HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No 1780, Amending Title 18, BMC rotating signs.pdf
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Interim Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: First Reading Ordinance 1780, amending Title 18, Unified Development
Ordinance, BMC to allow rotating signs subject to defined standards and creating related
definitions.
MEETING DATE: March 1, 2010
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action.
RECOMMENDATION: Consider the presented draft Ordinance 1780 and information and
decide whether and how to proceed with ordinance revisions.
BACKGROUND: The City Commission directed the preparation of amendments to the City’s
sign regulation that would allow for a rotating barber pole sign. Staff has reviewed the existing
regulations, considered the standards for sign regulations, and has drafted an ordinance for
Commission consideration which would meet the direction. Due to the nature of sign regulations,
the amendment does not specify solely barber pole signs but allows for a sign standard which
would allow installation of a barber pole among other forms of rotating signs.
The Zoning Commission has conducted their review and their resolution and minutes are
included with this memo. No public comment was received at the zoning commission public
hearing. The public hearing for the Zoning Commission and City Commission was properly
published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle.
FISCAL EFFECTS: No fiscal effects are known at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: As directed by the City Commission
Attachments: City Commission staff report
Draft Ordinance 1780
Zoning Commission Resolution Z-10006
Zoning Commission minutes
Application form
Published Notice
Report compiled on: February 24, 2010
101
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
UDO TEXT AMENDMENTS RE REVOLVING SIGNS FILE NO. #Z-10006
#Z-10006 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 1
Item: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Application #Z-10006, to
amend the text of the Unified Development Ordinance to permit revolving
signs within defined parameters.
Applicant: Bozeman City Commission
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
Representative: Department of Planning and Community Development
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
Date/Time: Before the Bozeman Zoning Commission on Wednesday, February 17, 2010
at 7:00 p.m. in the Commission Room, City Hall 121 N Rouse Avenue,
Bozeman, Montana. Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday,
March 1, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in the Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North
Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana.
Report By: Chris Saunders, Interim Director of Planning and Community Development
PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed edits would be applicable throughout the area of the B-1, B-2, B-3, UMU, and HMU
zoning districts of the City of Bozeman. This amendment process does not alter the boundaries of
zoning districts.
PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City of Bozeman Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on the application on February
17, 2010. They have recommended favorably on the application as originally presented. Their
recommendation is provided in the attached resolution.
The City’s standards and procedures must be kept updated to accommodate changing community needs
and priorities, regulatory requirements, and changing knowledge. The City of Bozeman constantly
monitors its Unified Development Ordinance as it is applied to the community. The public review
process for the draft amendment text allows evaluation of ideas and refinement of specific text.
The City Commission directed the preparation of an amendment to the City’s sign regulations which
would allow rotating barber pole signs. Presently, rotating signs are not allowed within Bozeman. The
amendments as proposed would allow such a sign but are not limited to just barber poles. Sign
regulations, by necessity of law, have differences from other types of land use regulations. See the
102
#Z-10006 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 2
additional criteria beginning on page 4. The draft amendments have been crafted to conform to the extra
restrictions on sign regulations while accomplishing the direction of the City Commission.
Sign regulations, more so than most other elements of land use regulations, are very complex and
subject to many legal requirements. Due to the relationship between the required protection of speech
guaranteed by the US and Montana constitutions and the regulatory structure apparently small intended
changes can have significant consequences. Sign regulations have a significant effect on the safety and
appearance of a community. Those concerns must be balanced with the need and ability for businesses
to communicate with current and potential customers. Effective signs are designed in a manner that is
sensitive to their context including their location and the community around them.
The City adopted its first sign code on May 1, 1883 as part of Ordinance 8. It was signed by Mayor J.V.
Bogert, after whom Bogert Park is named.
“Section 16. Hereafter it shall be unlawful for any person to have or keep any projecting sign
on his or her premises on Main Street, or build or keep any window projecting beyond the line
of the lot of the said premises. Neither shall any wooden awning or post to support the same be
allowed in front of any premises on Main Street, and any person violating the conditions of this
section shall be fined in any sum not exceeding twenty-five dollars, and the city marshal is
hereby authorized to remove all obstructions, after giving thirty days notice to the parties
keeping the same, provided that all such as manifestly obstruct the sidewalk shall be moved
immediately.”
The City adopted its present sign code in 1991 as part of a comprehensive update to the zoning
regulations. Those changes followed a 14 month effort by a 12 member Ad Hoc Committee to develop a
comprehensive sign ordinance. Several minor adjustments have been made in the intervening years but
the essential components of the regulations have remained the same.
Discussion on specific amendment elements:
Definitions: Two definitions are modified or created in the proposed amendments. The definition for
revolving signs is clarified to better communicate the character of what is to be permitted. A new
definition is created for animated signs. This is necessary to allow a clear distinction between an
animated sign which may flash, move or otherwise show activity, and is prohibited, and a rotating sign,
which is to be permitted. Both were previously prohibited types of signs. Since both were prohibited the
distinction was less important. Where one is now allowed the distinction becomes important.
Allowed sign types: The amendment permits a revolving sign to be included as part of a projecting sign.
This limits the location of the revolving sign. Projecting signs must be attached to the building and have
limits to their overall size and the distance they may extend from the building. Projecting signs are
primarily located in higher volume pedestrian oriented areas. Projecting signs are typically away from
the vehicle driving lanes and must be mounted at a height to allow a clear zone underneath them for
pedestrians.
