Code is too restrictive and doesn’t allow the flexibility needed to attract customers. o Portable signs on sidewalks or leaning against building. o Number of free standing signs, wall signs per building or lot. o Maximum size of given types of signs. o Off premise signs advertising sales, special events, or homes for sale. Unless Town Board directs staff to expand scope and budget, these issues will not be addressed. Action Recommended: None. Budget: Account number: 101 2300 423 2213, Contract/Skilled Services, $35,000. Level of Public Interest  High in 2010.  Staff expect that interest will be moderate to high. Attachments: None. SIGN LAW 101 Presented to the Estes Park Town Board February 10, 2015 © 2014, 2015 Randal R Morrison, Sabine & Morrison, San Diego Website: www.signlaw.com Email: rrmsignlaw@gmail.com I.WHAT IS A SIGN? A.Basic Idea: communicative image on public display, visible from Public Right of Way B.Specific: depends on definition of “sign” in local sign ordinance C.Possible exclusions from “sign”: fireworks, searchlights, grave markers, personal appearance (sign walkers and commercial mascots?), aircraft, watercraft, flags, stained glass windows, signature architecture (i.e., Taco Bell and Arbys Restaurants) II.HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF SIGNS A.Rosetta Stone – (discovered 1799) – key to understanding ancient Egyptian B.Royal heraldry C.1517: Martin Luther’s “95 Theses” nailed to the door of the church in Wittenburg, Germany D.Flags: “Don’t Tread on Me”, “Liberty or Death” E.Graffiti on walls of ancient Rome III.KEY DISTINCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS A.On-site vs Off-site signs: traditionally used to put billboards in a separate category B.Commercial Speech vs. Non-commercial speech 1.Commercial: regular advertising, debate in marketplace of goods and services, seeking customers and clients 2.Non-commercial: debate in marketplace of ideas, mostly religion, politics, protest, commentary; seeking adherents, supporters C.Content-neutral: the rule does not turn on the message (exact definition & details much debated) IV.WHY REGULATE SIGNS? A.Spillover effects B.Visual clutter C.Advertising “shouting matches” D.Community esthetics E.Safety, driver distraction F.Property values, local economy V.FIRST AMENDMENT: “Congress shall make no law [1] respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [2] or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; [3] or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Every freedom listed in the First Amendment can be invoked by display of a sign. A communicative image on a sign is a kind of free speech. The federal civil rights remedies statute (42 USCA 1983) authorizes money damages and attorney’s fees. -1- VI.COLORADO CONSTITUTION, Art. II, section 10: “No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; . . .” VII.OREGON CONSTITUTION: Declaration of Rights mentions “on any subject” and “every person” A.Interpreted by Oregon state courts to mean: Governments cannot make the “onsite/ offsite” distinction or the “commercial/ noncommercial speech distinction B.One California trial court recently followed the Oregon model–appeal pending VIII.SIGN REGULATOR’S MANTRA: We regulate the medium, not the message. A.TPM – Time, Place and Manner rules: size, height, setback, illumination, separation B.TPM applies only when the rule is “content neutral.” IX.BASELINE: The Mosley Principle (Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972)) “Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Will the Mosley principle survive the sign case now at US Supreme (Reed v Gilbert AZ)? Details: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/reed-v-town-of-gilbert-arizona/ X.TEST FOR COMMERCIAL SPEECH RULES: Central Hudson v PSC, 447 US 557 (1980) A.Speech must concern legal products/ services, not be false or deceptive (No free speech for illegal products or deceptive marketing practices; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau) B.Gov’t interest substantial C.Directly advance the asserted interest D.Tailoring: not more extensive than necessary XI.BILLBOARDS AS A DISTINCT CLASS: A.Fifth Ave Coach v NYC, 221 US 467 (1911) US Supreme Ct recognized “general advertising for hire” business model B.Railway Express v. NYC, 336 US 106 (1949) Delivery trucks with ads on the sides – replay of 5th Ave Coach C.Is the “onsite / offsite” distinction “content based”? 