Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council Rejects Motion to Recommend Larger Interstate-Area Signs; Planning Board Had Recommended a Modest Increase
Summary
The City Council declined to recommend an amendment that would have allowed larger freestanding signs near I-90 after a planning-board-backed proposal met resistance over visibility and aesthetics.
The Belgrade City Council voted down a motion to recommend first reading of a zoning text amendment that would increase allowable freestanding sign area near Interstate 90.
Brad Stein, the city's senior planner, told the council the planning board recommended allowing up to 100 square feet for freestanding signs within 500 feet of I-90 (up from the current 40-square-foot limit), and clarified related code changes on sign height and number per street frontage. "The board actually recommended approval to keep the 40 square foot sign everywhere else in the city, and then to go to the hundred square feet within 500 linear distance from the interstate," Stein said.
Council Member Meese moved to recommend approval of the ordinance with clarifying edits and to set a May 19 public hearing; Council Member Matamau seconded. After discussion about view-shed impacts and whether a larger allowance would "ugly up" the town, the council took a roll-call vote. Recorded votes included: Jason Duffy: No; Mike Nies: Aye; Jim Simon: No; Chris Manicucci: No; Erin Bell: No; Renee Manimal: Yes. The motion failed.
Why it matters: the proposal would have allowed larger commercial signs to attract motorists from the interstate but raised concerns about long-term visibility and the character of Belgrade's downtown and corridor. Planners had discussed a larger 200-square-foot option but the planning board favored a more limited 100-square-foot allowance as a compromise.
Discussion vs. decision: the meeting included explanation of the proposed text amendment (planning staff) and council debate; the council did not advance the ordinance for public hearing after the failed motion. The first-reading vote was not taken; next steps would be for staff or council members to reintroduce a revised proposal or bring the item back at a future meeting if desired.
Ending: The council declined to send the amendment forward; the item remains eligible for further action if a new motion is made or staff returns with revised language.