REVIEW CRITERIA
The Zoning Commission criteria for review are established in statute. The analysis below notes that
review criteria are met with the term ‘yes’; are not met with the term ‘no’; or are not materially affected
103
#Z-10006 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 3
with the term ‘neutral’. This report is a summary of the Staff’s analysis.
Interpretation and application of the Unified Development Ordinance must take into account the
document as a whole. If a substantial change is made then a particular point may be emphasized. To
prevent redundancy, when an earlier review criterion has addressed an issue a later review criterion
addressing the same issue may refer back to the prior answer.
According to Section 18.70.020 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the Bozeman Zoning
Commission shall cause to be made an investigation of facts bearing on each UDO text amendment
application relevant to zoning. The Zoning Commission must review the information they consider
necessary to assure that the action of each UDO text amendment application is consistent with the intent
and purpose of the UDO. Specifically, the investigation must address the following criteria as required
in Section 76-2-304, Montana Code Annotated.
There are additional review criteria beyond necessary to consider speech regulations beyond the normal
zoning requirements. The Zoning Commission is charged to offer a recommendation only on those
established by Section 76-2-304, MCA which are identified by letter below.
Section 76-2-304, MCA Criteria
A. Be in accordance with a growth policy.
Neutral. There is little text in the Bozeman Community Plan (the growth policy) which is specific to
signs. Most of that text is in Appendices D and J and is descriptive of existing regulations and
standards relating to signs. Some language is applicable on the basis of general principles, primarily
as it relates to the visual elements of signs. As discussed elsewhere in this report, a sign can be a
distraction to a driver and thereby be a hazard. A sign also is a part of the overall appearance of a
development and can contribute or distract from the overall visual quality and interest of the site.
Overall, the Bozeman Community Plan encourages quality of design and protection of the public
safety. Generally applicable principles are illustrated by the following excerpts from the Bozeman
Community Plan.
Chapter 4, Community Quality, Section 4.1, Intent and Background. “In many ways, the
perceived image of a community affects the quality of life enjoyed by current residents,
influences the desirability of the community to newcomers and visitors, and ultimately
impacts its economic viability…. Community Quality extends from the framework of the
City, that which supports it and gives it physical form (streets, utilities, trails, natural
features) to the individual architectural details and materials used on new buildings.”
Chapter 8, Economic Development, Section 8.3 Economic Development Goals and
Objectives, “Objective ED-1.3: Foster a positive economic climate through a well managed
and aesthetically pleasing built environment, and by maintaining a beautiful and healthy
natural environment to promote and attract businesses with a desirable impact on the
community.”
Chapter 13, Disaster and Emergency Preparedness, Section 13.1, Intent and Background.
“Risk and the possibility of things going wrong are inescapable. However, many risks can
be foreseen and proper forethought and action can reduce the likelihood and severity of
impacts…”
Section 13.3, Disaster and Emergency Preparedness Goals and Objectives, “Goal D-2:
104
#Z-10006 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 4
Recognize and strive to address both chronic as well as acute hazards and the effect of
cumulative actions on increasing or decreasing hazards.
Rationale: While some problems occur quickly and have obvious impacts, others can be
inconspicuous and only recognized after longer term evaluation. Some problems, like
flooding, can be increased incrementally by actions that individually are not significant.
However, as many actions are taken the cumulative effect can result in a substantially
increased hazard level and impact to the community.”
B. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.
Yes. The amendments as presented have been drafted to minimize the risk of distraction to drivers.
This is accomplished by specifying location of mounting to be on the building rather than toward the
street and constraining the size so that they are less readily seen against the diverse visual
environment of the building facades. Pedestrians, who travel at a lower speed and therefore have
greater opportunities for adjusting more easily to a more active visual and physical environment can
appropriately respond to the additional visual activity of the rotating sign. The signs are required to
be mounted at a height which minimizes the likelihood of interference with pedestrian travel. These
standards help ensure that the transportation systems will work smoothly with fewer disruption and
hazards.
C. Secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers.
Neutral. It is not expected that these subjects will be directly affected by these amendments. The
amendments indirectly address these issues by addressing and minimizing issues relating to
transportation, see item B.
D. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare.
Yes. The amendments generally address these issues by addressing and minimizing issues relating
to transportation, see item B.
E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
Neutral. None of the edits change setbacks, required area per dwelling or, allowed lot coverage. The
building codes and other standards remain in place and will ensure that adequate light and air is
provided.
F. Prevention of overcrowding of land.
Neutral. These amendments are not altering requirements for lot coverage or building density.
Objectively, overcrowding is a condition where the use of land overwhelms the ability of
infrastructure and buildings to meet the needs of users. This functional problem is addressed by
ensuring the installation of water, sewer, transportation, and other services.
G. Avoiding undue concentration of population.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not change standards for density of population.
H. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and
other public requirement.
Neutral. These amendments do not address public facilities. In so far as transportation may be
affected, the amendments generally address these issues by addressing and minimizing issues
relating to transportation, see item B.
105
#Z-10006 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 5
I. Conserving the value of buildings.
Neutral. These amendments do not address standards for historic preservation.
J. Character of the district.
Yes. The primary character giving standards of the various zoning districts remain essentially
unchanged. The locations where the proposed amendments would apply have a higher degree of
pedestrian orientation where the sign changes can be effective with lesser potential for negative
impacts.