1.Most courts say NO – it is a location chosen by the sign owner or ad sponsor 2.Where is the location of an idea (noncommercial speech)? a.Southlake v. Morrow, 112 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir. 1997) (ideas have no location; treat as onsite) b.National Adv v. Orange, 861 F.2d 246 (9th Cir. 1988) (any location with related human activity) D.A better way to define billboards: 1.Focus on the economic model: general advertising for hire, or: 2.Permanent structure in fixed location that meets any one or more of the following criteria: a.used for general advertising for hire b.used for display of off-site commercial messages c.separate principal use of the property, not auxiliary -2- XII.SIGN TRUCKS/ MOBILE BILLBOARDS A.Can be banned from public roads B.SHARK: Showing Animals Respect and Kindness v. West Hollywood, 166 Cal.App.4th 816 (2008) (City could ban all sign trucks from public streets, even noncommercial video) C.Fifth Avenue Coach and Railway Express (both cited above) D.Public road purpose: transportation, not advertising theater XIII.MOST FAMOUS CASE: METROMEDIA V. SAN DIEGO (US Supreme 1981) (90+ pages) Three basic “rules” 1.Cities can ban billboards or restrict them to certain areas] 2. Gov’t cannot favor commercial over noncommercial 3. Gov’t can’t show favoritism among noncommercial categories XIV.YARD SIGNS A.Linmark Realty v Willingboro, 431 US 85 (1977) Onsite residential real estate for sale signs cannot be banned – location is crucial B.Ladue v Gilleo, 512 US 43 (1994) – protest sign in yard People have a right to express political views where they live C.Solving the Yard Sign Problem 1.Define permissible cumulative area of all signs in the yard, let the resident divide it up 2.State that sign area may be used for: a. Real estate for sale, any noncommercial speech b. (policy calls): garage sales, home-based occupation c. No “general advertising for hire” (billboard use) D. Optional: expand the display area during pre-election period GK Ltd v. Lake Oswego OR, 436 F3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2006) XV.POLITICAL SIGNS A.Why have special rules for political/ election/ campaign signs? B.Do “Political Sign Rules” violate the “choosing the topic of debate” rule from Mosley? C.Same practical result: Rules for temporary sign structures displaying noncommercial messages, including political/ campaign/ election – Allow at all times, but increase total area in pre-election period – this issue is included in Reed v Gilbert, now at US Supreme XVI.SIGNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY A.Traditional Public Forum: surfaces of streets, parks, sidewalks; in these areas, in-person picketing & protesting cannot be completely banned, but reasonable TPM rules usually okay B.Government does not need to give itself permission to put its own message on its own property. C.City Council acceptance of private donation of Ten Commandments monument, for permanent display in city park, converted the monument to government speech; no obligation to allow similar display right to monuments offered by other religious groups. Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009). Similar: Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) (Commandments monument on grounds of TX State Capital did not violate Establishment Clause; it was only one of many displays, and was not highlighted.) -3- XVII.CONTENT NEUTRALITY – Rule does not turn on message A.Many formulations; courts debate exact meaning B.Core issue in sign case now at US Supreme: Reed v. Gilbert XVIII.RULES VS. GUIDELINES A.Rules are enforceable law; should be definite and clear; judges want “narrow, objective” rules B.Guidelines are statements of preferences and goals, inherently discretionary; cannot be the sole basis for denying a sign permit XIX.EXEMPTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS A.Exempted from what? Sign Code? Size Rule? Permit? B.Exemptions based on message content are often invalidated XX.MURALS: Pure Art or oversize commercial sign? Thematically linked to store merchandise? A.Search images.google.com for “Wag More Dogs” and “Inland Octopus” B.Both examples led to disputes, both were found to be illegal as oversize commercial signs. Wag More Dogs v. Cozart, 680 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2012); Catsiff v. McCarty, 167 Wash.App. 698, 274 P.3d 1063 (WA App 2012). XXI.DIGITAL SIGNAGE A.Controversial, much debated B.Modernizing or carnivalizing? C.Complete ban on digitals approved for Concord NH D.Within “flashing, blinking, intermittent light”? 