K. Peculiar suitability for particular uses.
Neutral. The amendments are not specific to a particular parcel. The amendments are specific to
certain zoning districts which have a commercial/industrial character where the revolving signs are
less disruptive to the character than they would be in a residential area.
L. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area.
Neutral. These amendments will not alter the uses allowed in zoning districts or the boundaries of
the districts.
M. Promotion of Compatible Urban Growth.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not expand the development area of the City or change the
allowed land uses in the zoning districts.
Additional Criteria
Additional criteria exist for regulations which control speech. These standards are not from a single
location like the State of Montana criteria for zoning review. These items have been identified through
the courts evaluation of cases relating to the constitutional protection of speech. These additional criteria
are addressed below. Each individual criteria is identified by a number.
Speech may be regulated by local governments for a variety of reasons. For example, the City may
reasonably limit the ability to use a sound amplification system at 3am in a residential area in order to
avoid disturbance of the peace. So long as the City does not apply its rule inequitably the relevant
criteria can be met. Signs are a form of speech and are subject to similar protections. There are many
nuances of speech protection which are beyond the scope of this report. Signs are different from much
other speech in that: they do occupy space on a typically long term basis; they are exclusive in that they
prevent other signs from occupying the same space; they are exposed to all those who pass by whether
or not the passersby are seeking the information being communicated; their primary audience is usually
on land legally separated from the sign’s host site; and they have the potential to influence physical
occurrences such as car accidents due to their location and/or ability to distract drivers or blocking the
ability to see another sign or other location. Signs are speech which shares many characteristics with
physical land uses.
1) Is the regulation content neutral: The proposed regulations solely govern location and other
physical attributes of the sign itself. The code administrator does not need to know the content of the
sign in order to determine if the regulations have been met. No favor is given to any message over
another. As the regulation is content neutral there is no distinction or restriction between the
application of the regulation on either non-commercial or commercial speech.
106
#Z-10006 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 6
2) Is the regulation viewpoint neutral: Since the proposed regulation is content neutral it is also
viewpoint neutral. No judgment on the specific message of the sign will be called for to determine if
the sign meets the physical standards of the regulations.
“The TPM [time, place, manner] test is appropriately applied to ordinances which seek to regulate all
types of signage in content and viewpoint-neutral fashion.” A Legal and Technical Exploration of On-
Premise Sign Regulation: An Evidence Based-Model Sign Code, Urban Design Associates
The proposed regulation does regulate the time, place and manner of speech.
3) Time: The sign application review process is clearly defined and generally administrative with
specified approval steps and durations allowed for timely review and final action. The proposed
regulation places no restriction on time for use of the sign. The sign may be physically present in an
approved location at all times of day and year after it is approved. There are no restriction on hours
of operation for the sign. There is a general requirement in existing regulations for abandoned signs
to be removed.
4) Place: The sign type is specified within zoning districts which have a higher pedestrian
orientation that will functionally work well with the regulatory parameters. Zoning districts have
physical location on the earth as designated on the City’s zoning map. The location is therefore
predictable and not left to administrative discretion. Changes to the zoning map are legislative
actions through a public process defined in state law and local ordinance. The overall allowed
location is addressed as part of the zone map amendment process where an overall development
character is determined for an area and signs are incidental to the overall decision. The physical
location for mounting on the building is appropriate to the overall projecting sign type and is
relevant to the areas of public interest described in this report.
5) Manner: The sign type, revolving, is restricted in size to minimize the potential impacts which
can arise from moving signs. As noted below, visual distractions are a contributor to safety hazards.
The shape, color, or characteristics other than size are not affected by this proposed amendment.
Placement away from the right-of-way for vehicles minimizes the potential for distraction to the
motorist while allowing use of the sign for communication to pedestrians who have different travel
characteristics.
5&6) Place and manner combined: These items influence the technical components of sign
regulation. Such items include the speed of the viewer of the sign and the orientation of the sign to
the direction of travel. The proposed regulations address sign size and physical placement as is most
appropriate to the intended viewer, the pedestrian.
“Intended viewer. To define sign characteristics, it is necessary to first establish the intended
viewing conditions for the sign. This primarily is a decision on whether the critical observer
is a driver or a pedestrian.”
“Orientation to roadway. The orientation of a sign to the viewing direction affects its
legibility. As the orientation angle increases, the size of sign features also need to increase to
107
#Z-10006 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 7
maintain the same degree of legibility.” A Legal and Technical Exploration of On-Premise
Sign Regulation: An Evidence Based-Model Sign Code, Urban Design Associates
“In commercial speech cases, then, a four-part analysis has developed. At the outset, we must determine
whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that
provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the
asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine
whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more
extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.” Central Hudson Gas & Electric Company v. Public
Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980)
7) Lawful activity and not misleading: The proposed regulations do not intrude into these topics as
they do not make any inquiry into the content of the sign message. Any concerns about illegal
activity or misleading content will need to be resolved through other law regarding fraud or other
inappropriate activity. This criteria is therefore satisfied.
8) Substantial governmental interest: Public safety is a primary concern of local government.
Pedestrian/vehicle conflicts have resulted in pedestrian fatalities and serious injury in Bozeman in
the recent past. Motor vehicle collisions occur frequently in Bozeman. The Bozeman Police
Department responded to 1,359 collisions in 2009 and 1,541 collisions in 2008. Incidents of driving
under the influence have seen a steady increase over the past several years reaching 721 in calendar
year 2009.