1.Yes: Scenic Arizona v Phoenix BOA, 268 P3d 370 (AZ App 2011) 2.No: Federal Highway Admin guidance interpreting Highway Beautification Act (currently in litigation) XXII.SIGN CODE UPDATE A.Preventive law is much cheaper than emergency fix under litigation B.Process models: 1.Internal – city planners and competent attorneys 2.Citizens advisory committee: make sure all interest groups are represented C.Two Chapter approach: regulatory and proprietary, maximize flexibility under public forum and gov’t speech doctrines -4- COMMUNITY DEVELOMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official Date: February 10, 2015 RE: Adoption Timeline & Process for 2015 International Building Codes Objective: The Chief Building Official is recommending adoption of the 2015 International Building Codes. Staff is requesting direction as to if and how to proceed with a process to adopt these Codes. Present Situation: The International Code Council (ICC) has published the 2015 editions of the International Building Codes. The Town is currently using the 2009 editions, which are not current and not consistent with neighboring jurisdictions. Proposal: The adoption process will be facilitated by staff and the Board of Appeals. The process will be funded through the Community Development budget. The Chief Building Official will manage the process as outlined in the attached document “Adoption Timeline & Process.” Advantages: The newer editions of codes are more consistent with newer technologies, neighboring jurisdictions, and better performance records. Disadvantages: The adoption of the 2015 editions of the International Building Codes will require changes in construction practices, and cause the end users more money. However, the National standards used by designers have already changed and the adoption will facilitate consistency, which saves time and money. Action Recommended: • Direct staff to proceed with a process to adopt the 2015 edition of the International Building Codes, as outlined, and to bring updates and recommendations for adoption to the Town Board. • Direct staff to include fees as part of the public process and to bring a recommendation to the Town Board. Future Town Board direction will include whether or not the fee schedules should be part of the Codes, as historically done, or approved by a process separate from the Codes adoptions, as was directed with the previous adoption of the 2009 Codes. (See attached Fee Schedules). • Future Town Board direction will include whether or not Policies and Procedures of the Division of Building Safety be incorporated into the Codes as Local Amendments, as directed with the previous process; or, shall they be reviewed and approved by an alternate process as was the historic practice? (See example). Budget: The cost is funded through the Community Development and Town Clerk’s budgets. The Town Clerk is required to publish the Local Amendments. Level of Public Interest Medium to high interest by local contractors and stakeholders, depending on topic. Sample Motion: Not applicable to this memo. Attachments: 1. Adoption Timeline & Process 2. Fees Information 3. Example of Policies and Procedures (Section 107 Submittal Documents) 4. 2015 International Property Maintenance Code Significant Issues ADOPTION TIMELINE & PROCESS The Chief Building Official recommends adoption of the 2015 International Building Codes with local amendments, and the 2014 National Electrical Code as adopted by the State of Colorado. Staff recommends engaging the public in discussions of the significant changes, proposed amendments and stakeholder concerns. The Chief Building Official recommends public discussions be facilitated in the following order, as outlined in the 2015 International Building Code (IBC): 2015 International Building Code (IBC) Primary Code 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) Primary Code 2015 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) Secondary Code 2015 International Mechanical Code (IMC) Secondary Code 2015 International Plumbing Code (IPC) State Code 2015 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) Secondary Code 2015 International Fire Code (IFC) Secondary Code 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) Secondary Code * 2015 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) Secondary Code 2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) State Code ∗ Required by State if adopting a building code The Chief Building Official recommends including discussions of the International Property Maintenance Code, which is the only aforementioned code from 2009 which is not currently adopted. The NEC is a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard and not part of the International Codes. The Chief Building official has requested the Board of Appeals (BOA) officially participate in the public process and make recommendations to the Town Board of Trustees. Based on the BOA’s willingness to participate, staff recommends the following process and schedule as a broad outline to facilitate public involvement by all interested stakeholders. I. Significant Changes The Chief Building Official will review all changes to a specific code (in the order previously specified), identify changes potentially significant to local concerns and present them to the Board of Appeals (BOA) for discussion and determination of local significance. The BOA meetings will be open to the public, and public involvement will be encouraged and facilitated. II. Local Concerns