As Bozeman increases in population and corresponding pedestrian and vehicular traffic the driving
environment becomes more complex. Safe recovery time from driver inattention becomes less
available as more densely occupied travel environments reduce vehicle spacing and increase the
probability of pedestrians and vehicles being near to one another in time and space.
As shown in the quotes below from various publications, the presence of signs affects the distraction
of drivers which is connected to the overall likelihood of accident. Steps can be taken to minimize
these affects.
“The purpose of a sign is to attract the attention of passersby so that a message is conveyed.
To the degree signs attract the attention of vehicle drivers, they may distract them from the
activity of driving.”
“The goal of the outdoor advertising sign is to be a visual attraction outside the right-of-way,
possibly making it a source of driver distraction.”
“Driver distraction plays a significant role in traffic safety. Driver distraction is a factor in
one in four crashes, and of those crashes involving driver distraction, one in four involves
distractions outside the vehicle.” “Dynamic” Signage: Research Related To Driver
Distraction And Ordinance Recommendations, SRF Consulting Group, Inc., report prepared
for the City of Minnetonka, MN, 2007.
108
#Z-10006 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 8
“A study prepared by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center for
the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety examined the sources of driver distraction in traffic
crashes. The data came from the CDS from 1995-1999. Of the thirteen specific sources of
distraction tracked by the study, the greatest source of distraction was an outside person,
object or event. While the study does not break down the sources of outside distraction, it
does show that distractions outside the vehicle are the largest factor in distraction-related
crashes.” The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes (Stutts et al., 2001), University
of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, cited in “Dynamic” Signage: Research
Related To Driver Distraction And Ordinance Recommendations, SRF Consulting Group,
Inc., report prepared for the City of Minnetonka, MN 2007.
“A clear relationship between involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes
and engaging in inattention-related activities during baseline driving was observed.” The
Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car
Naturalistic Driving Study Data, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, DOT HS 810 594.
“The analysis of eyeglance behavior indicates that total eyes-off-road durations of greater
than 2 seconds significantly increased individual near-crash/crash risk whereas eyeglance
durations less than 2 seconds did not significantly increase risk relative to normal, baseline
driving. The purpose behind an eyeglance away from the roadway is important to consider.
An eyeglance directed at a rear-view mirror is a safety-enhancing activity in the larger
context of driving while eyeglances at objects inside the vehicle are not safety enhancing. It
is important to remember that scanning the driving environment is an activity that enhances
safety as long as it is systematic and the drivers’ eyes return to the forward view in under 2
seconds.” The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using
the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, DOT
HS 810 594.
Reductions in driver distraction allow for greater focus on the driving task. Increased focus reduces
reaction time and therefore reduces the likelihood of collision and possibility of injury.
9) Is the regulation not more extensive than required: The larger a sign is in size the more visible
it is at a distance. The higher the rate of speed the larger a sign must be in order to allow a driver to
see the sign and react to its message. At higher rates of speed a distracted driver will travel farther.
For example, as shown in the table below, a pedestrian walking at 3 miles per hour will have a much
greater opportunity to see and react to a sign before passing by it. If the pedestrian were distracted by
the sign for two seconds they would travel less than ten feet and the stopping distance would be
minimal. A driver travelling at 25 miles per hour and distracted for two seconds would travel more
than 70 feet, greater than three car lengths. The recommended following distance for safe driving is
two seconds. If the driver were distracted for two seconds they could have lost their ability to stop
the vehicle before colliding with another vehicle or a pedestrian. The regulation is therefore
appropriate and not overbroad.
109
#Z-10006 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 9
Feet
per
Mile
Miles
per hour
Feet
Traveled
per Hour
Seconds
per Hour
Feet
Traveled
per Second
Feet
Travelled in
10 Seconds
5,280 3 15,840 3,600 4.40 44
5,281 25 132,025 3,600 36.67 367
5,282 45 237,690 3,600 66.03 660
Larger signs in visually rich environments can cause visual clutter which makes signs more difficult
to read and therefore take the driver’s eye away from the driving task. The zoning districts where the
proposed regulation applies allow for buildings close to the right-of-way, free standing signs, and
other things which occupy the visual field of the driver. Pedestrians and other vehicles are
commonly present. The districts can be classified as complex driving environments. Signs involving
unusual shapes, unusual type, and motion can be more difficult to read and contribute to inattention
to the driving task by the driver. Due to their distinctive nature they can also be more noticeable and
are therefore appealing to business owners.
The Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the nationwide standard for traffic signs, expects a
standard legibility index of text being readable at 30 feet for each one inch of text height. This is a
best case scenario since traffic control signs are very standardized, readily recognizable, and simple.
Traffic control signs are also typically within the right-of-way and perpendicular to the direction of
travel which maximizes their readability. A Legal and Technical Exploration of On-Premise Sign
Regulation: An Evidence Based-Model Sign Code, Urban Design Associates
Therefore, the regulation is narrowly tailored. Given the inherent complexity resulting from the
diverse individual attributes of drivers, diversity of location and physical characteristics of
development sites, and the individual design of signs it is impossible to say that the proposed
amendments (or any other possible alternative) are the best fit for every circumstance. The
amendments provide for a sign large enough to readily communicate with the pedestrian while
minimizing distraction to the vehicle driver. The majority of vehicle trips within Bozeman are by
vehicles with a single occupant therefore the driver is the primary focus of signs affecting motorists.
The public purpose of protection of the public safety is met.
STAFF FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
Planning Staff has reviewed this application for a Unified Development Ordinance text amendment
against the criteria set forth in statute and reflected in the Unified Development Ordinance. Staff’s
analysis finds that this application does not conflict with the required criteria.
Pursuant to Sections 76-2-304, Montana Codes Annotated, the Zoning Commission reviewed the
Unified Development Ordinance text amendment application to determine if the proposed zoning
change met the requirements of the adopted Growth Policy, state statute, and other adopted state and
local ordinances. The Zoning Commission recommends approval of the Unified Development
Ordinance text amendment in whole. The Bozeman Zoning Commission consideration was only for
those criteria specified in Section 76-2-304, MCA.
110
#Z-10006 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 10
The Zoning Commission is not asked to make findings on the additional review criteria, only those from
Section 76-2-304, MCA. The additional criteria are provided in this report for information and
disclosure of the issues. The City Commission will be required to make findings on all criteria.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comment had been received when this report was prepared.
In the case of protest against these changes signed by the owners of 25% or more of either of the
area of the lots included in the proposed change; or those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a
proposed change, such amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-
thirds of the present and voting members of the City Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
Application form
Initial draft of Ordinance 1780 showing the proposed amendments
Zoning Commission Resolution Z-10006
Zoning Commission draft minutes
111
1
ORDINANCE NO. 1780
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA, AMENDING TITLE 18, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, OF
THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE TO DEFINE TERMS RELATING TO SIGNS
AND ALLOW ROTATING SIGNS IN DEFINED DISTRICTS AND IN
CONFORMANCE WITH DEFINED STANDARDS.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted a Unified Development Ordinance
which establishes common standards for both zoning and subdivision development; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Unified Development Ordinance text amendment
application has been properly submitted, and reviewed, and all necessary public notice was given
for all public hearings; and
WHEREAS, both the Bozeman Zoning Commission held a public hearing on
February 17, 2010 to receive and review all written and oral testimony on the request for a
Unified Development Ordinance text amendment; and
WHEREAS, as shown in Zoning Commission Resolution Z-10006, the Bozeman
Zoning Commission recommended to the Bozeman City Commission that some of the Unified
Development Ordinance text amendments be approved; and
WHEREAS, after proper notice, the City Commission held a public hearing on March
1, 2010, to receive and review all written and oral testimony on the request for a text amendment
to the Unified Development Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has reviewed and considered the relevant Unified
Development Ordinance text amendment criteria established by Section 76-2-304, M.C.A., and
found the proposed Unified Development Ordinance text amendment to be in compliance with
the purposes of the title as locally adopted in Section 18.02.040, BMC; and
112
2
WHEREAS, at its public hearing, the City Commission found that the proposed
Unified Development Ordinance text amendment would be in compliance with Bozeman’s
adopted growth policy and applicable statutes and would be in the public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, upon a vote of ____ to ____, that:
Section 1
Chapter 18.02 of the Unified Development Ordinance be amended as follows:
18.52.030 Prohibited signs
All signs not expressly permitted under this chapter, or exempt from regulation, are prohibited in
the City. Such signs include, but are not limited to:
A. Portable signs (except as allowed under Title 12, Chapter 22, BMC);
B. Roof signs;
C. Revolving signs, except as permitted in 18.52.060, BMC.;
D. Beacons, spot lights;
E. Flashing, blinking, or animated signs, or LED or other electronic messaging signs except
for incidental signs as defined in Chapter 18.80, BMC;
F. Pennants, streamers, wind socks, pinwheels, or similar items;
G. Stringed flags;
H. Inflatable signs and tethered balloons (except as permitted per §18.52.040, BMC); and
I. Signs located in public rights-of-way (except for those specifically permitted in this
chapter.
J. Signs that resemble an official traffic sign or signal, and signs that resemble traffic signs
because they predominately display the words “STOP,” “GO SLOW,” “CAUTION,”
“DANGER,” “WARNING,” or similar words that are commonly used by agencies of
government and construction contractors to draw attention to traffic or roadway hazards.
Section 2
Chapter 18.52.060 of the Unified Development Ordinance be amended as follows:
18.52.060 SIGNS PERMITTED UPON THE ISSUANCE OF A SIGN PERMIT
The following on-premise signs are permitted in the indicated zones subject to a sign permit:
A. Commercial, Manufacturing, and Public Land Zones ( B-2, B-3, UMU, M-1, M-2, BP, PLI,
HMU). A lot in a B-2 district is permitted total signage not to exceed 400 square feet. The
113
3
maximum allowable total signage in the other districts listed herein shall not exceed 250
square feet per lot. A comprehensive sign plan is required for all commercial centers
consisting of two or more tenant spaces on a lot and shall be designed in accordance with
§18.52.070, BMC.
1. Freestanding Signs. One freestanding sign is permitted per zoned lot. The maximum
area for a freestanding sign shall be 32 square feet. A low profile freestanding sign
shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet with a maximum height of 5 feet. A pole-style
freestanding sign shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet with a maximum height of
13 feet. The pole-style sign will maintain at least an 8-foot minimum vertical
clearance from the ground.