and Amendments After the BOA makes a recommendation regarding significant changes, the Board will facilitate a subsequent discussion regarding proposed local amendments, and encourage the public to identify their concerns, all specific to the code under discussion. Amendments are necessary to address local concerns. Subsequent public meetings will be facilitated by staff as necessary to allow all stakeholders an opportunity to identify their concerns. III. Other Public Outreach Staff makes themselves available to various groups, to provide information at their regularly scheduled meetings (Board of Realtors, Estes Valley Contractors Association, Association for Responsible Development, etc.). IV. Update Presentations Staff can provide monthly updates of the International Codes adoption process to the Community Development/Community Services Committee and/or Town board, as directed. The updates can include significant changes, staff recommendations, BOA recommendations, and public concerns and comments. V. Process/Schedule Staff recommends the following tentative process/schedule: DATE MEETING GROUP AGENDA TOPICS 2015.02.05 Board of Appeals Discuss Fees Present Significant Changes Packet to 2012 IBC Discuss adoption process and materials format and obtain consensus from Board 2015.03.12 Board of Appeals Discuss Significant Changes to IBC (review materials distributed two weeks prior) Discuss IBC proposed amendments and public concerns Present significant changes packet for IRC 2015.03.TBD Public Meeting (if necessary) Discuss IBC significant changes, proposed amendments and public concerns 2015.03.24 Town Board Update on IBC 2015.04.02 Board of Appeals Update on March Public Meeting (IBC) (if public meeting was held) Discuss IRC significant changes, proposed amendments and public concerns Present significant changes packet to IFGC, IMC, IPC 2015.04.TBD Public Meeting (if necessary) Discuss IRC significant changes, proposed amendments and public concerns 2015.04.21 Town Board Update on IRC 2015.05.07 Board of Appeals Update Board on April Public Meeting (IRC) (if public meeting was held) Discuss IFGC, IMC, IPC significant changes, proposed amendments and public concerns Present significant issues packet of IPMC 2015.05.TBD Public Meeting (if necessary) Discuss IFGC, IMC, IPC significant changes, proposed amendments and public concerns 2015.05.26 Town Board Update on IFGC, IMC, IPC MEETINGS CANCELLED JUNE & JULY DUE TO SUMMER WORK LOAD OF STAFF AND CONTRACTORS 2015.08.06 Board of Appeals Update Board on May Public Meeting (IFGC, IMC, IPC) Discuss IPMC significant issues and public concerns Present significant changes packet of IFC 2015.08.TBD Public Meeting (if necessary) Discuss IPMC significant issues, proposed amendments and public concerns 2015.08.25 Town Board Update on IPMC 2015.09.03 Board of appeals Update Board on August Public Meeting (IPMC) Discuss IFC significant changes, proposed amendments and public concerns Present significant changes packet of IECC 2015.09.TBD Public Meeting (if necessary) Discuss IFC significant changes, proposed amendments and public concerns 2015.09.22 Town Board Update on IFC 2015.10.01 Board of Appeals Update Board on IFC Discuss IECC significant changes, proposed amendments and public concerns Present significant changes packet to IEBC 2015.10.TBD Public Meeting (if necessary) Discuss IECC significant changes, proposed amendments and public concerns 2015.10.27 Town Board Update on IECC 2015.11.05 Board of Appeals Update Board on IECC Discuss Significant changes to IEBC Present final recommendations – Significant Changes, Local Amendments, Local Concerns 2015.11.TBD Public Meeting (if necessary) Discuss IEBC significant changes, proposed amendments and public concerns Present final recommendations – Significant Changes, Local Amendments, Local Concerns 2015.11.24 Town Board Update on IEBC and Final Recommendations 2015.12.03 Board of Appeals Share information and direction from Town Board Update Board on October Meeting (IEBC) 2015 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES The Chief Building Official has identified the following significant issues if the Town Board approves adoption of the 2015 International Property Maintenance Code: 1. Section 302. Exterior Property Areas. Some of the issues addressed in this section are also addressed in the Estes Park Municipal Code or the Estes Valley Development Code (weeds, vehicles, etc.). This issue can be resolved by amending one or all the codes. 2. Section 308. Rubbish & Garbage See comments regarding Section 302. 3. Section 309. Pest Extermination See comments regarding Section 302. 4. Section 404. Occupancy Limitations See comments regarding Section 302. 5. Public concerns to be identified and addressed through the public process. Staff will recommend amendments based on local concerns.