2. Wall Signs. Wall signs are not to exceed a total signage allowance of 1.5 square feet
per linear foot of building frontage minus any area devoted to freestanding or
projecting signs. Canopy, window and awning signs shall be classified as wall signs.
Wall signs shall not project above the top of a wall or parapet. Lots fronting on two
or more streets shall be permitted an additional 35 percent of the already permitted
wall sign area for each subsequent building frontage.
3. Projecting Signs. One projecting sign per tenant. Projecting signs shall not exceed 8
square feet in area nor extend more than 4 feet from the building. In the B-3 district,
projecting signs shall not exceed 12 square feet in area nor extend more than 6 feet
from the building. Projecting signs shall provide a minimum sidewalk clearance of 8
feet.
a. In the B-2, B-3, HMU, and UMU districts a projecting sign may include,
either as part of a larger sign or as the entire sign, a revolving sign with not
more than 4 square feet of sign area. A rotating sign located within the
building does not need to provide the minimum sidewalk clearance height. A
rotating sign shall not exceed a rotational speed of one full rotation in two
seconds. Signs exceeding this limit shall be classified as a flashing sign.
B. Business and Office Zones (B-1, R-O). The maximum allowable total signage for a lot with
one building shall not exceed 80 square feet in a B-1 district or non-residentially planned R-
O district, the maximum allowable total signage for a lot with two or more buildings shall
not exceed 160 square feet in a B-1 district or non-residentially planned R-O district and 32
square feet in a residential planned R-O district. A comprehensive sign plan is required for
all commercial centers consisting of two or more tenant spaces on a lot. Such plans shall be
designed in accordance with this section.
1. Low Profile Freestanding Signs. One low profile sign not to exceed 32 square feet in
area in the B-1 district, and 12 square feet in area in the R-O district. In both the B-1
and the R-O districts, the low profile sign shall have a minimum setback of 5 feet
and a maximum height of 5 feet. Pole-style freestanding signs are not permitted in
the B-1 and R-O zones.
2. Wall Signs. Wall signs in the B-1 district are not to exceed a total signage allowance
of 1 square foot per linear foot of building frontage minus any area devoted to
freestanding or projecting signs. Wall signs in the R-O district are not to exceed a
total signage allowance of 0.5 of a square foot per linear foot of building frontage
minus any area devoted to freestanding and/or projecting signs. Canopy, window
and awning signs shall be classified as wall signs. Wall signs shall not project above
114
4
the top of a wall or parapet. Lots fronting on two or more streets shall be permitted
an additional 35 percent of the already permitted wall sign area for each subsequent
building frontage.
3. Projecting Signs. One projecting sign per tenant. Projecting signs shall not exceed 8
square feet in area nor extend more than 4 feet from the building. Projecting signs
shall provide a minimum sidewalk clearance of 8 feet.
a. In the B-1 district a projecting sign may include, either as part of a larger sign
or as the entire sign, a revolving sign with not more than 4 square feet of sign
area. A rotating sign located within the building does not need to provide the
minimum sidewalk clearance height. A rotating sign shall not exceed a
rotational speed of one full rotation in two seconds. Signs exceeding this
limit shall be classified as a flashing sign.
4. Subdivision Identification Signs. For residential subdivisions consisting of more than
four residential units, one low profile, freestanding, neighborhood identification sign
per development entrance is allowed. Each sign shall not exceed 16 square feet in
area or 5 feet in height from the finished grade. The sign must be setback at least 5
feet from the property line.
5. Residential Building Identification Signs. For properties used for multi-household
residential buildings, one residential identification wall sign per street frontage. Each
sign shall not exceed 8 square feet in area.
C. Residential Zones (R-S, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, RMH).
1. Subdivision Identification Signs. For residential subdivisions consisting of more than
four residential units, one low profile, freestanding, neighborhood identification sign
per development entrance is allowed. Each sign shall not exceed 16 square feet in
area or 5 feet in height from the finished grade. The sign must be setback at least 5
feet from the property line.
2. Residential Building Identification Signs. For properties used for multi-household
residential buildings, one residential identification wall sign per street frontage. Each
sign shall not exceed 8 square feet in area.
3. Signs Appurtenant To Residential Principal and Conditional Uses and Home
Occupations.
a. Principal residential uses and home occupations shall be permitted
commercial message signage not to exceed 4 square feet in area and shall not
be located in any required setback area. In addition, home occupations shall
be permitted 1 square foot signs on a mailbox or lamp post or 1.5 square feet
of freestanding signage located a minimum of 5 feet from the property line.
b. Principal residential uses shall be permitted noncommercial speech signs
which do not exceed 30 square feet in area nor 5 feet in height. Such sign(s)
must be setback at least 15 feet from the property line.
c. Conditional nonresidential type uses, such as churches, veterinary uses, golf
courses, day care centers and schools shall be permitted signage as if the
underlying zoning were B-1. Conditional residential type uses such as bed
and breakfast homes, and fraternity and sorority houses, shall be permitted
115
5
signage as if the underlying zoning were R-O. Such signs may only be
illuminated during the hours of operation.
4. Planned Unit Developments. Commercial establishments within planned unit
developments where the underlying zoning is residential shall be permitted signage as
if the lot were in a B-1 zone.
D. Special Districts And Zones. The guidelines for the underlying zoning districts apply unless
otherwise addressed below.
1. Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Within this district, all signage is
subject to issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness after review for compliance
with the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. If
the applicant is not requesting sign deviations, the sign application will be reviewed
by ADR staff. If the applicant is requesting deviations, the sign application shall be
subject to review by the Design Review Board and the City Commission.
2. Entryway Overlay District. Within this district, all signage is subject to issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness after review for compliance with the Design
Objectives Plan for entryway corridors. If the applicant is not requesting sign
deviations, the sign application will be reviewed by ADR staff. Signage may exceed
the underlying zoning district limitations by up to 20 percent upon review and
approval of a deviation by the City Commission, upon the recommendation of the
Design Review Board, and upon receipt of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
3. Interchange Zone. Signage may exceed the maximum total sign area permitted by
§18.52.060, BMC by up to 25 percent upon review and approval of a deviation by
the City Commission, upon the recommendation of the appropriate design review
advisory body, and upon receipt of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Each lot shall
be permitted one freestanding sign.
a. Low Profile Signs. One low profile sign per zoned lot. The maximum area
for a low profile sign shall be 40 square feet. The sign shall be setback a
minimum of 5 feet with a maximum height of 8 feet.
b. Pole-Style Signs. A pole-style freestanding sign shall be set back a minimum
of 15 feet and will maintain at least an 8-foot minimum vertical clearance.
Pole-style signs shall not exceed a total area of 40 square feet or 16 feet in
height, provided however, that for every 2 feet said sign is set back from 15
feet beyond the street right-of-way, the height measured at grade may be
increased 1 foot, not to exceed a total of 32 feet, and the area may be
increased by 2.5 square feet for every 2 feet that said sign is set back 15 feet
beyond the street right-of-way up to a maximum of 120 square feet.
4. Main Street Historic District. Permits for signs that encroach into the public right-of-
way shall be obtained from the City Manager’s office in City Hall.
Section 3
Section 18.80.135 of the Unified Development Ordinance to created to read as follows:
116
6
18.80.135 ANIMATED SIGN
Animated Sign: A sign depicting action, motion, light, or color change, or that change the sign
displayed through electrical or mechanical means. Excludes those signs defined as revolving
signs.
Section 4
Section 18.80.2640 of the Unified Development Ordinance be amended to read as follows:
18.80.2640 REVOLVING SIGNERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
Any sign which all, or a portion of, mechanically rotates either on an intermittent or constant basis
around a central axis.
Section 5
Severability.
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this growth
policy which may be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the
provisions of this growth policy are declared to be severable.
Section 6
Savings Provision.
This ordinance does not affect the rights of duties that matured, penalties and assessments
that were incurred or proceedings that began before the effective date of this resolution.
Section 7
The effective date of this ordinance is 30 days after passage on 2nd reading
.
PASSED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, on first reading, at a
regular session thereof held on the ______ day of ____________ 2010.
117
7
___________________________________
JEFFREY K KRAUSS
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC
City Clerk
PASSED, ADOPTED AND FINALLY APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, on second reading, at a regular session thereof held on the ________day of
_______________, 2010.
__________________________________
JEFFREY K KRAUSS
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
118
UDO Text Amendments
1
RESOLUTION #Z-10006
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION THAT WOULD
MODIFY CHAPTERS 52 AND 80 OF TITLE 18, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE, BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW ROTATING SIGNS.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted zoning regulations and a zoning map and
subdivision regulations through its Unified Development Ordinance pursuant to Sections 76-2-
301, 76-2-302, and 76-3-501 M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-305, M.C.A. allows local governments to amend zoning
regulations if a public hearing is held and official notice is provided; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-307, M.C.A. states that the Zoning Commission must conduct
a public hearing and submit a report to the City Commission for all zoning regulation
amendment requests; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission has been created by Resolution of
the Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Section 76-2-307, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.68 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance sets forth
the procedures and review criteria for zoning regulation amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Bozeman City Commission directed the preparation of changes to the
text and applied for a Unified Development Ordinance text amendment, pursuant to Chapter
18.68 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, to modify multiple sections of the
Unified Development Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment request has been properly submitted, reviewed
and advertised in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance and Title 76, Chapter 2, Part 3, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission held a public hearing on February
17, 2010, to formally receive and review all written and oral testimony on the proposed text
amendment; and
WHEREAS, no members of the public submitted written or oral testimony on the
proposed text amendment; and
119
UDO Text Amendments
2
WHEREAS, after considering staff’s report on the draft amendments and discussion
amongst Commission members, the Zoning Commission found that the application complied
with the Review Criteria established in state law and local ordinance for amendments to the text
of the Unified Development Ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission
officially recommends to the Bozeman City Commission that on a vote of 3 to 0 the City
Commission adopt the recommended amendments.
DATED THIS 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010, Resolution #Z-10006
_____________________________ ____________________________
Chris Saunders, Interim Director JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson
Dept. of Planning & Community Development Bozeman Zoning Commission
120
1
Zoning Commission Minutes – February 17, 2010
ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2010
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and ordered the Recording
Secretary to take attendance.
Members Present:
Nathan Minnick
JP Pomnichowski
Ed Sypinski
City Commission Liaison
Chris Mehl
Members Absent:
Nick Lieb
Staff Present:
Chris Saunders, Interim Planning Director
Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Guests Present:
Mayor Jeff Krauss
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not
scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Seeing there was no public comment forthcoming, Chairperson Pomnichowski closed this portion
of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2009
MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Vice Chairperson Minnick seconded, to approve the minutes of
November 3, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson
Pomnichowski, Mr. Sypinski, and Vice Chairperson Minnick. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Zone Code Amendment Application #Z-10006 – (Sign Code Revisions) A Zone
Code Amendment requested by the applicant, Bozeman City Commission,
requesting to amend Chapters 18.52 and 18.80 of the Unified Development
Ordinance to allow pedestrian oriented rotating signs within the City of Bozeman,
Gallatin County, Montana. (Saunders)
121
2
Zoning Commission Minutes – February 17, 2010
Interim Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was to
amend chapters 18.52 and 18.80 of the UDO. He stated in December the Planning Office had
been directed by the City Commission to draft language for an ordinance to allow barber poles
signage. He stated the new language created two separate definitions; one to define the allowable
revolving signs and those that would be unallowable. He stated there were 12 criteria that the
Zoning Commission had been asked to address. He stated Staff had found that 9 of the 12 criteria
were neutral and 3 criteria were found favorable as described in the Staff Report. He stated the
overall component would allow rotating signs of any form which would be required to be building
mounted and the rotation could not exceed a dictated speed to prevent the rotation from
becoming flashing. He stated no public comment had been received either for or against the
proposal.
Mr. Sypinski asked if review criteria #2 – affect on motorized vehicles- would be more articulated
in the ordinance. Interim Director Saunders responded it was specifically included in the draft
ordinance and directed the Zoning Commission members to the section of the ordinance in
question. He added projecting signs were required to be mounted to a building and had been a
long term section of the ordinance. He listed zoning designations where personal and
convenience services were permitted uses and noted the permitted rotating signage would be
allowed in those districts as well. He directed the Zoning Commission to specifics within the
ordinance regarding the allowable rotation speed. Mr. Sypinski asked if criteria #11 meant that
the neutral recommendation would allow those types of signs within the new Residential
Emphasis Mixed Use zoning district. Interim Director Saunders responded Staff did not yet know
if the signage would be allowed within that district as the district itself had not yet been formed;
the REMU applicant had been asked to provide comment on what kind of signage they suggested
within that area. Mr. Sypinski asked if the final criteria regarding the character of the district
were applicable. Interim Director Saunders responded that signage had an influence over the
perceived character of a district and the proposal had been compared to determinative standards
and was found by Staff to be one of the criteria that would be neutrally affected; projecting signs
had always been allowed and the rotating area was quite small.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if multiple rotating signs could be included on a single building
if there were multiple tenants. Interim Director Saunders responded there could be multiple
rotating signs. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked why it was called out that the minimum
sidewalk clearance height would not need to be above the sidewalk. Interim Director Saunders
responded window signage had been addressed in the UDO with specificity to the view of the
signage from the outside of the building.
Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, she
closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Sypinski stated he felt the application met the 12 review criteria and Staff findings.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she concurred that the application met the 13 review criteria
(another had been identified) and she concurred with Staff findings.
122
3
Zoning Commission Minutes – February 17, 2010
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Minnick moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Zone Code Amendment Application #Z-
10006. The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Mr.
Sypinski, and Vice Chairperson Minnick. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked Mayor Krauss when Zoning Commission appointments would
be made. Mayor Krauss responded he was uncertain and appointments would be made as
applications were received.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
_______________________________________ _______________________________________
JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson Chris Saunders, Interim Director
Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
123
124
125
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
An application has been submitted to revise the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. The
Unified Development Ordinance establishes standards for development and land use.
The purpose of the public hearings is to consider said application as requested by applicant
Bozeman City Commission, PO Box 1230, Bozeman MT 59771 and represented by the
Department of Planning and Community Development, PO Box 1230, Bozeman MT 59771.
The application proposes to amend Chapter 18.52 Signs, including, but not limited to: Section
18.52.030, Prohibited Signs, Section 18.52.060 Signs Permitted Upon the Issuance of a Sign
Permit, and Chapter 18.80, Definitions. Additional sections may be amended which are
relevant to the same topic if a need to do so is identified during the public review process. The
purpose of the amendment is to consider the conditions and circumstances which could
allow for permitting of a rotating sign.
The Bozeman Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing on the proposal Wednesday,
February 17, 2010 in the City Commission Room, City Hall, 121 N Rouse Avenue,
Bozeman MT at 7:00 pm.
The Bozeman City Commission will conduct a public hearing on the proposal Monday,
March 1, 2010 in the City Commission Room, City Hall, 121 N Rouse Avenue, Bozeman
MT at 6:00 pm.
The complete text of all the changes is available through the Department of Planning and
Community Development, 20 E Olive Street, Bozeman MT 59715. The text may be revised as
the public review process proceeds. The City invites the public to comment in writing and to
attend the public hearings. Written comments may be directed to the City of Bozeman,
Department of Planning and Community Development, P. O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-
1230. The precise text of the amendments and data regarding this application may be reviewed in
the City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development, Alfred M. Stiff
Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, 582-2260. For those who require accommodations
for disabilities, please contact James Goehrung, City of Bozeman ADA Coordinator, 582-3232
(voice), 582-2301 (TDD). Sign regulation revisions Zone Code Amendment, #Z-10006
126